quote: I work with juvenile delinquents. ----- We recently had a young man arrive in our program from a predominately LDS community. His story was sad, but he will still be expected to be responsible for his own choices in life.
He said that when he moved into the community, he tried to reach out and make new friends, but because he was not LDS, he wasn't accepted by many and even shunned by some. He was excluded from even going to others’ homes to play or hang out because he wasn't LDS.
When it came to dating, it became even worse. Many of the "nice" girl's couldn't or wouldn't accept his invitations for dates because they would only date someone in the LDS faith. (I have to wonder how much this attitude limits those who live where LDS is a super-minority). Eventually he found the crowd who would accept him and be his "friends." This is where he said things went downhill.
The other day I made a quick run to Wal-Mart. I needed to pick up some fabric and there I met her. She was thirty-something and apparently lonely. She told me how she moved to Utah when she was 16. Her parents had joined the church and were sometimes active. She drifted away and felt completely alone. Now, her elementary aged children were rejected by the Mormon community. Other kids taunted them and refused to play with them because "they aren't Mormon". Invitations to their home were refused because Moms could not allow their precious children to go to a nonmember's home. She talked for an hour, an hour to a stranger about her hurt, frustration and anger at the cruelty of her Mormon neighbors. It broke my heart. I felt so bad for her and her children. For years, sometimes here in Nauvoo, I've heard of 'Utah Mormons'. My experience was not this. I have seen kindness and compassion. But just because my experience has been good, I cannot deny the pain this woman has been through. Is this really who we are? Are our attempts to protect our own, causing so much pain and grief in the lives of our neighbors? Are we oblivious to the damage we cause? Will it become part of our judgement when we stand before the Lord?
Posts: 5050 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a difficult one. I can understand that people want to protect their children from non-church influence, and that they will be concerned about their children dating outside the church because it is a strain on faith to have a girlfriend or boyfriend or spouse who doesn't share your faith and may well be hostile to it.
On the other hand, I was a non-member who dated a Mormon girl, married her and got baptised 16 years after the wedding. Without my wife, I would never have taken to the gospel, and she was the significant missionary in my life. My son is currently dating a non-member, not having found anyone he is interested in within the rather small community of the Stake youth. He finds it a strain dealing with her getting drunk at parties, but is coping with it all in a very mature way.
The bottom line is that we should not ever be making people feel unwelcome, or excluding people because they do not share our faith. What I would say is that it is the nature of children to find a reason for singling out an individual as different, to be the whipping boy for the group, and in a majority Mormon community, not being a Mormon is a natural if regrettable thing for them to use.
Equally, some people choose to feel unwelcome, no matter what we do to open ourselves to them. They come looking for offence, and will always be able to find it. If we can search our hearts and know that we would be comfortable in front of the Lord with how we have behaved towards non-members, then that is all we can do really.
Posts: 1467 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no first hand experience, only having visited Utah briefly, but my husband served his 2 years there. He shares that there you find the gospel at it's best and at it's worst. You find all the good things and some very great people and you find the bad things and some very arrogant ignorant people. But this not letting kids play thing seems to have been somewhat common, not the rule, but not an exception either.
Here where you're usually the only one in neighbourhood, school & where ever, it's not really possible to refuse your kids to play with nonmembers - but I've seen it happen within the church - parent's discouraging kids to become friends with other kids, who have trouble in their lives, but are members, or whose parents they parents just don't like. Or parents telling their teens to not associate with another teen who seems to struggle with the gospel.
I understand that there might be a time when you have to set a limit and say you're not going to see that person again. But I think we as a group of members really should do better in this matter.
The dating issue is different though I think. I think there's no point to go out on numerous dates with a non-member boy if you really aren't going to get serious with it. I wouldn't just say no, but explain why - what's the purpose for me in dating, what kind of a husband I'm looking for, in regards of Church as well, what are my standards about sexuality (assuming he didn't know all this already) etc and if he still wanted to have a date I probably would go. I've been on dates with non members. I probably would say that let's forget the date part, but how about we just go and have fun and I'll invite a few more friends to come along and he can do the same... Then, on the other hand, I had no problem having fun with a friend who's a boy just the two of us without calling it a date when there's no that kind of interest at all...
