President Hinckley said, if you are not going to be CERTAIN that they will stay active, you may as well baptize a bag of sand.

I remember a GA once telling my mission president, "Unless the Angel Moroni comes down and tells you otherwise, you never baptize children under the age of 13 where the parents are not active or the parents are non-members"

I always thought that was good advise.

Sigh. You guys are probably right. No, you are definitely right--most of the time.

I served my mission in Brazil and saw many children baptized who didn't have family support and who just lengthened the list of inactives in the branch or ward.

But I can think of three people who fall exactly into that category of "kids who the missionaries have no business baptizing" who grew up to be stalwart members of the church. One was a companion of mine, and the other two were pillars in two different units where I served. In those three specific cases it would have been tragic if someone would have stepped in and put a stop to their baptism.

It kind of brings home the hypothetical situation of if you had 100 kids and you knew if you baptized them that only three would stick in the church, would you baptize them anyway to save the three, or would you sacrifice the three to avoid adding the 97 to the list of inactives? I don't know the answer to that question.

It definitely is frustrating to be left behind after the missionaries are transferred and have to try to work with new members who want nothing to do with the church any more. It can be damaging to the progress of the church at the local level (I saw this first hand in Brazil). But at the same time, it's hard to think of turning someone away when there is a chance they might stick in the church.

I agree Dilbert. FWIW, There's no garantee that adults will remain active either. This should always be a matter of prayer and inspiration, and definitely a heavy dose of realism.

--Ray

I'm on the same page as Leve, I was baptized at age 8, just before my 9th bday, both my parents were/are inactive. My dad grew up in the church, has a rich family history in the church going back to Kirtland OH and my mom is a convert. I was baptized by my paternal grandfather. I went to Primary (this was in the days when it was mid week) off and on for 3 years and only went to Mutual maybe 6 times in jr high. I went to Sunday School and Sacrament mtg most times growing up only when I spent the weekend at my grandparents or my dad's sister's and her family home.

To be honest, there just wasn't the leader/adult support in the wards we lived in that helped me stay active as a teen. I was ignored by the leaders and basically by the youth too. No hand of fellowship. BUT, I became active again when I went away to college in St George UT and I've been active since, married in the temple, 5 kids and have served as a Relief society Pres, Primary Pres, ward YW secretary, Stake YW secretary, Activities Comm. chair, counselor in RS, Enrichment/homemaking leader, nursery leader, ward/stake librarian and now as a Primary worker teaching Valiant 11.

I know there are cases where the child is just not ready for baptism and that is where the priesthood leaders should really be using the spirit as a guide and not letting the "baptism numbers" game come into play. Also, with regards to how much help/support a ward gives to a child/youth that wants to be active despite the parents, we as active members walk a fine line because we do not want to usurp the parents' role in the home. It is an eternal topic in ward council meetings that's for sure.

Valhalla, no offense taken here.

I think part of the problem does lie with the parents of such children, especially if the family has a history of obtaining help from the ward/church. They figure that they need to get their kids baptized to insure them of any needed help in adulthood, because now even a child of record will be dropped from the ward list if they are not baptized by a certain age. Or some baptize their kids as a "show" for the relatives who may be active but don't live nearby, even if the relatives don't attend the baptism. As an example, in one ward we lived in there was a family where the mom and dad were raised in the church but hadn't been "active" in years. They lived a few states away from family and they had their kids baptized to appease the grandparents. They considered themselves apostate. We never saw the kids again after their baptisms.

When my hubby was ward mission leader there was one lady who insisted her son be baptized "just in case" we really were the "true church".

When I read this I look at our own situation where 2/3 of the ward is currently not active. We have enough attending to divide the ward but not enough Mel. Priesthood to fill the callings should the ward be divided and barely enough now. The hometeachers are overloaded with in some cases six or more names and still not even half the ward probably has a home teacher let alone one that shows up. The YMs, YWs, and primary struggle to reach out already to children with no support at home or whose parents have wrecked their marriages and mostly falling short in saving all the children and youth we already have. Is it any wonder that people shrink from the idea of a child or teen joining with no support at home? Sure there are cases where it works out but it is very hard on the members physically, emotionally, and spirtually. I've visited wards where there were so many active members that there were some with no callings simply because there were none left to give. My brother in law's ward had so many people active that he was one of three people called as a Spanish translater for sundays even though they had no spanish speaking members. Their auxilleries and priesthood callings were three deep. In their YMs program they had all the chairs filled including all the possible adult leader positions. There were more adults in the program than young men. In that ward I would have pretty good confidence that a child or teen with no at home support would have the support from members in the ward to keep the active and growing in the gospel. In my ward, I don't have that same confidence.

When I was YMs president I never had a full slate of counsellors and never had a secretary. We were outnumbered about 5 to 1 with active young men and about 20+ to 1 on inactives. If I was lucky I had myself and one other counsellor for over ten boys. Lessons would often be combined because we had no one else to teach on sunday.

As the executive secretary now I see the Bishopric struggle to fill callings in the ward with some holding multiple callings. I have three callings right now including executive secretary and first counseller in Elder's quorum. I was supposed to be released back in November from the Elder's quorum presidency but there is no one to fill the position. I cannot even really do the Elder's quorum calling because it conflicts with the times I have to work with the Bishopric. We have a scout committee chairman who cannot attend the meetings due to his calling. It's insane especially when you understand that the ward is the largest in the stake.

