20 year olds do not have meetings with the missionaries discussing the sealing ceremony, or experience the moment of a newly married couple standing in the middle of sacrament as a shining example for us all.

Interesting. I have never heard or been told non-members shouldn’t take the sacrament. What a strange doctrine to not be more well publicized. Thanks for enlightening me!

This post doesn’t make any sense to me.

“I want Eleanor to be baptized in the church, and I know you want that too.”
Uh, no I don’t.

You don’t want your children baptized in the LDS church? Do you not have a testimony of baptism?

Being baptized is a requirement for returning to our Heavenly Father. It is for our good. We should want this for all people on earth. So why wouldn’t we encourage a child to be baptized? It’s not going to cause harm and will help them by being able to receive the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. I agree that an 8-year-old child doesn’t understand the full ramifications of this choice, but rarely do any of us understand all of the consequences-good or bad-that come with every choice we make. We make choices in faith hoping they will bring the good we desire and believing we’re doing what is right for ourselves and our families.

You wrote about not taking the sacrament until one is baptized, but what is your issue here? The sacrament prayer is clear that those who partake of the bread and water are doing so in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for them. And since Christ died for all of us-regardless of whether or not we’ve been baptized-why can’t someone partake in the sacrament if he/she feels committed to take Christ’s name upon himself? Nowhere in the prayer does it say, “We, all baptized members of the LDS church, do ask thee…”

Regarding allowing children to choose whether they want to be baptized, I felt very much as though I made this choice myself when I turned eight. My parents expected me to be baptized, but they also expected me to go to college. Neither was forced upon me.

My husband says, “we as parents are responsible to make the right choices for our children until they are able to do it for themselves.” To me, this goes straight against free agency.

So I should let my 3-year-old decide if he wants to jump off our second-story deck? Or let my 8-year-old decide if he wants to go to school or stay up past his bedtime? To say, “well, he’s 8 now, and completely accountable, so all his choices are up to him” is absurd! Being accountable and being fully prepared to make decisions on our own are two very different things. Heck! I still call my parents for advice about all sorts of things and they often give their insight whether I ask for it or not. Why? Because they’re my parents and their jobs didn’t end when I turned 8!

Our job as parents is to teach and guide our children. I already talk with my 6-year-old son about “when you go on a mission” or “when you go to college” or “after you turn 12.” Does this remove his ability to choose? Of course not! It just clarifies for him what we hope he will choose. And, in doing so, increases the chance of him choosing these things for himself. If my parents had been rather non-committal about college, it’s far less likely that my sisters and I all would have graduated. Instead, college was set as an attainable and desirable goal for each of us. And the language in our home reflected that. If my parents had said, “Well, if you want to go to college someday, you can,” I wouldn’t have seen it as nearly as important.

Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

This reminds of something our stake is doing that bothers me. We got a new stake president a year or so ago and he immediately started having the missionaries teach the discussions to all of the youth in the stake.

This makes me scratch my head and wonder why they don’t do this to the 7-8 year olds. Doesn’t that make more sense? I understand that the youth years are when most kids go from leaning on a parental testimony to forming their own, but then why do we baptize at age 8 and not as teenagers? Personally, I think it sends a weird mixed message although I do understand they want the youth to understand the gospel and have their own testimony.

I guess you have a certain level of testimony to get baptized at age 8 and then a more mature testimony later to be truly converted? This has not been explained well in my stake though and I just wonder why the missionaries aren’t teaching all kids about to be baptized.

Paroled from the Primary, I just now read your comment. We think alike!

Teaching what the gospel and baptism mean has to start long before the 8th birthday. Kids get it in small doses starting in Sunbeam classes. (Some teachers try in nursery, but I don’t know.) But more importantly, kids should be getting it in small doses at weekly family home evenings, daily family scripture reading, and daily family prayer.

When mom and dad invite the Spirit during daily family prayer, if the Spirit really does come, even 3 year olds, or any kid who is old enough to verbalize, can feel _something_ that they associate with prayer. Repeat it a few thousand times before age 8, even if it is not felt during the majority of prayers, and they start to make a connection.

From FHE, kids can learn that what’s important to mom and dad, the gospel, can be important to them. That’s not necessarily brain washing. Young kids naturally take Mom and Dad as role models, it can’t be helped. (Rebellion against parents comes in later.)

But I can promise you, that if you don’t reinforce at home, the gospel lessons taught in primary (and they don’t have to match on a week-by-week basis, just overall) that your kids will stray by the time they are teenagers.