Just curious, if he in the example (now was that real or fiction), why would he keep asking the LDS girls out if he knew why they said no?
posted
Seems there are three separate issues at play here: not letting others within our jurisdiction socialize with non-members, not ourselves choosing to do so, and not dating outside the faith. It’s common to merge these into one, and not unreasonably so. The first and the second resemble each-other in that the distinction often becomes meaningless when discussing children too young to be expected to conduct that kind of abstracted thinking. Dating is, of course, just a specific form of socialization. Yet I think the three are different. For example, they dynamics of dating and the influence one partner can have on another are so radically different from even close friendship as to make it a class of its own. Be it temptation from short flings between those who do not have the same physical limits, to the constant influence of the values of the other (that carry across distance, and through more intimate and constant means than all but the most noteworthy of friendships), dating is profoundly different from any other kind of relationship. And when disallowing a child to interact with non-members, the decision goes from the possibility that you simply recognize a weakness in yourself that is best left untested, to a virtual declaration that such interaction is in of it itself, immoral (and extend that same condemnation on the gentile world at large).
I’ve never lived in an area with enough members for anyone to reasonably insist that their children only make friends of members. Perhaps it’s happened around me and being a single adult I simply wasn’t aware of it; but I haven’t even heard such stories from those who grew up where I was. On the other hand I virtually practice the doctrine myself as I haven’t made many close friends outside of the Ward unit. Certainly not by conscious choice, but simply the result of being slow to make friends and the Ward being the only place I had much opportunity for socialization.
All that being the case, I find the decision to disallow friendship between oneself or one’s children and those not of our faith to be patently absurd in all but the most extreme circumstances. I am curious if such bans are the result of explicit decisions and decrees that all non-members are off limits, or simply the end game of a series of choices to limit one’s social circle to those whole hold such and such moral standards, with the number of those limits growing to the point that only a member in good standing could possibly hope to meet it.
I also wonder how common it really is to truly shun non-members. Some places in Utah I’m sure could do so without terribly limiting one’s acquaintances, but even there, most towns have become sufficiently diverse to make this more an act of aggression than one of setting standards in ignorance. I find such stories much more understandable when I remember that they are almost universally seen through the viewpoint of those harmed: a viewpoint rarely objective even if it is without malice. I often envision it as being the same as the stories of the young ladies who say that the men never ask them out but upon being pressed are forced to admit that the real complaint is that the men they want to never ask them out. Why would we even remember intimations of friendship from those we ourselves have no desire to be friends with? But perhaps I am whitewashing the situation out of a desire to not have to be ashamed of my own community.
The question of dating is much different in my mind; and after that long pontification in the first paragraph I imagine it comes as little surprise that I do not date non-members. Not that the question comes up much, but that’s a whole different discussion. The first item of discussion of course, is always temple marriage. And reasonably so, as that allows us the only full expression of our mutual affections (as any other method is limited in the very least by time). Furthermore, such an ordinance is required for salvation which is hardly an unreasonably thing to sacrifice passion for, or at the very least postpone it.
Beyond that there is the question of compatibility. Apart from having the longest Church services in the civilized world (if you can call three hours in a family ward ‘civilized’ ) the LDS Church demands quite a lot from its members. In time certainly, but also in decorum, activity and personal choices. It is certainly possible to be a non-member and share the same goals and manner as one who is, but the sheer volume of directions and beliefs make such a possibility unlikely to say the least. Differences in goals, in manner and in recreation make a shaky foundation to a relationship you wish to last at least a lifetime. Raising children in an environment of unsettled views on the fundamental properties of the world cannot be a simple task. All of which is not to say that such a union can’t result in contentment, but it seems hardly unreasonable if one were to limit oneself to dating only within the Church. And hard to call such a decision callous or unfeeling: it is simply recognition of reality, personal desires and abilities.
