I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[bigb]

Yes, but if a child with gay parents does happen to show interest then you have an uncomfortable issue on your hands. I guess I just can't imagine having that conversation.

Agreed. That would be a very uncomfortable, even awful conversation.
While on my mission I taught a 14 year old kid. He wanted to be baptized and was living the requirements 100% However his parents were adamantly against it for very personal, valid reasons. He continued to go to church for months and months (as long as I was able to keep tabs on him through other missionaries). I would be very surprised if he didn't get baptized as soon as he turned 18. But the opposite was true 99% of the time. Kids without the parental support and permission usually didn't continue on.

 

[b_line]

Yes, so what I was pointing out is that your stated strategy would lead you into a very uncomfortable situation, unless you got lucky and there were either no friends with gay parents, or those friends did not show interest. Comments like "It makes missionary work difficult," are amazing to me because the reason you are suggesting the work is difficult is that the organization you want to do the missionary work has notified you that they aren't going to treat certain children in a "Christian" way.

I don't know what response you want from me. I'm not the one trying to tell people their homo parents are terrible. If they want to be gay, that's fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. If my kids want to share the church with their kids, I will tell them my position. It isn't easy to be a missionary, and currently I want no part of it. Especially with gay people. I see a lot of good in the church. But homophobia is one area in the church that I completely despise.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't know what response you want from me. I'm not the one trying to tell people their homo parents are terrible. If they want to be gay, that's fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. If my kids want to share the church with their kids, I will tell them my position. It isn't easy to be a missionary, and currently I want no part of it. Especially with gay people. I see a lot of good in the church. But homophobia is one area in the church that I completely despise.

I don't want anything from you. I'm trying to understand your thinking. I left the church as a result of learning things that did not work for me. I could not even consider doing missionary work because I did not support many church positions, even though I can also see much good. I honestly wish there was a non-religious organization available that included the things I see as good but without the things I see as bad. Unfortunately I doubt there ever will be. I guess you have to either walk away like I have, or ignore the stuff you don't like as you are.

 

[colton]

**** you then. I served part of my mission there. Singapore gave the church only a handful of work visas, almost all of which were given to Pakistani elders to see how the church was supposed to be run/function before they were sent back to Pakistan. All other missionaries in Singapore (the vast majority) were there on visitor visas, and had to leave the country every one or three months (Americans got three months, people from other Western countries got one month), and return in casual attire to get their passports stamped again. If/when missionaries were not allowed entry, they continued/finished their missions in Malaysia. I actually think the situation in Malaysia was iffy as well. Foreign missionaries were also expelled from Indonesia sometime in the early 90s when they tried to return illegally (I was part of the first returning legal wave of LDS missionaries in Indonesia in 2001 after they were officially barred around 1980).

Seriously? Someone questions a claim you made on the internet and your response is "**** you"? Get a grip on that anger, man.

Anyway, you didn't say your knowledge was from first hand experience. I don't doubt that things were like you describe here. But it sounds to me from your description like the missionaries were indeed following the laws. Granted you said in your previous post "effectively illegally", not "illegally", but I think your previous post mischaracterized the situation.

Edit: Colton, there's a BYU geography professor, Chad Emmett, who served his mission in Indonesia in the 1970s. He may or may not have published a book he's been working/worked on for quite a while about church history in Indonesia if you're curious (it may or may not touch on missionaries who were sent there post-1980, when Indonesia was still part of the Singapore mission). Dude was one of my teachers in the MTC...there weren't any more recent non-Indonesian RMs to fill the position.

OK, thanks.

 

[colton]

A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage"; and "the child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

Note the bolded text. In other words, the child is required, in effect, to renounce his/her parents and declare their love/relationship to be invalid and requires the child to move outside of the household, which, in effect, is a show of disassociation from his/her parents.

What the heck? The statement you quoted says the person is asked to disavow the practice, i.e. say that they support church teachings on the matter. Not disavow their parents nor cease loving them. Or do you feel it's impossible to love someone while also believing some of their actions are not in harmony with God's will?

 

[colton]

One more point: I'm not sure what the situation in Indonesia is now, but our visas were not intended to be used for proselyting, but rather for the training of local Indonesian members/leaders/missionaries. On my Indonesian ID, I was officially in Indonesia as an "ahli tafsir dogmatika" or doctrine expert. The other missionaries had equally absurd titles. We were all just trying to teach and baptize, of course.

