I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[♪alt13]

I totally get what where you are coming from. But in that scenario you used, I personally would have answered the questions, with the caveat of "I'll tell you what I believe, but you get to have this conversation with your parents as well".

I just feel like I can't. With a 10 year old I have way too much control of the conversation. Even with my own daughter I prefer to speak in nonsense riddles. I feel like if I tell a kid what to think I have robbed them of something. Outside of the basics("hey, don't hit people" etc)I just can't do it.

 

[GVC]

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.

At the very least, would you be willing to accept that the clandestine nature of the multiple exits from and entries into the country - which almost certainly don't involve an honest statement of the purpose of the visits - is both suspicious and dishonest if not actually illegal (which is still possible if not probable)?

As for what happened in Indonesia, as I said earlier, what we did was plainly dishonest. We skirted the law to the benefit of the church because we could get away with it. It really is that simple.

 

[bigb]

I just feel like I can't. With a 10 year old I have way too much control of the conversation. Even with my own daughter I prefer to speak in nonsense riddles. I feel like if I tell a kid what to think I have robbed them of something. Outside of the basics("hey, don't hit people" etc)I just can't do it.

I get it, but in the conversation I'm having in this scenario doesn't involve me telling them what to believe. It is nothing more than me saying "I believe x, y, and z." Even with my own kids, I'm very careful about avoiding saying things like "you should believe" or "we believe". I always stress that they are the ones who get to choose what to believe, that it's up to them to study and pray to find out. I will always answer honestly any question they ask me about my faith and beliefs. But that is what works for me and my family. From what you're saying, something else works for you and yours. That's great, too.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You just made a good argument for not baptizing children. I think it is pretty silly to baptize babies or eight years, neither have an understanding about what covenants they are making.

Babies for sure have no understanding. 8 year old kids are at a point where they are actively making choices and decisions and definitely have an understanding of basic covenants like the ones made when baptized. To add to the point, the 8 year old in any of the various family situations should have the support or at least approval of parents or guardians. This is not something new and is something that would/should be weighed in the past in determining a minor baptism. The family situation and dynamic is always important in the decision, and always has been/or should be.

 

[moevillini]

Clarify please:

I think in the Catholic faith and most Protestant faiths where infants and young children are baptized it's the parents (and godparents) who are making the promises to raise the child according to Christian beliefs, not that the child is making any sort of commitment to anything.

Is this different with LDS baptism?

 

[GVC]

Clarify please:

I think in the Catholic faith and most Protestant faiths where infants and young children are baptized it's the parents (and godparents) who are making the promises to raise the child according to Christian beliefs, not that the child is making any sort of commitment to anything.

Is this different with LDS baptism?

Yes. Google 'Mormon baptismal covenant' for more info. I don't know that many eight-year-olds, but I find it hard to believe that many are old enough to understand or be prepared to commit to stand as a witness of God. They might as well be baptized as babies.

 

[b_line]

I have been thinking a lot about this. The question that always comes to my mind is this: why does this matter so much to mormons? I can think if a huge number of things that should be focused on before bigotry.

1. Domestic distress and abuse

2. Preventing divorce and strengthening families. My l wife and I have been attending the "marriage and family" Sunday school class in our ward. One class about prop 8. One class about transgendered people. Another class about gay marriage. A class about gun control that included a blog from Bobby jindal. The sixth class was about how to make your wife feel important, because she has been taking care of kids all week while you work, basically a forum for the bishop to tell you to have date night.

3. Actually address the women and the priesthood thing.

4. Sexual abuse is a pretty big problem. Talk about that instead of how bad you think gay people are.

5. Refugees from middle east need our help much more than we need to hate gay people

6. The environment is a huge concern and religious people should feel like they have stewardship over gods creations.

7. Single parent homes and the support that they need to raise good kids. They could use a lot of help.

 

[b_line]

Clarify please:

I think in the Catholic faith and most Protestant faiths where infants and young children are baptized it's the parents (and godparents) who are making the promises to raise the child according to Christian beliefs, not that the child is making any sort of commitment to anything.

Is this different with LDS baptism?

Yes. In the lds church the covenant is a personal thing between the individual and god. Parents help out, but in the end salvation is an individual thing.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.mormonwomenstand.com/guest-stand/i-am-the-daughter-of-lesbians-and-i-am-a-mormon/

 

[BabyPeterzz]

https://www.mormonwomenstand.com/guest-stand/i-am-the-daughter-of-lesbians-and-i-am-a-mormon/

There's no shortage of those who are able to reconcile this issue through doctrine. Just read this thread there's plenty of it. It's whether or not one can reconcile the moral and ethical issues outside your faith, where a very real world also exists.

I'll post this:

https://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/why-the-mormons-targeted-children/?preview=true

I think this opinion is the polar opposite of the one you posted, only to show how posting stuff like this is really only to legitimize your already existing view of the issue.

I worry, even though there is a lot of support for LDS folks battling with this, if there will be some sort of accountability in some form from LDS members. Just because I sympathize, does not mean i condone what the LDS Church has said. In fact, I find it horrible and disgusting.

I only hope members will really try to understand what their church in doing to people and their families. Just waiting for this to blow over, finding some stretched-out version of doctrine to justify it, and moving along will not be tolerated and this will only happen again and again.

I'm counting on members of the LDS Church to make this right, somehow. After all, at the end of the day, YOU are the LDS Church.

 

[Stifle Tower]

I found out how this is defensible:

It's in the Articles of Faith:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression...unless your parents are gay. They you can be punished for their sins unless you renounce them...but you can't have the priesthood, pass the sacrament, prepare the sacrament or serve a mission until you are 18 and renounced your parents. Buts its ok, because if you die, we will just baptize you and save your soul from your whoring parents, who we have placed on the same level as rapists, murderers, abusers..."

Not that at all. When you serve a mission, you are teaching that you believe the church is true and are inviting others to believe the same. If I believe homosexual relations are ok, my beliefs are NOT in accordance with the Church. Why would I even WANT to serve a mission, where I would have to teach that same sex relations are against the Church? Or am I trying to subvert the teachings of the Church on my mission and saying that lifestyle is obviously ok, since I have been allowed to go on a mission and tell investigators that my parents are in a homosexual relationship.

You can agree or disagree with the Church's stance on homosexuality, But to go through the temple, to go on a mission, etc. you need to be active and believe in the teachings of the Church, and specifically the ones pertaining to sexual relationships, whether that be abstinence from pre-marital sex or the belief that homosexuality is immoral. And like I said, you can believe that or not - that's "free agency." But you are not free to choose the consequences (i.e. denial of entry to the temple or of going on a mission),

 

[Stifle Tower]

Well, the church also teaches that civil marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. So your point is invalid.

No, they do not teach that, Mormon bishops perform civil marriages all the time. People with civil marriages are not viewed as "sinning" nor are any actions taken against them because of their marital status. What the Church DOES teach is that ONLY temple marriages are binding in the post-mortal life. Civil marriages are "until death do they part," just as those vows state.