Of course some simply date non-member under the pretext that they are not looking for marriage, but merely a good time. I have difficulty addressing this as I struggle to understand the idea of “dating for fun”. I would only venture to say that if one isn’t prepared to marry a non-member, it is of dubious intelligence to date one. Just as it would be imprudent to engage in sex when not prepared for a child, even if using some form of birth control. And there’s no mechanism for controlling the human heart which is anywhere near as reliable as birth control is at controlling procreation.
posted
I'm in Idaho, and I've heard of exactly one parent who doesn't want her kids playing with non-LDS kids. And she was pretty snotty, anyway. From what I know and see around me, there isn't exclusion. My daughters' best friends aren't LDS. They come into our home, mostly, but my daughters also go to theirs.
I have absolutely no qualms telling them to only date within the faith. I think they'll more likely avoid trouble and heartache that way than any possibility that may exist of bringing someone into the Church.
posted
As some of you may know, I recently married a non-member. My family has been really wonderful and supportive, and my husband has grown to respect the church because of the people he's met. Especially my parents, he was worried they would either shun him or try and proselyte to him constantly. Instead they've been loving and kind and love him for who he is and how he treats me. (of course, they may be a little more open than some, having now had two daughters who were sealed in the temple be divorced from miserable marriages)
However, I do remember being younger and stupider in college. When I was at BYU, the young men who were in the student wards but hadn't chosen to go on missions weren't shunned per se, but they weren't people the girls sought out their company either. Although, I remember a Preference (girl's choice) dance where there was a large group of us going as friends and I ended up with one of those young men. Really a great guy, was one of the most fun dates I can recall. I always wonder how he ended up...
Posts: 2959 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time teaching lessons which include the idea of "choose good friends."
This always seems to be expanded to "only hang out with Mormons."
I find the attitude troubling. My younger nephew has been ostracized from his young men's group. He's an Eagle Scout and a kind, caring, excellent young man. But his parents are inactive, and they smoke. So kick him to the curb.
He recently got his GED, so he stopped going to school. His best friend at school had to find other people to hang out with during the day. The friend is also a nice boy, but not LDS, and has (GASP!!) an earring. Well, the Mormon kids wanted nothing to do with the friend, so he hung out with some other kids, and made choices that got him (the friend) into trouble.
Now, his parents won't let him associate with anyone except my nephew. Apparently even a kid who got kicked to the curb by "Mormons" ends up as some kind of good influence.
One of the other instructors in our quorum was teaching a lesson with a "choose good friends" aspect. He expressed the thought that perhaps we shouldn't be the "best person in the room" at any party or gathering. (He said that he got the idea from Glen Beck, which is beyond ironic).
I don't quite understand why always being the "best" person in the room would be necessary. Of course, there are bad situations, from which one would want to absent oneself.
But, seriously, how does one even KNOW if he or she is the "best" person at the gathering?
And what if everyone else had that same standard; would they then not want to exclude you, since you aren't the best person to hang out with?
posted
I've always felt that the kind of friends that were best to have really depended a lot on the individual.
I have some kids who I highly recommend they only hang out with strong, good kids...because they are highly influenced by those they spend time with. Sheep, if you will.
But, I have other kids who I never govern much their friends, because they are always the ones that have no problem using humor and they influence those around them, instead of the other way around.
We try to teach all of our kids to lead out, and be willing to influence, rather than be influenced...but some are better at it than others. I have one child in particular who I really worry about, because they are SO influenced by peers. I will have to figure out some strategies to help them choose wisely those that they hang out with.
One more thought: I also think the friend thing has a lot to do with the teenage brain. I know that I have a much easier time having friends now who do things I wouldn't, because I am firm in my faith and feel comfortable with who I am and have no need to "fit in", per se. That is not the case with most teenagers...if they are friends with people, they feel they need to embrace and approve and partake in all that their friends do.
Posts: 4290 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yay! Another thread about how the most sensible choice is to move out of Utah!
(Sorry, I am exactly 79.5% kidding.)