If the church and the gospel are not important to parents Monday through Saturday, the church/gospel won’t be important to their kids on Sunday.

I had a lot of frustration with fellow missionaries whose parents/family didn’t live the gospel Monday through Saturday, and I had bitter feelings towards those parents for inflicting such non-believing 19 year olds upon the missionaries who really wanted to be there.

NH, you seem to be more concerned with the social-cultural aspects of this than the doctrine. Based on this and your other posts, it appears to me that your questions/issues are not with the Church per se, but rather with Mormon culture, as it were.

It’s worth remembering that age 8 as the age of accountability was given to us in scripture. It’s not a cultural construct–that came later. So if Joseph Smith is to be believed, the Lord has said that age 8 is when a child can be baptized. Also along those same lines, He also said that parents have the duty to raise the child in the Gospel. Baptism is part and parcel of that.

You ask why kids can’t choose for themselves without becoming social outcasts. annegb brought up some excellent points about rites of passage across religions, and it definitely applies here. Baptism, aside from its implications for a forgiveness of our sins and a covenant to follow Christ, is also a rite for admittance to the Church. A person who chooses not to do things that unite them with the group are marking themselves as different. That’s inherently what happens.

I know we can get caught up in the worldly things that surround baptisms, and have the wrong attitude about it. But in the end, it’s the fact that the ordinance is performed that is paramount. I think we put way too much emphasis on “choosing” to be baptized. Being baptized is a commandment. It really isn’t one of those things that falls into the realm of “if you feel like it, do it when you have time.”

Nicely put, IDIAT!

I have always lived in the Mormon Belt (Idaho Chapter) and always heard the “non-members don’t take the sacrament” thing. Are you all saying that is not the way it is? Color me surprised!

My grandson is getting baptized in a couple weeks. My daughter allowed him to choose. At first he didn’t want to get baptized, then he decided he would do it. I do not know what may have been said to change his mind (if anything), but I have to say I was at first surprised that she and his father allowed him to participate in the decision. I think it is good to allow the kids a voice in this decision. I would think it helps them take more ownership of the whole process.

According to the newest version of the Handbook (section 20.4.1):

“Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of it.”
http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#204

As I understand it, even children who have not been baptized but who have been raised as members are considred “Church members.” In fact, Bishoprics are not supposed to welcome newly baptized children as “the newest member of the ward” when announcing their baptism and confirmation in church. Therefore, I think they qualify to take the sacrament even if they haven’t been baptized.

Regarding nonmembers, I see no problem in allowing those not of our faith to partake as long as there is some understanding about the meaning. However, children of record who are baptized at 8 and adults who convert should be taught that the significance of the sacrament changes once you have been baptized and confirmed.

“we’re one of the few churches in whom baptisms are not interchangeable between faiths” – when I went to the local Baptist church (Japan), they wouldn`t let me take sacrament because they know I am Mormon, and we don`t fit their definition of Christian. I wasn`t offended by it at all, and they were very apologetic about it.

we’re one of the few churches in whom baptisms are not interchangeable between faiths

That statement is just simply false.

MCQ, that statement is in regards to the fact that converts have to be baptized by our leaders before being called members. There are quite a few churches where it doesn’t matter where you’ve been baptized, but that you have been baptized.

NH, you seem to be more concerned with the social-cultural aspects of this than the doctrine. Based on this and your other posts, it appears to me that your questions/issues are not with the Church per se, but rather with Mormon culture, as it were.

The real problem here is that the Church and Mormon culture are overlapping circles in a venn diagram — and that space in the middle is WAY bigger than it needs to be.

I am not playing with words. The statement is false on any level.

From wikipedia:

Most Eastern Orthodox Churches consider the baptisms of Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches to be valid, therefore converts from those churches are received through the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation. Not all Eastern Orthodox Churches consider the baptismal rites of Protestants as valid. Therefore Protestant converts would be received into the church through Baptism and Chrismation regardless of prior Protestant Baptism. Most Oriental Orthodox Churches follow similar rules.

Use of the Trinitarian formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is also considered essential; thus these churches do not accept as valid baptisms of non-Trinitarian churches such as Oneness Pentecostals.

The Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist Churches accept baptism performed by other denominations within this group as valid, subject to certain conditions, including the use of the Trinitarian formula. It is only possible to be baptized once, thus people with valid baptisms from other denominations may not be baptized again upon conversion or transfer. Such people are accepted upon making a profession of faith and, if they have not yet validly received the sacrament of confirmation or chrismation, by being confirmed. In some cases it can be difficult to decide if the original baptism was in fact valid; if there is doubt, conditional baptism is administered, with a formula on the lines of “If you are not yet baptized, I baptize you….”[104]

In the still recent past, it was common practice in the Roman Catholic Church to baptize conditionally almost every convert from Protestantism because of a perceived difficulty in judging about the validity in any concrete case. In the case of the major Protestant Churches, agreements involving assurances about the manner in which they administer baptism has ended this practice, which sometimes continues for other groups of Protestant tradition. The Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of baptism in the Churches of Eastern Christianity, but it has explicitly denied the validity of the baptism conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[105]

Practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church for converts from other communions is not uniform. However, generally baptisms performed in the name of the Holy Trinity are accepted by the Orthodox Christian Church. If a convert has not received the sacrament (mysterion) of baptism, he or she must be baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity before they may enter into communion with the Orthodox Church. If he has been baptized in another Christian confession (other than Orthodox Christianity)his previous baptism is considered retroactively filled with grace by chrismation or, in rare circumstances, confession of faith alone as long as the baptism was done in the name of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The exact procedure is dependent on local canons and is the subject of some controversy.[citation needed]

Oriental Orthodox Churches recognise the validity of baptisms performed within the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Some also recognise baptisms performed by Catholic Churches. Any supposed baptism not performed using the Trinitarian formula is considered invalid.[citation needed]

In the eyes of the Catholic Church, all Orthodox Churches, Anglican and Lutheran Churches, the baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is invalid.[106] An article published together with the official declaration to that effect gave reasons for that judgment, summed up in the following words: “The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it.”[107]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stresses that baptism must be administered by one having proper authority; consequently, the Church does not recognize the baptism of any other church as valid.[108]

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not recognise any other baptism occurring after 1914[109] as valid,[110] as they believe that they are now the one true church of Christ,[111] and that the rest of “Christendom” is false religion.[112]

As you can see, it is at best a bit of a mixed bag. And this is just the mainstream Christian churches. There are certainly many other non-mainline Christian churches not even discussed in this article that do not accept any other baptism as valid. It need hardly be mentioned that virtually no non-christian churches or religions accept as valid or salvific any baptism perfomed by any Christian church.

My point is that there are relatively few churches that accept baptism from another faith tradition as having any validity at all, and even the ones that do so have a lot of rules with regard to whether the ordinance is acceptable.

I turned 8 years old in June, 1968. Our Ward’s baptisms were normally held on the Saturday before Fast Sunday and the Confirmation performed the next day in Fast and Testimony meeting, so under normal circumstances I would have been Baptized in July. HOWEVER,we as a family were flying from Los Angeles to England in late June and returning in early September. Because of my Mother’s concerns about the eternal consequences if something disasterous happened on the trip and I hadn’t been baptized, a special baptism day was arranged ( I wasn’t the only one there, there were two others being baptized as well). In our relatively safe and healthy world, we like to think that all our children will die of old age, but anything can happen at any time. So, unless a child is adamantly opposed to being baptized, I would strongly encourage them to do it at 8 years old.

I have one son who has been stubbornly independent since toddlerhood. When he was approaching the age of 8, he informed us that he didn’t want to get baptized. We were a very active family, with visible callings, etc. But I didn’t worry about the social pressure on this one. I just thought, “Well, we say that we delay baptism ’til they’re 8 so they can be accountable and choose for themselves. So I guess we’ll have to let him choose.” I didn’t make a big deal out of it, but continued to talk about baptism in a mellow but positive way. And a couple months after his birthday, he decided he wanted to be baptized. He’s an active LDS teenager today, still bristles at being told what to do, but has a good heart.

Not to be snarky here, NH, but you need to educate yourself on some of these things before getting worked up over them. If I have a prblem with polygamy, I should investigate the history of the practice anciently and in more modern days. To rely on word of mouth or what I think I know about polygamy is insufficient.

You would probably save yourself some stress if you had a better understanding of some basic gospel principles.

Just sayin’.

Paroled,

I have educated myself. You seem to miss the entire point: If an 8 year old is old enough to be held accountable, then he/she is also old enough to decide for themselves if baptism is right for them. We emphasize free agency so freakin much. Why are we doing the hypocritical act of placing a child who says ‘No’ at odds with the missionaries, the bishop, and the family’s home teachers.

