Orphans Should be denied the Blessings of Baptism...
So some law school friends and I were discussing the merits of adopting orphans, and I pointed out that when I was a missionary in Rio de Janeiro, after we baptized the manager of an orphanage, about 15 young orphan souls were brought to the light of the gospel - all of them between 15 and 18 years of age. On Sundays, we would take sometimes 30 orphans to Church, singing songs as we go, "Nos andamos iguais, nos andamos iguais! por lado, por outro, para frente para tras, nos andamos iguais!"
Now, I feel no remorse about providing the blessings of baptism to these orphans but one person said that baptizing them is just wrong. I said, "so orphans should just be denied the blessings of baptism?" the response was, "well, yes...!!!"
Similarly, should homeless people not be taught and/or baptized? what about people who are near death? We had one gentleman with AIDs, near death, and many of the members said that he shouldnt be baptized because he was too close to death. I believe it was proxy discrimination for his AIDs - and proxy discrimination against the homeless - and proxy discrimination against orphans who are seen as a "drain" on resources, too outside the regular framework to care for?
posted by Citizen @ 1/31/2007 10:32:00 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Good thought. I know I always make a effort to give away a little bit of money each month to them. However, I know often I don't want to talk to them out of the same kind of judgement and belief that would lead to this way of thinking. I gues I just always thought money was enough and forgot the power of a kind word or thought/prayer of hope. It's easy to look at someone and pigeon hole them into expectations for their behavior based on previous experience. This kinda leads to not being able to foster an environment which would help them experience a change of heart. Kind of hard to forget your past when everyone kindly wants t remind you of it. Guess this is something to work on for next time!
Interesting story Cincinattus. I have been debating this very problem lately. The more I think of it, the more I am inclined to view each individual ward as a lifeboat: when passengers are chosen with care, the maximum number of individuals are saved. When anybody and everybody jumps on board, the boat swamps and we all sink.
The missionaries in our ward have been teaching a homeless man for a few weeks and he appears to be progressing towards baptism. The problem is: he has already become quite needy, and reliant on ward members. Because many, MANY people like him have been baptized in our ward over the years, our resources are becoming overburdened and our records are a mess.
Whereas I used to think of baptism as a blessing for anybody, I am coming to realize that it's not quite that simple (IMHO). Baptism is different in various faiths. For some there is no threshold, for others an extreme commitment is required beforehand. I think the LDS church falls somewhere in between, although we probably lean towards the latter. We refuse to baptize somebody who has not come to Church 3 times, who does not believe in GBH, who's not sure whether or not he/she will be able to quit smoking.
Ultimately, baptism is a covenant. Anybody who is sincerely willing to contribute to the well-being of the lifeboat is welcome to join. But baptism is not a right (at least not in my opinion). Without a serious commitment, I believe that the "blessings of baptism" are lost. With a commitment to believe, to make good choices, and to contribute to the well-being of the ward lifeboat - welcome aboard.
We had various instances on my mission, because it was a very 3rd-world area, where people would want to get baptized because of the idea of Fast Offerings. Similar to what Doug Spencer was referring to.
Ultimately there were some that would be dismayed when the week after their baptism they wouldn't receive a free handout. Some left the church never to return (and not understanding the full impact of the broken covenants they had just made).
Others, however, despite a dire need to receive life-saving funds, joined for the real purpose - and that was because they had been converted to the gospel of Christ and wanted to follow his commandments. To them, it didn't matter when they were told that they couldn't receive funds from the ward right away because they knew they were where they were supposed to be.
Ultimately, I have a problem with viewing this situation as a life raft. This is because everyone is invited into the kingdom. While it is all-or-nothing, that choice is the individual's and the Lord's, not the members on the raft. While these situations point to the necessity of conducting correct baptismal interviews (where the focus should be determining if true conversion has occurred), we as members should never need to be worried about the life raft sinking, despite the ward's seemingly-apparent financial status.
Doug: "...our resources are becoming overburdened and our records are a mess."
What resources? Temporal or spiritual? I fail to see how either could be depleted with proper priesthood leadership. If one is baptized for a cash handout, then the baptism had an improper purpose, and the cash should be withheld. If the baptism was in search of spiritual nourishment, please explain how this resource is finite.
I feel that the lifeboat analogy fails. If the ward cannot accommodate the large number of ACTIVE members, then split the ward (make a new boat).
Siyadow - I do not argue that invitations into the lifeboat are exclusive. I just believe that once somebody swims over, we ought to more strictly assess their intent before allowing them to board.
Mark - If a person gets baptized for a cash handout, you argue that the cash should be withheld. I argue they should not be baptized in the first place.
If the baptism was part of a genuine search for spiritual nourishment then the missionaries and members have done their job correctly. However, you assume exactly what I argue - that they genuinely want spiritual nourishment. I never argue that spiritual blessings are finite.
I recognize that the lifeboat metaphor is not perfect. However, I am still not convinced as are Mark and Sidayow that it is inappropriate. In terms of faith, the Spirit, and conversion the metaphor fails. But whereas the Church operates as an organization, I believe the lifeboat metaphor usefully illustrates the need to more strictly assess investigators' intentions.
Also, I want to reiterate that my ward lifeboat is probably much different than yours. When wards are 100% functional, the barriers for entry can be lower without the boat rocking too much.
I take issue with the conceptualization of "barriers for entry." Regardless of how stable (or in this case seemingly stable), financially or spiritually, a ward is, the requirements for entry into the church are the same.
Doug's concept would also equally seem to accept the notion that it would be fine to extend the blessings of baptism to someone who has is either not fully repentant or converted simply because the ward is "100% functional" and won't "rock the boat too much."
Basically, the Lord has set the requirements, the Spirit indicates on an individual basis when they have been met, and the Church moves forward.