Life is different here where I live in the state of [Not Utah], but kids still have problems. One of our kids bore his testimony here in Colorado on Sunday. He apologized for being a jerk for the last 5 years, and he said the reason he got in so many fights in school, is because everyone would mock his faith and ask how many moms he had and whatnot. Here, the LDS kids suffer from lack of socialization because all their friends are off partying and drinking at events hosted by someone's parents.
posted
I also live in Idaho, which I have been told is even more vicious than Utah when it comes to exclusion. I am a lifelong active member.
I found with my daughters, a vicious circle: befriending girls with certain reputations led to being even more ostricized (sp?), so fell in with other girls, which led to more exclusions, until the day DD informed me SHE was the girl mothers didn't want hanging around their girls.
I remember in RS they were teaching the lesson on good companions for our youth, putting forth the idea how careful we have to be, pointing out that that attitude was exactly why my girls were not there. The attitude was, of course we don't want to hurt your kids, but we must protect our own. HMMMM I THOUGHT she was our own.
I don't know what the answer is. I only know my heart aches.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, an anecdote doesn't mean anything in the overall picture.
But here's my experience.
I grew up in South Salt Lake in an active LDS home. In those days, there were a lot of young families with kids there. My parents had no trouble allowing me to play with the Catholic boys next door, the Baptist girl across the street, and the inactive LDS boy down the street. There was a brother and sister down the street the other way whose first introduction to us was that they stole our toys. None of them were forbidden to come play.
I never received any warning at all from my parents about any of them. I didn't follow the example of the two thiefs, who also had sex with each other (although, to be fair, I'm sure my parents didn't know about that).
Anyway, there's positive and negatives anywhere you go. My own experience with South Salt Lake was that the members there were great people for the most part, similar to members everywhere.
Posts: 3382 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I are fairly non-traditional when it comes to being Mormon. Both of us grew up out side us Utah and had both LDS and non-LDS friends and in general had better relationships with the non-LDS friends.
Throughout most of our married life we have maintained two sets for friends, the LDS set and the non-LDS set, and have equally enjoyed both groups.
Now that we have moved here to Utah, we find ourselves with a distinct lack of good friends. Within the ward we have really only become friends with the other "oddball" family in the ward (also non Utah native). One of our sons has also become friends with the Catholic kid in his school class and we really like that family, since they add a bit of normalcy to our Utah experience.
Utah has a lot of good things going for it, but in most communities there is little to no appreciation for high culture, cultural diversity or alternate lifestyles.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me that it doesn't matter what happens most of the time, or even part of the time. IMO, this is something that should never happen. Overcoming someones bad experience with the LDS faith is more difficult than overcoming someone that's been fed lies about the church.
I know I don't need to go into detail about missionary church, every member a missionary, and that shunning is not to be found in any missionary tool box.
For the people that experienced being shunned the experience was real to them. I hope that any one teaching a lesson about selecting friends would teach a character based evaluation, not a belief system evaluation. Also point out that even for people of bad character we can be friendly, this is a missionary church.
Posts: 10869 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This subject is so hard for introverts. We make few friends, and that's the way we like it. Then someone comes along who wants to be our friend, and when they run into the standard introvert wall, they get all offended and think they've been shunned.
I sat in a basement with the same four or five guys for the better part of a decade. It still mystifies me: Some people thought that meant I was an unrighteously judgemental holier-than-thou goody-goody, who thought I was too good for them.
quote:Also point out that even for people of bad character we can be friendly, this is a missionary church.
I think such lessons do miss that a lot. And it's a great point which I often let slip. Not that I'm mean to those who don't meet my standards (not on purpose anyway!) but it didn't even occur to me to bring up in this discussion. Which means my mind isn't in the right place.
I agree, however, my interpretation is that some number feels universally rejected. Which is say that a significant (to them) number have rejected them.
I don't buy into the premise that the LDS church is primarily composed of introverts. Therefore, I'm assuming that at least some of these people doing the rejecting are extroverts.
In the normal course of human interaction I believe most people expect a certain amount of rejection. I think it's the apparent universal rejection that's an issue.
I really don't expect introverts to suddenly become extroverts. I hope and believe God and the leaders of the church are the same way. However, even introverts have a "normal" level of interaction. The issue is using an invalid and improper ideology to alter the interaction level of a person.