There should be a freedom to decide for yourself if you want to be baptized. It should not be brought up at church, or placed in such a way that it is now expected for a child to be baptized.

I am not saying no one at the age of 8 should be baptized, I’m saying we are fooling ourselves if we think everyone is truly prepared at 8. By applying this institutional hierarchy in which a child is socially outcast because they have decided to wait until 9,10,11+ to be baptized is the exact opposite in what the ordinance is for.

NH: When I was district leader in the mission field, a set of missionaries presented two investigators to me for baptism interviews, a teenage boy, and his 8 year old sister. Their parents were not members.

The boy “passed” the interview by giving all the right answers. He understood what the missionaries taught him, he believed the necessary beliefs for baptism, and committed to the necessary committments for baptism.

The 8 year old girl had no idea what was going on. They either hadn’t taught her, or she absorbed nothing.

I approved, signed off, the boy for baptism. I did not sign off the girl.

The missionaries who presented them raised holy hell. How dare you?! No one turns down an 8 year old!

But she didn’t learn anything. Or you didn’t teach her anything. She had no understanding. She’s not a child of record with an LDS family, she’s going to be a convert with only an older brother in the church.

But it doesn’t matter, that’s what primary is for! She’ll learn all that stuff in church. (That last part clinched it for me that they hadn’t even tried to teach her.)

—

So, apparently those 19/20 year old missionaries, who grew up in the church, thought getting baptized at 8 was just a rubber stamp, everyone does it. Bishops “interview” the 8 year olds, but baptize them anyway, no matter what. It doesn’t matter what they understand, or believe or know or commit to. Just dunk ‘em.

If their parents had been members, even inactive, I could see where those missionaries were coming from. If their parents had been members, the bishop would have been interviewing the girl anyway.

For kids born in the church, I think they were right. If a bishop turns down an 8 year old in their baptism interview, that could be seen as a big insult, or embarrassment for the child, and the parents. It could be seen as “You’re not good enough for baptism!” To the parents, it might be seen as “You didn’t teach them properly, now your child will suffer because of you.”

(That’s why bishops have to start interviewing at 7 years old, and get on the parents to make sure the kid understands baptism by age 8.)

Back then, I adapted and presented the interview questions to an 8 year old. I made it as easy and as simple as I could. The little dear just didn’t know what was going on.

Fortunately, her older brother understood the solemnity of baptism and was not offended. But the missionaries sure were offended.

At the time, I thought I did the right thing. But looking back, I don’t know. As a convert/investigator, she really did literally “flunk” the baptism interview.

But was the offense generated by me sticking to the official doctrine, and the official mission rules for baptism (which was the same), really worth it?

Did she go on to get baptized later? I don’t know. Did the event set the correct precedent/example for her older brother, re-inforcing with him the solemnity of baptism? I don’t know.

I *was* following both church doctrine and church policy. But I may have also been a rule-nazi.

But the aftermath of that let me know, that in wards and branches, 8 year old kids get baptized pretty much as a rubber stamp. A bishop and primary pres and primary teachers may try to make sure primary kids learn the basics by age 8. But the bottom line is that it’s the parents’ job. And a bishop’s purpose in interviewing starting at 7 is to make sure the kid is on track to understanding baptism by age 8.

But the bottom line is, if by age 8 the kid still doesn’t understand, if the parents say “Baptize my kid!” and the kid doesn’t fight against it kicking and screaming, the bishop will.

Here in the states, I’ve seen bishops approve (and baptize) the kids of inactive parents, where the parents make the kids come to church for the minimum number of Sundays, parents teach the kids the “catechism” answers to the interview, and then you never see the parents or kids again until the next kid turns 8.

There should be a freedom to decide for yourself if you want to be baptized. It should not be brought up at church, or placed in such a way that it is now expected for a child to be baptized.

Um… if we don’t bring up such topics at church, what are we supposed to bring up? If we can’t talk about the ordinances we’ve been commanded to partake of, what is the point? What is the purpose of religion if not to provide guidance and direction and set expectations for behavior?

Perhaps you should consider the Unitarian church. They learn all about various religions and belief structures but never encourage anyone to participate in any of them or hold one as being more important than the next. If we can’t discuss basic tenets of our religion like baptism or hold it up as something to strive for, we might as well link arms with the Unitarians and call it a day.