What would have a visa for proselyting been called? Did they even offer those?

 

[Stoked]

Colton could have just asked what my source was without the "don't buy it" comment. Respect is a two way street. You can go **** yourself too.

I appreciate your concern with my needs but my wife takes care of that so you can rest assured. If you took that as a big enough slight on your online rep to use vulgarity than your problems go beyond what you think random people might have meant about your honor.

Anger issues aside, I find your missionary experiences to be quite interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[colton]

There is a material difference between supporting church doctrine and being required to disavow one's parents as a demonstration of this support. In what other context are children required to disavow and disassociated themselves from their parents as a condition for full faith and membership?

Again, they are not required to disavow their parents. They are required to disavow their parents' *actions*. If you don't see a difference, then there's no hope for this conversation.

 

[colton]

Is the same required for children who live with co-habitating heterosexual parents? How about parents who don't honor their father or mother? How about parents who bear false witness on occasion? How about parents who drink or smoke? How about parents who cheat on their taxes?

Yes, people who want to get baptized have to disavow all of those behaviors. The only difference is that in this case the individuals have to wait until age 18 to do so, and that's the part that I myself found most problematic (as I posted earlier in the thread).

As for whether this consitutes punishment. Your response to this reminds me of a common LDS response about the three degrees of glory and how the terrestial kindgon really isn't punishment, as in, you know, a loving father witholding his full love and blessing from you doesn't qualify as some sort of punishment, but only in this case, the church is withholding from you full faith and membership in the church for something someone else is doing, but is generous enough to give you the full faith and membership if only you'll disavow, and disassociate yourself from, the people who have raised you, cared for you, loved you and sacrificed for you.

Yep, perfectly reasonable and not punishment at all.

Where are you getting this from? (the bolded part)

edit: maybe this is just a vocabulary issue? Disavowing a behavior does not mean being forced to stop associating with an individual.

 

[b_line]

I don't want anything from you. I'm trying to understand your thinking. I left the church as a result of learning things that did not work for me. I could not even consider doing missionary work because I did not support many church positions, even though I can also see much good. I honestly wish there was a non-religious organization available that included the things I see as good but without the things I see as bad. Unfortunately I doubt there ever will be. I guess you have to either walk away like I have, or ignore the stuff you don't like as you are.

Try Secular Humanism or Unitarians. There is a community out there for everyone. I feel the same way as you, but I am still in the church. It is definitely frustrating because there is so much good. It's like eating a delicious meatball sub, only to find out that one of the meatballs is made of ****.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

What about non-traditional families? Like one parent who's gay and remarried, and one parent who's straight remarried. Does that kid have to renounce the actions of one parent and not the other? Yes, correct?

This is emotional terror being inflicted on families, no matter how small the number.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GVC]

Seriously? Someone questions a claim you made on the internet and your response is "**** you"? Get a grip on that anger, man.

I had/have no problem with you questioning the claim, and I responded to your legitimate question respectfully. My issue was with the way you started your post, which seemed unnecessary and disrespectful to me. I responded in kind.

Anyway, you didn't say your knowledge was from first hand experience. I don't doubt that things were like you describe here. But it sounds to me from your description like the missionaries were indeed following the laws. Granted you said in your previous post "effectively illegally", not "illegally", but I think your previous post mischaracterized the situation.

1. I'm not to blame for your presumptions.

2. Singapore required missionaries to have the appropriate visa. Those were given to a select few missionaries. Everyone else was there officially as a tourist, and came into the country undercover. I fail to see the mischaracterization. The church decided to break the laws of Singapore because they thought (correctly) that they could get away with it.You can rationalize that however you like. I'd be very surprised if your dad doesn't know about this, unless those SE Asian countries weren't part of the Asia area (which seems highly unlikely).

What would have a visa for proselyting been called? Did they even offer those?

I don't know what they'd be called, but presumably at the time they didn't exist because proselyting was illegal. We weren't knocking doors or preaching from street corners, but making contacts, teaching and baptizing is what we were instructed to do. With one exception, all foreign missionaries were required to have an Indonesian companion to keep up appearances (i.e. better skirt the law). This was all made abundantly clear to me and my fellow foreign missionaries at the time.