In other words when meeting a stranger we (LDS) need to interact with that stranger as if they were LDS (within the bounds of cultural normal interaction).
Posts: 10869 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're not unique or odd in this. There are always a few of other religions who do the exact same thing. Forbidding children to play with those of another belief is just a "Mormon" thing. Urging a child to date and marry someone of the same faith is not a "Mormon" thing.
I like trooperswife's comments. Each child is different and must be approached differently.
As far as my experiences go, I just don't have any to refer to that amounts to excluding a child to play with another due to religion. From Idaho, to Texas to Utah I have not met someone who practiced it of the Mormon faith or another. Several have encouraged their children to date and marry within the same faith but none to the extreme.
I am sure there are bad experiences out there but I'm not ready to believe that it is the norm. It is a cautionary example but not one that warrants denouncing Mormons as a people as rude exclusionaries.
posted
As far as dating goes, I set the bar at only dating within my religion. This was in large part due to my parents marriage. My dad was a non-member when my mother met him and started dating. He did get baptized before they married but apparently only as a token step for my mother. He was active in church for only brief periods when I was quite young as he was never truly converted. This did have negative consequences in our home.
Setting my dating bar where I did basically meant very few dates being a teenager in Texas. I think if I had ever met someone with similar standards that I liked who was not LDS, I may have succumbed to jumping the bar but I never did meet someone fitting that description.
Posts: 5576 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: but in most communities there is little to no appreciation for high culture
Oh, I don't know. While I was there I knew quite a few people who were Firefly fans. I assume that's what you were talking about.
Judging by everyone else's stories, I have such an odd personal experience. I don't remember being shunned, or shunning, or hearing about anyone shunning anyone else in high school. I hung out with my friends, we dated the girls we liked, we talked to people we wanted to talk to, we didn't talk to the people who were jerks, etc, As far as I recall it was about 30-40% LDS, 60-70% non-LDS. I can't recall ever putting any conscious thought into it at all.
It's the same reasons the movies and TV shows set in high school as so uninteresting to me. It's like they are portraying the natives of Papa New Guinea—I have no experience with that. Actually, now that I think about it, strike that example—I would be FAR more interested in a show about the teenagers of Papa New Guinea.
Posts: 2970 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always want to hear the other side of the story from these moms who won't allow their children to play with non-lds kids because I've met exactly one person whose parents did that, and by her own words her mom had lots more problems than that (including trying to make cookies more nutritious by using green beans instead of chocolate chips).
I have however, had my children, right here in Utah been told by his friend that he wasn't supposed to play with Brady because he was "not Christian". Strangely I found this out because his mom called another neighbor who called me. The mom was hurt because I wouldn't let Brady play with non-lds. It first threw me because I'd never even considered that and secondly on church records they were lds and had attended church several times. So when I questioned Brady I found out the pastor had told his friend not to play with Brady.
Then there is my adult social life. I have no problem getting lds to come to my parties, talk with me, have lunch with me etc. Sometimes I've felt I was pulling teeth to talk to non-lds/inactive (edited to change from "lds"). Strangely enough after 5 1/2 years we are finally getting some of them to warm up - I'd thought chickens were a provident living thing. Apparently that's not why we felt we should have them. As we have shared eggs our neighbors have started to warm towards us more.
quote: Apart from having the longest Church services in the civilized world
A bold claim, but not correct. The Wee Frees can make us look like lightweights. A friend's grandfather walked for three hours to go to hear a preacher on Skye that was well respected. When he got there, the preacher spoke for five hours. In Gaelic. Then, when he finished and my friend's grandfather was thinking of the three hours to get back home to his dinner, the preacher announced, "For those of you who don't have Gaelic, I will now give my sermon in English". You don't get up and leave a Wee Free meeting early.
I don't think that there is a problem with Utah, Utahns, Idaho or Idahoans per se. I think that humans tend to get comfortable when they are a majority group, and they stop paying attention to the important details of faith etc. That's why the Jews and the Nephites all needed constant kicks in the pants to remind them of how they needed to behave. The shunning is probably the result of a desire to protect their children overwhelming the requirement to welcome the stranger and to reach out to the non-believer. I think it is less frequently going to be because of people like the lady with the green bean issues.
