You can find them on the blacks and priesthood on wikipedia. I’ve also seen them in print.

Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord, apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged in 1963 that it could have been brought about through an error on man’s part. In 1963, he said, “The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”[56]

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.’[68]

Harold B. Lee, president of the church, stated in 1972: “For those who don’t believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks…It’s only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we’re just waiting for that time.”[72]

By Elder McConkie several months after the declaration, “There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world…. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more…. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.”

About the women’s thing–I think you underestimate exactly how much women do in the church even in “just” the women’s and children’s programs–we still do 70% of the work that’s done in the church, at least. Especially if you compare a Stake YMs presidency with a Stake YWs presidency. It’s interesting because my Christian friend came and visited and admired how we got our men involved because they’re always looking for ways to remind men they need to be spiritual leaders. Also, remember only 3 percent of men actually lead at a church meeting, all the rest of the men, including great men like my dad, are just like the rest of us except he did a fantastic job of leading our home spiritually, which would probably have otherwise been done by the mom. Even in my own house I have to remind myself to let me husband do it, and he does it, and it’s much to the benefit of our children to see him do it. I think there’s a lot of wisdom in God to see this is done in the way that it is.

And I understand our positions will always remain different, but I’m explaining why we the majority of us as Mormon women see no harm and no foul in these things, just blessings.

I’m not denying that it’s a good thing for children to do what adults tell them to in a lot of cases, but making a lifelong commitment to a religion doesn’t fall into that category for me. If my child(ren) believe in my religion, I want it to be because they’ve developed their own testimony of it.

depends on the child

I hear this a lot, and I completely agree. There are 8 year-olds who are surprisingly mature and 18 year-olds who aren’t ready to have their own home entertainment console system, much less the legal rights of an adult. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t general trends we can observe and watch out for, which are what Piaget and Kohlberg argue.

Why must baptism be a ‘moral judgment’ decision?

Why wouldn’t it be?

How are other overtly religious acts—praying, for example—less innocuous than baptism?

Because these aren’t lifetime commitments. If a child decides at a later point in life that he or she does not want to believe in God, they won’t have to send a letter to a church office building to have their prayers undone.

In terms of making wise choices, I just don’t see 12 as being much different than 8.

It’s not about making wise choices; it’s about why wise choices are made. 8 year-olds make wise moral choices because they believe their parents want them to. Older children are more capable of evaluating the merits behind their options and choosing for or against accordingly.

You’re going to have to explain to me, in your own terms, the theological difference between “remission of sins” and “forgiveness of sins,” because yes, I see them as one and the same. The KJV itself alternates between translating “ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν” as “forgiveness of sins” or “remission of sins;” newer translations almost always translate it “forgiveness of sins.”

Re: the gift of the Holy Spirit, I was just pointing out that LDS claims to the exclusivity of the Holy Spirit have other issues. It doesn’t exactly help trying to defend one potentially flawed theological concept with another one. However, you’re correct that this is little more than me saying “I don’t buy what LDS theology teaches here” and isn’t going to be the most useful objection to Mormons if we’re trying to isolate this issue.

I though the “presiding authority” part was clever.

My favorite line, too, naturally.

I don’t know how much cognitive progress my son is going to make over the next four years. We’re hopeful, of course, but we’re just taking things one step at a time. As long as he isn’t able to understand the ordinance of baptism, he certainly isn’t able to understand the implications of priesthood ordination. And if he’s not developmentally ready for it, that’s just how it is; I wouldn’t want him made a deacon just so he can be like the other 12-year-olds (although I’ll continue to have some sadness about him not being able to do things that typically-developing children do). So far he’s not much for wanting to do stuff just because his peers are doing it. A lot can change in four years, of course, but we’ll cross that bridge when (or if) we come to it.

Also does Piaget discuss potential problems with teenagers’ reasoning skills—such as that teenagers are completely selfish, arrogant, and delusional? In terms of making wise choices, I just don’t see 12 as being much different than 8.

To be clear, Piaget was deliberately talking about “stages, not ages.”

“I think children that young will do things because adults tell them to…”

I see that as a good thing.

“…and not because they’ve developed their own desire to do them for other reasons.”

Not always the case, but certainly depends on the child. Of course, we probably all know people in their 30’s who still bow to their parents’ wills, so this has a lot to do with how one is raised. Still, the whole point of Sunday School lessons on baptism is to teach kids the reasons for being baptized, so we give our children lots of opportunity to develop “other reasons.” (My own daughter even had reasons that I didn’t personally agree with.)

“Research on moral development….”

Why must baptism be a ‘moral judgment’ decision? How are other overtly religious acts—praying, for example—less innocuous than baptism? Also does Piaget discuss potential problems with teenagers’ reasoning skills—such as that teenagers are completely selfish, arrogant, and delusional? In terms of making wise choices, I just don’t see 12 as being much different than 8.

…make such a monumental religious commitment.”

Perhaps I don’t see baptism as such a monumental commitment as you do.

“For the remission of sins.”

I don’t know of anywhere in LDS scripture where baptism is cited as a pre-requisite for forgiveness—although your post has me wondering whether it is correct to use ‘remission’ and ‘forgiveness’ interchangeably, as you do. I think there is room in LDS theology to see the two as distinct, and baptism (especially by the Holy Ghost) may in fact be required for the remission of sins. Thus, I worry that your yes/no dichotomy is fundamentally flawed (from an LDS theology perspective, which is what you are challenging).

“As I’ve argued elsewhere though, the biblical record shows…”

But that is meaningless in a critique of LDS justifications for baptism. Sure, it is an important reason why you are unconvinced that your child needs LDS baptism, but then again you have many other reasons why you would reject it. Several of your other objections fall into this same category. That’s unavoidable, of course, with this type of post, so I don’t say that as a criticism of your post.

P.S. I though the “presiding authority” part was clever.

http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=888

Wow.

Right, and there’s little doubt in my mind that my theological reasons for practicing baptism are somewhat different from LDS ones. Then again, I don’t understand why age 8 is demanded by LDS theology, either. It seems rather arbitrary.

#2 Rebecca J ~ I also think you take baptism more seriously than most LDS do.

In some sense, I think this is true. I take the theology undergirding the act of baptism very seriously. Mormons tend to be very praxis-oriented and don’t think about the theology behind their ordinances as much—or at least, the answers don’t go much deeper than what’s printed in the manuals.

Thanks for sharing about how your children have done it. With your autistic son, are you worried at all about having him baptized by 12 at least so that he can pass the Sacrament?

BTW, they want us to have Harley evaluated for ADHD, Asperger’s and autism. She’s probably somewhere on that scale, but we don’t know how severe it is yet. It’s possible her baptism could become a non-issue. However, we’re going to have more kids eventually, so I assume it will come up again.

#3 Charlie ~ Interesting. At what ages did the children in your home request to be baptized?

#9 Aerin ~ Thanks for linking to your post. Interesting to see that you’ve had similar thoughts.

For the record, I’m not saying 12 is ideal or anything. It’s something to play by ear to be sure, but I sometimes with I had waited longer.

Thanks everyone for the great comments so far.

I asked him how she was supposed to be mature enough to 8 to choose an eternal commitment but not mature enough at 16 to be able to decide whether or not to keep it.

He was not amused.