The Church messes with TBMs too--Updated

[crossmyheart]

TBM friends- mostly active, no real NOM tendencies. Wife is primary chorister, husband is in Sunday school presidency. Youngest son just turned 8- and they have his baptism planned for this upcoming weekend. Family flying in from Utah, invitations sent.

But at the Bishops interview last week the Bishop informs them that the husband can't perform the baptism because he does not have a current temple recommend. And, oh by the way the next available appointment for temple recommend interviews is the week after the scheduled baptism.

They stressed over it for a week until the Bishop relented last night and told them they can go forward with the baptism.

These are good, hard working, faithful people who give everything, time, talents, etc to the church. No WOW or other hidden sins. These friends are livid, and told me that they planned to walk away from the church if the Bishop enforced his decree. Add another crack to their shelf. If the church wants to keep up this power struggle, they are going to lose their core members. I don't get it.

[Hagoth]

They should do what Joseph Smith would have done, just take him down to the river and dunk him. Step over the bishop and go right to God.

[Jeffret]

The leaders have to demonstrate their control and the members' subservience to it. Joseph Smith described it well. One thing he did get right.

[Hermey]

That BP is an ass.

[Corsair]

There are two principles at work here:

1. The institutional church needs members more than members need the church
2. The institutional church depends on the members not realizing this

I fully acknowledge that social pressure and offical doctrine will try to keep this bishop in control of this situation. I do not know this young father and I absolutely sympathize with his position. I recommend that this father read the brief story of Elder Richard R. Lyman, the last apostle to be excommunicated. He carried on an affair for twenty years while he was a sitting apostle. Elder Lyman would have claimed that this was plural marriage, but it was started in 1925, long after 1890 Manifesto 1 and the 1904 Manifesto known as "we are serious about ending plural marriage this time".

Elder Lyman could not have been considered worthy to hold the priesthood or partake in any ordinances and he was duly excommunicated in 1943 when he was caught. How many stake presidents did he set apart? How many missionaries did he ordain? How many ordinances of salvation did he perform in or out of the temple? Where these invalid because of the clear immorality in place? Could anyone somehow "detect" that any ordinance didn't work and was invalid?

I would absolutely and calmly explain to this bishop that this baptism will be happening on this day even if it is the backyard of some local swimming pool owner. If the bishop insists that the ordinance did not take place then this will be one way to escalate the problem to the stake president. The father must take power back within his own family. I would not relent and let some other family member or, heaven forbid, that bishop perform this ordinance.

[asa]

This is remarkably stupid on the Bishops part . You never need a TR to perform a baptism . You only need the Bishops ok. If you are going to perform it in another ward at most you need a Certificate to Perform an Ordinance which is a little piece of paper that only needs the bishops signature. Truly it is about control. You friends aren't GAY are they ?

[wtfluff]

This is remarkably stupid on the Bishops part . You never need a TR to perform a baptism . You only need the Bishops ok. If you are going to perform it in another ward at most you need a Certificate to Perform an Ordinance which is a little piece of paper that only needs the bishops signature. Truly it is about control. You friends aren't GAY are they ?

Yep. Baptism is an AARONIC priesthood ordinance. How many 16-year-old priests are there out there with a temple recommend?

[NOMinally Mormon]

It's incredibly stupid of this bishop to pull rank like that. At the very least, cracks people's shelves. I saw a thread just last week on reddit where a bishop pulled TRs from a couple days before their wedding. He interviewed them separately ( the way suspects are treated) and their stories didn't quite jive. Apparently each defined"making out" differently. And they hadn't even gotten to second base. These bishops are winning battles but losing the war.

[2bizE]

Sounds like a great opportunity to invite a friend over for dinner and to mention a lot of folks at NOM have had similar experience...

[Nonny]

TBM friends- mostly active, no real NOM tendencies. Wife is primary chorister, husband is in Sunday school presidency. Youngest son just turned 8- and they have his baptism planned for this upcoming weekend. Family flying in from Utah, invitations sent.

But at the Bishops interview last week the Bishop informs them that the husband can't perform the baptism because he does not have a current temple recommend. And, oh by the way the next available appointment for temple recommend interviews is the week after the scheduled baptism.