The reason that my wife didn't date in the church was that when she was a teen, she was virtually alone in the stake. There were a couple of guys roughly five years older than her, and then no one for another five years. Why she thought that I was a good prospect is a total mystery to me, but from the offset, I was determined that I would not interfere with her faith. Maybe she found that refreshing, but she ignored a letter from another member telling her not to marry me (given to her the day before our wedding) and we have been married happily since 1986. We have two children who have been sealed to us in the temple (because I was too stupid to get baptised before they were born). I suspect that we are unusually lucky, but it does show that dating non-members is not always a disaster.
Posts: 1467 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:A bold claim, but not correct. The Wee Frees can make us look like lightweights. A friend's grandfather walked for three hours to go to hear a preacher on Skye that was well respected. When he got there, the preacher spoke for five hours. In Gaelic. Then, when he finished and my friend's grandfather was thinking of the three hours to get back home to his dinner, the preacher announced, "For those of you who don't have Gaelic, I will now give my sermon in English". You don't get up and leave a Wee Free meeting early.
Perhaps you realized this, but just to be clear: the tongue-in-cheek parenthetical that followed my statement was supposed to indicate that I was cracking-wise, not making an actual declaration of the longest Church service in the world.
quote: Choosing to live in Utah as a non-Mormon is a decision I don't regret. It has certainly come with its share of confusion, paranoia (am I the ward's "project"?), even frustration. I experienced deep cultural shock moving to a place with such an all-consuming church lifestyle, but following years of adaptation, I have come to accept and embrace the unique and sometimes quirky culture of our Mormon community.
---------
When in Rome Time, patience, education, communication, and the willingness to make an effort all contributed to my finding acceptance as well as happiness in Mayberry. Culture shock ran its course while mutual trust and respect were earned. I came to realize that even though the Sesame Street song “One of These Things Is Not Like the Others” may have been true about one aspect of my existence in a small, Utah community, the rest of the things about all of us were human and very much “like the others.”
It was like a voice from above boomed, “Lighten up, Francis.” So I did. I began enjoying life, my neighbors, and some of the perks of my community.
Neighbor Gifts It was Christmas 2002. The doorbell rang for at least the sixth time that evening. My parents were visiting from Arizona for our first Christmas in Utah.
“Is that another goodie?” asked Dad as I returned to the kitchen with an object in my hand.
“It’s an extension cord with a little rhyme on the note. They’re ‘extending’ their wishes for the merriest of Christmases to us. That is so creative.”
“An extension cord? Are you kidding me? I’ve never seen so much stuff. All those treats and odd items.” Dad motioned to the pantry shelf that was the placeholder for the neighbor gifts. “Do you know all these people?”
“Not really. But they’re so nice. My friend in Salt Lake City said when she first moved here, she wasn’t prepared for neighbor gifts either. She said now she has all of her gifts ready in a basket so she can pass them out when people come to her door. Kind of like Halloween. I had no idea how many people did this until a couple of days ago. It’s so fun!”
The doorbell rang again.
Dad said, “Quick. Run and get a jar of Vicks and put a bow on it.”
Right now, I am living in a home with two different families merged. 8 kids under 10. Pretty noisy at times. English, Spanish. One of my granddaughters just arrived from Honduras in December, knowing no English. She and her sisters sit at the table, talking and laughing. Really happy. Sometimes, because my Spanish is pretty limited, I become paranoid. I hear 'abuela' and laughter and I think, "are they laughing at me?' The rational part of my brain dismisses it but I am not totally rational.
How much of the hurt the woman in the OP has had comes from the paranoia we have when we don't really understand the culture or language around us? How much comes from her own feelings of guilt that she assumed others were judging her for? (part of her issues). How much came from real actions of her neighbors ? I don't know.
