Youth temple recommend requirements

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Portland Ute
    Junior Member
    • Dec 2008
    • 5647

    #61
    Originally posted by bluegoose View Post

    As several here suggested, the father did speak extensively with the Bishop about the situation. The Bishop was very sympathetic and took it to the Stake President, who then spoke with the temple president. The temple president made it very clear that he would need to be ordained to the aaronic priesthood before before issued a temporary recommend for baptisms. There was no way around it and his hands were tied on this one.
    I'd love to know the logic behind this. Girls go to the temple all the time without being ordained to the aaronic priesthood.

    This seems like it would have been a great issue to raise beyond the level of the temple president.

    What a crappy situation. It's a shame the Church couldn't figure out a solution that would take the individual situation into account.

    Meh. Too much of this thing goes on.

    We have a family with a high functioning down syndrome son. He turned 8 recently. The kid goes to 1st grade, the whole bit. The "leaders" would not consent to him being baptized.

    In fact, as I found out the story, I got sick to my stomach. It turns out that the way the Bishop decided if he should be baptized or not was to include the kids' primary teachers and primary presidency in on the decision WITHOUT asking the family if it was okay to do so. So, he essentially made this situation public knowledge and a group decision.

    The answer was that he didn't need to be baptized. The dad's line of thinking is, "well, neither did Jesus. He did it to comply with the law of God." I think their disillusionment is partly social in that they don't get to have that "rite of passage" moment that other families have. However, I think, talking to them, that it goes well beyond that. They really do want to show the Lord that they are raising this child right. They believe that baptism by immersion is a step, even if it's not for remission of sins...based on the fact that Jesus was baptized.

    The family is deeply hurt. Dad is taking a break from church activity. All could have been avoided by letting this innocent child take a dip. Where is the harm in that?

    Comment

    • Viking
      Banned
      • Jun 2009
      • 6470

      #62
      there's no logic here. it's like passing the sacrament with your right hand vs. your left. i would regularly pass w my left hand...boy, i showed them

      Comment

      • creekster
        It is NOT a monkey!
        • Nov 2008
        • 22661

        #63
        Originally posted by Viking View Post
        there's no logic here. it's like passing the sacrament with your right hand vs. your left. i would regularly pass w my left hand...boy, i showed them
        I have no idea if I am correct or not, but as a father of a daughter and sons I have wondered about this. I concluded the reason may be because at the age of 12 a worthy young man should receive the priesthood and one should be living as righteously as possible to participate in ordinances in the temple. I realize this leaves unanswered why there is no possible exception under the circumstances of BG's story, and I have no answer for that. But I think there may be some logic behind the standard here.
        PLesa excuse the tpyos.

        Comment

        • wuapinmon
          Soul Plumber
          • Dec 2008
          • 30711

          #64
          Originally posted by creekster View Post
          I have no idea if I am correct or not, but as a father of a daughter and sons I have wondered about this. I concluded the reason may be because at the age of 12 a worthy young man should receive the priesthood and one should be living as righteously as possible to participate in ordinances in the temple. I realize this leaves unanswered why there is no possible exception under the circumstances of BG's story, and I have no answer for that. But I think there may be some logic behind the standard here.
          I know that you can't voice any ordinances in the temple, even if you're an elder, unless you have taken out your endowment. Odd, but perhaps the reasoning is similar to the reasoning in bg's example.
          "Wuap's "problem" is that he is smart & principled & committed to a moral course of action. His actions are supposed to reflect his ethical code.
          The rest of us rarely bother to think about our actions." --Solon

          Comment

          • Viking
            Banned
            • Jun 2009
            • 6470

            #65
            Originally posted by creekster View Post
            I have no idea if I am correct or not, but as a father of a daughter and sons I have wondered about this. I concluded the reason may be because at the age of 12 a worthy young man should receive the priesthood and one should be living as righteously as possible to participate in ordinances in the temple. I realize this leaves unanswered why there is no possible exception under the circumstances of BG's story, and I have no answer for that. But I think there may be some logic behind the standard here.
            Perfect is the enemy of the good comes to mind.

            Comment

            Working...