I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[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.

 

[Zulu]

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.

Just awesome... You're a great man!!!!

 

[Ron Mexico]

I was going to write in here my experiences of leaving the lds faith and how much happier I am. I would go into further detail about how it took time to establish who I am and my beliefs and I am a better person because of it. This might not be the path for everyone but I thought this quote would be much better. From the mouth of Homer J Simpson:

I, on the other hand, have been having the best day of my life and I owe it all to not going to church.

Sent from my HTC0P4E1 using Tapatalk

 

[colton]

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.

Too bad you've forgotten the Golden Rule then, and have started living by "an eye for an eye".

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

No, but you ARE to blame for the language you use which causes those presumptions.

For example, in this case, if you had said, "Missionaries in Singapore operated under tourist visas because the other type of visas were hard to come by," I would have likely responded, "Oh, that seems a little odd, I didn't realize the church did that. Tell me more."

But what you ACTUALLY said was "most missionaries in Singapore were effectively there (in their capacity as missionaries) illegally." Very different word choice, with very different implications.

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).

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.

Was it actually illegal for people with tourist visas to make contacts, teach, and baptize? If not, then your earlier word choice seems highly questionable. I don't know about Singapore, but here in the US it's perfectly legal and 100% morally acceptable for someone to come with a tourist visa and do many many things that don't strictly involve tourism. Certain things are prohibited (work for pay I assume is one of them), but I doubt volunteer work such as helping a church for a few months would be one of them, as long as the individuals don't OVERSTAY their visa--which from your description it doesn't sound like the missionaries in Singapore ever did. But perhaps I'm mistaken and the situation is different there.

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).

No, I'm not familiar enough with that situation to comment. (All I know is what you wrote earlier.)

 

[colton]

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.

Again, I must say, "What the heck??" How is that even slightly "mental gymnastics". They are two completely different things. Some people here are acting like the church is saying "You can no longer associate with your parents" when they are actually saying, "You must believe in the church teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful."

If you really can't see the difference between those two, and if that distinction seems like mental gymnastics to you, then I truly feel sorry for you.