This isn't just some ex-mormon axe to grind; I corrected people on this point repeatedly while I was still an active member, MTC teacher and BYU student.

edit: Any response for the missionaries who were sent to Indonesia between 1980/1981 and 2001 illegally? FWIW, I'm not sure of the details here, but Chad Emmett might be able to help. There actually was one Australian missionary in Indonesia in the early 90s (an Elder Tempany/Tympany/...not sure of the spelling). He had a hell of a time when things went south during the Asian crisis, and was forced to finish his mission elsewhere (where he wasn't in danger of getting killed in the streets).

 

[bigb]

Can I just say that I am impressed with how civil this conversation has been. Given the known history with this board, it's surprising.

 

[♪alt13]

Personally, I would never discourage my kids from sharing what they believe/is an important part of their lives with anybody. Like I shared before, I've got to come to grips with this new policy myself. As a human, I don't like it. But I don't believe I have to like it to accept it. If I can, after much study and prayer come to a peaceful understanding/acceptance of it, I can move on. If I can't, I get to make a major and difficult life changing decision. IF I feel that God is okay with it (whether it's a "revelation" or not), and my kids are old enough to invite friends (two of mine are currently old enough), I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I saw dais friends taking significant interest in the church, at that point in time I would have a conversation with my kid and the friend.
Did that make sense?

How old is old enough?

I really can't imagine having a conversation about my views with my mormon nieces/nephews, mormon neighbor kids, etc. No matter how much interest they showed I would feel tacky having that conversation with them.

 

[Zulu]

I served a mission in South Africa and Swaziland, I've seen this exact policy but applied to children of polygamy, tear apart two families.

No matter how the church tries to spin this, people will get hurt and families torn apart because of this policy.

That is why this is hard to swallow.

I am in the same boat as many of you here are. Loving my faith, but doubting my church and this policy has made it so difficult.

My wife and I last night actually started weighing options... This is crazy!!!!

 

[Deleted member 848]

Again, they are not required to disavow their parents. They are required to disavow their parents' *actions*. If you don't see a difference, then there's no hope for this conversation.

Ah yes Colton, the king of mental gymnastics.


There really isn't a positive way to spin this. I am crushed for my LDS friends who are questioning their faith because of this.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Ah yes Colton, the king of mental gymnastics.


There really isn't a positive way to spin this. I am crushed for my LDS friends who are questioning their faith because of this.

We all get very limber when defending things that are very important to us.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I said something similar to Zulu via rep, but I figure I'll say it to more of you:



Choose the path that helps you become the greatest person. The greatest son of God. The kindest, most just representative of him. That is the priority of us as humans. Be kind, and loving, and resourceful. Improve the lives of others, as well as the lives of those that we love.


I hope it can still be done through the LDS faith for many of you, due to the other list of benefits the community has had on its followers. No matter where you end up after this controversy, it's important (imo) to remind ourselves of the responsibilities we carry as humans, whether pious or not.

Wishing you all the best.

 

[bigb]

How old is old enough?

I really can't imagine having a conversation about my views with my mormon nieces/nephews, mormon neighbor kids, etc. No matter how much interest they showed I would feel tacky having that conversation with them.

In my case, my oldest two kids are 11 and 8.

I've had conversations like that with my cousin, his wife (staunch Catholic from Poland/Germany), their kids. It was more of a curiosity thing, me answering questions, etc. As long as I was honest in my feelings and beliefs with them, it wasn't tacky or awkward. But yes, having a conversation with a kid whose parents are gay about why they couldn't be baptized would be incredibly awkward.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I said something similar to Zulu via rep, but I figure I'll say it to more of you:



Choose the path that helps you become the greatest person. The greatest son of God. The kindest, most just representative of him. That is the priority of us as humans. Be kind, and loving, and resourceful. Improve the lives of others, as well as the lives of those that we love.


I hope it can still be done through the LDS faith for many of you, due to the other list of benefits the community has had on its followers. No matter where you end up after this controversy, it's important (imo) to remind ourselves of the responsibilities we carry as humans, whether pious or not.

Wishing you all the best.

This is the Dal who I used to be so impressed with. More please.