Utah Judge court orders no baptism for child in a divorce

[_Polygamy Porter]

This judge is speaking well here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp1KKAQCINc

[_Scottie]

I'm sort of split on this one.

Good for the judge for making the parents be in agreement about it.

However, I'd bet that if the Mom wanted to baptise the daughter the judge wouldn't hesitate a bit. Mothers have FAR too much power over how the kids are raised, and often they are not better at it than the father.

[_Mercury]

This judge is speaking well here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp1KKAQCINc

Go judge!!!!!!

This wasn't about the judgement, it was about the emotion the judge testified of. Seems more valid of an opinion than I have ever seen for the issue.

[_barrelomonkeys]

That's interesting. In California my husband was told the mother could do whatever she wanted in regards to religious upbringing.

He didn't sign anything to give his permission for his son to be sealed (son is sealed now to his step-father) or baptized.

I think it would be ideal if there is an agreement between the parents. If not let the child choose when they're at an appropriate age.

[_Scottie]

How is 8 years old not old enough, but 12 is?? I'd say wait until the child is of legal age! 18 all the way.

She had a good point though. What IS the big hurry? I mean, if the child dies and isn't baptised, they do a baptism for the dead. No big deal. However, I guess if it's a boy, that would limit the priesthood and callings he could have.

But, on the other hand, so what if the child is baptised. It's not like this is an unalterable lifelong commitment. Just resign if you don't want to be Mormon anymore.

[_The Nehor]

I think the decision was right but the personal experience was unnecessary and the use of the word 'dunking' was disrespectful. Other than that her reasoning seemed sound.

I hope the parents aren't this divided on other issues or this child could be in for an interesting childhood.

[_Sethbag]

I'm sort of split on this one.

Good for the judge for making the parents be in agreement about it.

However, I'd bet that if the Mom wanted to baptise the daughter the judge wouldn't hesitate a bit. Mothers have FAR too much power over how the kids are raised, and often they are not better at it than the father.

I very much doubt the judge would have let the mom get the kid baptised. The judge said there would be no "dunking" until the child was 12, unless both parents agreed. She said that kids at 8 are far too young to know what they believe in terms of religion. She intimated that she had been baptised at 8 as well, and wished there was someone who would have "stood up" for her, in those exactly words. This judge is apparently an exmo, and I wonder if any of the TBMs will start a leaflet campaign to get this lady voted off the bench in the next election on these grounds. Interesting.

[_Nephi]

Mothers have FAR too much power over how the kids are raised, and often they are not better at it than the father.

I agree with this statement. All things being equal between Mom and Dad, the courts follow the wishes of the mother over the wishes of the father when one or the other side MUST be picked (ie, no gray area, unfortunately).

[_Mercury]

I think the decision was right but the personal experience was unnecessary and the use of the word 'dunking' was disrespectful. Other than that her reasoning seemed sound.

I hope the parents aren't this divided on other issues or this child could be in for an interesting childhood.

Whats disrespectful is making a child commit to something they do not understand.

[_harmony]

I think the decision was right but the personal experience was unnecessary and the use of the word 'dunking' was disrespectful. Other than that her reasoning seemed sound.

I hope the parents aren't this divided on other issues or this child could be in for an interesting childhood.

Whats disrespectful is making a child commit to something they do not understand.

If they don't understand, there is no commitment.