That's ridiculous!

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

This is exactly my line in the sand. I even told my wife that if the bishop tries to prevent me from baptising my son that I will resign. My kids ordinances are all I have left.

[Anon70]

These bishops are winning battles but losing the war.

And to what purpose? It's not making people stronger in the church. Or motivated to keep trying. We keep hearing these things are what often end up being the catalyst to leaving. I just want the church to be about love and service and compassion (cause I'm stuck in it) but it's not.

[Mormorrisey]

This is remarkably stupid on the Bishops part . You never need a TR to perform a baptism . You only need the Bishops ok. If you are going to perform it in another ward at most you need a Certificate to Perform an Ordinance which is a little piece of paper that only needs the bishops signature. Truly it is about control. You friends aren't GAY are they ?

Yep. Baptism is an AARONIC priesthood ordinance. How many 16-year-old priests are there out there with a temple recommend?

This is exactly the point, and why they should have REALLY pushed back. The 2010 handbook was pretty explicit about allowing men who struggled to bless babies, baptize their children, etc. Leadership roulette at its finest! It's just as Mormons they are conditioned to accept what the authority says. I've heard so many horror stories about this stuff, I'm starting to feel really glad I live where I live, where the unrighteous dominion is kept to a minimal amount.

[wtfluff]

This is remarkably stupid on the Bishops part . You never need a TR to perform a baptism . You only need the Bishops ok. If you are going to perform it in another ward at most you need a Certificate to Perform an Ordinance which is a little piece of paper that only needs the bishops signature. Truly it is about control. You friends aren't GAY are they ?

Yep. Baptism is an AARONIC priesthood ordinance. How many 16-year-old priests are there out there with a temple recommend?

This is exactly the point, and why they should have REALLY pushed back. The 2010 handbook was pretty explicit about allowing men who struggled to bless babies, baptize their children, etc. Leadership roulette at its finest! It's just as Mormons they are conditioned to accept what the authority says. I've heard so many horror stories about this stuff, I'm starting to feel really glad I live where I live, where the unrighteous dominion is kept to a minimal amount.

I had some experience with this even before the 2010 handbook where an over-zealous Steak President took it upon himself to make sure that every father in his jurisdiction who wanted to baptize their kid had to be worthy of a temple recommend. I asked the bishop at the time where that came from, as baptism used to be a way to bring wayward souls back to activity, and he quoted the Steak President, and some innocuous passage from the handbook that didn't really say anything about temple worthiness and baptism.

Those that have said that actions such as these only push people toward the door are spot in in my opinion. My experience was definitely a nail in my "testimony" coffin.

(I also heard a statement later that the aforementioned Steak President was chastised in some way for his over-zealous ways with punishing children by not letting their fathers baptize them; but that was also before the 2010 handbook. It did make my evil heart happy though. )

[MerrieMiss]

These bishops are winning battles but losing the war.

And to what purpose? It's not making people stronger in the church. Or motivated to keep trying. We keep hearing these things are what often end up being the catalyst to leaving. I just want the church to be about love and service and compassion (cause I'm stuck in it) but it's not.

The purpose? To gain points with the Stake President about how good a bishop you are. Then you can get promoted. I have a family member who got crap from his stake president when he was bishop because he wasn't having enough disciplinary councils. Seriously. It's messed up.

Sometimes I wish something like this would happen personally to my husband. He's such an optimist that he writes these kinds of experiences off as rogue bishops, but I keep pointing out to him it's a systemic problem - there is no accountability! There's no one you can take a complaint to. The bishop is in charge and what he says goes, until he gets replaced of course.

[achilles]

Unfortunately, I don't think this is too uncommon. I mean, I was once a TBM who got jerked around too many times by the brethren. It's part of what either turns people into ex-Mormons or very, very stressed out and guilty Mormons.

[Spicy McHaggis]

My 16 year old brother baptized me because priests can baptize. No TR needed. That bish is a total ass.

[crossmyheart]

Update-
TBM friend baptized and confirmed his son. The Bishop had one of his counselors conduct, but Bishop was there.

TBM friends have no plans to renew their temple recommends. After all, the temple here closes this week for 2 years for remodeling. Nearest temples are 3-4 hours away.