Add to that the condemnation heaped on our heads of not being adequately able to fellowship a young person with no at home support and you can see why many of us get a little concerned.

I don't think anyone is advocating to assist members and that non's can jump in a lake. I think there is serious concern by people who care that it may be doing more harm that good. I don't think we can discount that view. The rolls of the church are full of people who were baptised as primary age children or youth that aside from their baptism and a few sundays of church attendence prior, never were active. They took on covenants, serious covenants that they do not live. Right now I'm assigned as a home teacher to a guy in his 50s who claims he was never a member of our faith and wants nothing to do with us. His record shows no priesthood offices held. I have no evidence of this but I would guess he some relative encouraged him to get baptised as a child and that was that. Now everytime this guy moves, home teachers show up only to be told, "Leave me alone, I'm not a member of your church," in a less than friendly manner. I think we would be better served when the missionaries bring up some one like this for baptism that we are careful to make sure they are actually going to be active in the gospel. Lack of support at home is a serious concern that Bishops need to be aware of and try and plan for. Many kids and teens just do not have the drive to live this day in and day out without someone constantly there. If you add in parents that do other activities on Sunday, it is darn near impossible.

It's not lazy but I think it is worth discussing. Perhaps someone has a solution. I don't know which is more sad though, someone who passes away without accepting the gospel in mortality or someone who accepted it, took on the covenants, but had no support in place to live those covenants. Who is in a bigger pickle in this situation?

My brother served in the Philipines and they had a problem with young teen girls joining the church. They would join thinking they were going to get the missionary to fall for them and take them to America. It got so bad the mission president actually said there would be no more baptisms of teen girls unless they had family or friends who were already members because they didn't become active. That stance was softened by the mission president when his wife reminded him that she joined the church as a teen. From then on they could baptise them but they made certain that they had friends in the ward before baptism to provide the support to keep them coming.

Well at least Arb, they were going to church. My brother said the girls in his mission didn't stay active if they baptised under those circumstances.

There should be a bit of wisdom employed by those who are doing the baptizing and those who are doing the administration of local units.

Elders (and Sisters for that matter too) who are serving proselyting missions are there to (and excuse me if I have paraphrased it incorrectly) "lead people unto Christ by proclaiming the gospel and inviting them to make covenants with Him, namely baptism". The missionaries' jobs are not to convert people. Conversion is a long process that occurs by the Holy Ghost and the individual's willingness to heed the Spirit's promptings.

I fear that nearly 2/3 of the individuals I taught who joined the Church didn't endure to the end. Why? It certainly wasn't because they were converted to me or my companion. They followed the promptings of The Spirit and put what we were teaching them to the test. That started them on the conversion path and to the doorway of baptism. The members in a number of the wards, were, well, just plain wierd. Full of idiosyncracies and sometimes even a level of hypocrisy. And they were the ones who were supposed to pick up from us and fellowship them on into full fellowship and aide them as they continued the conversion process.

Clearly, there are some missionaries who are all about putting up big numbers, and there are some that are so dense they may not realize that the individuals they are teaching aren't ready to make the covenant of baptism or are entering into it for the wrong reasons.

But, at the same time, there are too many members of the Church who don't want to get out of their comfort zone and fellowship one another properly or accept those into the fold who are new and maybe not converted all the way. Many members of the Church don't realize that most newly baptised individuals are not going to understand LDS Culture, and yet they expect them to be converted to it as well just because they were baptised. There are those who throw up their hands and become weary because of "bad experiences" in the past with newly baptized members. And, I've even heard of those who like to go and attempt to purge church membership roles of those who are not active, never have been active, and may have even forgot they were baptised...

I'm not passing judgement on anyone. It isn't my place to do that anyway.

The fact remains. All people who have or do or will ever live on this earth (with the possible exception of those who are automatic Celestial Candidates... those who are Not Accountable) will have to be baptised either in this life or by proxy at some point before their resurrection in order for The Lord's work of salvation to be completed and just and fair for all the sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father upon this earth.

It seems that there is a kind of comparing apples and oranges here in this discussion and the whole concept whenever it crops up... doctrine and administration of policy within the Church. Doctrinally, it is clear that all who have attained the age of 8 and are mentally accountable fall under the law of needing baptism. Administratively, baptism can not be withheld if a candidate passes the baptismal interview requirement. Yet, prudence sort of dictates that it would be good to make sure the candidate truely understands that this is important and that they are doing it for the right reason. And it would also be good if the support structure was operating effectively to help the newly baptised continue down the road of conversion to and within the Gospel.

If ever there was a need for knowing what His will is on something, I think this would be it.

Mahonri wrote:

---

President Hinckley said, if you are not going to be CERTAIN that they will stay active, you may as well baptize a bag of sand.

---

 I was just reading through this post and found this, Mahonri. I think you're referring to this quote by Joseph Smith:   You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other halfthat is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 314.)

I've tried finding another "bag of sand" quote by Gordon B. Hinckley, but have been unable to come up with one.