And, as Tiger said (#29): “I think the emphasis comes not just because of turning 8…but because of Satan’s eager influence once a child is accountable. … The protection and guidance was there when I needed it [because of my baptism], and that’s what parents want for their child, to obey that commandment in order to have that protection.”

You can call me a Molly if you want. But I have a testimony of the importance of baptism and I share that with my children and most people I know. The neighbor girl who rides with us to school every morning participates in our family prayer and I pray for her just like I pray for my own children. She needs to know her Heavenly Father loves her. She needs baptism just like my own children. And I share-in small ways like listening to primary songs in the car-my testimony with her.

Baptism is a blessing. It’s a gift. Why shouldn’t we encourage everyone to partake? We should want our children to have the gift of having that additional boost with them always. If a child isn’t ready, that’s fine. But we as parents and leaders should be doing what we can to help every child-every person we know-prepare for baptism.

And name calling is not needed.

I don’t see the endowment being discussed at church.

Then maybe you should listen more or attend more often, because we talk about attending the temple and receiving our endownments all the time. The actual words of the endownment are kept sacred, but even as recently as the past year, we have been exhorted in General Conference to prepare ourselves to go to the temple, or, if we’re already endowed, to go back as often as we can.

BTW, I didn’t call you any names.

If that is the case, why not do infant baptisms? It doesn’t matter if you get it, you can decide for yourself when you are older.

For the very reason that the Lord has said it’s not necessary to baptize infants. Again, I-and several others-have already said this.

I didn’t not imply you did call me a Molly. I was implying that my statements sounded “Molly-ish” even to myself.

Read before you reply. [sigh] I’m all done.

Also, it is rude at best to call in another person’s church attendance into this discussion. I have been attending church regularly. The conditions that limited my ability to attend in the past are gone now. And I do not recall ever having a lesson focus on just the endowment. Sometimes it seems there is an entire month in primary devoted just to baptism. You said we’re supppose to discuss ordinances at church. If that is the case, why is that particular ordinance never given the attention equal to sealings and baptism. I didn’t know about the endowment until I was 18.

All I am asking is if we really give children the ability to choose with the way the system is currently set up.

The answer to this is yes, as has been said, provided that the bishop and the parents are doing their jobs.

Book, for what its worth I think you did the right thing. Baptizing a child who otherwise should not be baptized is opening a can of worms when she is older. Let alone legal problems when the parents found out.

He wasn’t saying that he was baptizng the child without the knowledge of the parents. That cannot be done under any circumstances. Parents or guardians must give permission for minors to be baptized. Always.

I think the problem here, NH, is that your post and some of your comments make it sound as if you don’t value baptism at all and don’t want it for your children. That is a strange thing to imply as a member of the Church. If you believe as I do that baptism is essential for everyone and that it provides benefits for all who accept it, then you would be excited and determined for all your family members and friends to participate in it as soon as they were ready to accept it.

The idea that children are being coerced into baptism before they are ready is not particularly new, but assuming a reasonable level of understanding on the part of an 8 yr old and a reasonable effort by the parents and bishop to discuss the matter with him or her, any 8 yr old can choose baptism freely and independently. The simple fact that we talk about it and celebrate it doesn’t mean every choice is coerced, provided it is explained properly.

[How does one quote from a thread so that it is indented in your own response?] Anyway, NH, in your OP you state that you “have never seen children say, ‘No, I do not want to get baptized.’” But then argue that we as LDS members hypocritically and emotionally manipulate the undecideds or the seemingly “rebellious” tykes toward choosing baptism, lest they become church outcasts. It’s a hypothetical neither you nor I have seen and, indeed, I think it is pretty rare, though others have asserted that it does and has occurred. It makes sense cuz sometimes children are very stubborn for reasons that are not understood. But I would hope that they are not shamed or forced into baptism, since that goes completely against our core teachings, despite what doctrine asserts. I’d hope parents were adaptable to that circumstance and continue to love/support their child and that other adult members/leaders wouldn’t judge the parents. There’s no clear response protocol, but in the end, it sounds like people generally respond appropriately (#18) and the situation resolves itself.

Hmmm. Apparently even in quotes it drops my carrots. Do the Google search… It will give you a good example! :-)

I actually think about this a lot because I don’t feel like I actually chose to be baptized. I chose to participate in a right of passage. When the branch president called me in for an interview and explained that before being baptized there was an interview I can remember, as clearly as though it just happened yesterday, thinking, “I need to make sure I give him the right answers so I’m allowed to be baptized.” Just the thought of not being allowed to participate in something I had seen all my peers do was mortifying.

So there’s that. It sounds like this is the kind of thing the post is talking about, yes? Now, I know its possible that better discussions and preparation might have been given me and I simply didn’t remember at the time I was called in to the interview because I am an absent-minded sort of person. Even so, being surprised at needing the interview and thinking that I had to give the right answers was something that I’ve thought often about over the years since I’ve wondered how things might have been different had I understood the ramifications of my choice (which may not be something anyone can really know beforehand anyway).

Sincerely,
Your Resident Lurker Who Will Probably Go Back To Lurking Now

k5ne, what a beautiful comment. Your experience is exactly what I have been getting at. Feel free to share more often, you are amongst friends.

MCQ, I have said in previous comments my husband is a hard-line guy. If he wants something it will get done. No buts about it. I want my daughter to get baptized, but not with the rules/pressure her dad will place regarding it. Comes off as very emotionally abusive when a parent says I won’t value you unless you are baptized.

Plus, that is a great attention getter.

So is this where we are now, eschewing direct instructions and doctrines because we don’t want to push people?

1. Yes, we don’t want our children to be feel forced.
2. Yes, we want our children to be *prepared* to be baptized. We want them to “own it”, as the saying goes.
3. Yes, the church teaches this should be done at 8.

Leading me to this observation:

It’s the job of parents to have them ready to say yes and be ready and all that by age 8. If you’re waiting until 8 to start that educational process, then you’ve lost 2 years.

NH wrote: “Comes off as very emotionally abusive when a parent says I won’t value you unless you are baptized.”

MCQ wrote : “I don’t know any parent in their right mind that would say that. NH, I can’t tell if you are being intentionally provacative just to get attention but if so, I’m not a fan of your schtick.”

Dude, that’s a Mars/Venus communication situation. Recall she said she has a hard line husband, and here she’s telling us he’s emotionally/verbally abusive. He didn’t (or won’t in the future, I recall that the child has many years to go before 8) _literally_ say he won’t value the child, but she’s claiming that’s the underlying meaning of whatever he says (or plans on saying, as they discuss their child approaching 8 yrs old).

Remember that NH is about 20 years old, or in her early 20′s at most. She likely hasn’t successfully navigated the Mars/Venus communication barrier yet. I gather that she doesn’t take people (either by listening audibly or in writing) literally, she filters it. And, what she says/writes is not to be taken literally, either. So we guys (and PPP too) have to undo the filter that she communicates through.

That’s part of her and PPP’s problem. NH is speaking in feelings and inferences/implications, very Venusian. PPP is a literalist, almost a Martian.

PPP is a literalist, almost a Martian.

Aw… shucks, Bookslinger. You flatter me. :-)

NH, sorry to hear that, but if it was an abusive or otherwise unsalvageable situation, then it may be a good thing that you are getting out. I wish you the best.

[gulp]

Judith Viorst said “marriage is what keeps you together while you fall in and out of love with each other.”

Sometimes, though, the marriage is a just a mistake that’s best corrected early in the process.

NH, I suggest that you try to separate your feelings about the church from your resentment of your husband. Which is something I have a hard time doing.

NH, I suggest that you try to separate your feelings about the church from your resentment of your husband. Which is something I have a hard time doing.

Very good advice.

NH, You are really grasping at straws here. How much to you remember about going through the temple for the first time? I remember… what in the hell am I doing, and holy crap what are those hats…? I really couldn’t tell you jack squat about the covenants I made. That part came with attending the temple through the years. You know what is amazing about the gospel? You aren’t supposed to know all of it RIGHT. NOW. It comes when you are ready to learn the next step, otherwise you would be damned long before you even had a chance.

I remember my baptism. I remember the weight of the priesthood holders hands on my head. I remember that my sister told me she was going to make me sin. I remember thinking “I’m clean and pure”. I remember a lot about my baptism and I don’t think age has much play on it. That being said… you are in charge of you and your children and I’m in charge of mine. I figure, if you are doing the best you can it will all work out in the wash.

The whole premise of your post is about your personal life, NH.

Tiger, I may have been referring to Galations 2: 7-14.

I stumbled across your post through google. I totally agree with you, NewlyHousewife! So well said! It’s clear that many other commenters here just don’t get it, though they think they do.