If our children bring home a 'less desirable' child, do we freak out? Do we tell them to not hang out with 'that' kids? It is a tough one.
quote: I have a hard time teaching lessons which include the idea of "choose good friends." This always seems to be expanded to "only hang out with Mormons."
I find the attitude troubling. My younger nephew has been ostracized from his young men's group. He's an Eagle Scout and a kind, caring, excellent young man. But his parents are inactive, and they smoke. So kick him to the curb.
He recently got his GED, so he stopped going to school. His best friend at school had to find other people to hang out with during the day. The friend is also a nice boy, but not LDS, and has (GASP!!) an earring. Well, the Mormon kids wanted nothing to do with the friend, so he hung out with some other kids, and made choices that got him (the friend) into trouble.
There really are people who are hurt and they are hurt by us. Our actions, good and bad, have eternal consequences.
Posts: 5050 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is a cautionary example but not one that warrants denouncing Mormons as a people as rude exclusionaries.
I have suspicions that these are isolated incidents. And I have been trying very hard to not throw blame at any particular community, large or small.
However, when I said it doesn't matter if it happens if it happens most of the time or part of the time. A corollary is that it doesn't matter if it happens statewide or on a single block. Also, it doesn't matter how many other cultures have similar practices. Excuses do not alter the badness of the action.
We all find ourselves at various times in our lives teaching other people. Adults or children, doesn't matter (adults will later teach children). So, I'm saying it's something to teach against whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I also think it's a bad idea to be dismissive about it. Other groups do it so we're not so bad. Happens in some other neighborhood not mine.
Posts: 10869 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Occasionally I hear of members offending those of other faiths by overlooking them and leaving them out. This can occur especially in communities where our members are the majority. I have heard about narrow-minded parents who tell children that they cannot play with a particular child in the neighborhood simply because his or her family does not belong to our Church. This kind of behavior is not in keeping with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot comprehend why any member of our Church would allow these kinds of things to happen. I have been a member of this Church my entire life. I have been a full-time missionary, twice a bishop, a mission president, a Seventy, and now an Apostle. I have never taught—nor have I ever heard taught—a doctrine of exclusion. I have never heard the members of this Church urged to be anything but loving, kind, tolerant, and benevolent to our friends and neighbors of other faiths.
Read the whole thing. It's one of the best General Conference talks I've ever heard.
Posts: 5983 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
My response was lighthearted as well! I thought it would be uplifting to know that there are people in this world who would find a 20 minute travelogue in F&T to be the equivalent of a one liner. Coincidentally, the person whose grandfather enjoyed the sermon in Gaelic and English was my friend Alex who I have mentioned on another thread.
Posts: 1467 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also think it's a bad idea to be dismissive about it. Other groups do it so we're not so bad. Happens in some other neighborhood not mine.
As I stated, these incidents should be cautionary examples. They do need to be addressed but often those critical of the church like to dwell on them and blow them out of proportion. Often these examples are cited as the norm and not the exception. I just want to be sure we put the problem in the proper perspective and not beat ourselves over it or allow others to use these examples to define us as I believe that is also a bad idea.
quote: I just want to be sure we put the problem in the proper perspective and not beat ourselves over it or allow others to use these examples to define us as I believe that is also a bad idea.
I agree. I also wish we could have unity about it. Instead of beating up specific areas of the world that we perceive to have problems with it we should pull together and say "this practice is wrong". That is what Elder Ballard did in his talk. He didn't limit this to Utah or southern Idaho, though he mentioned it is more common where our members are a majority. He just stated that exclusion wasn't a part of the gospel.
There is no pointing fingers when you are trying to cultivate unity. How can we hope to become one with those outside of the church when we can't even have unity within the church?
Posts: 4949 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
what about the five year old kid who comes into your house, talks about "sexing the missus" and talks like a toilet. His parents are sexual swingers, drug addicts? Sure he knows no better, but clearly he has no understanding of how to treat girls?
You can't save all kids... some get a bum rap.
Posts: 13035 | Registered: Oct 98
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe we should reserve judgement on that till we have done tomorrow's lesson in Priesthood/RS. President Smith seems to have been quite fond of the entire human race, potty mouth or no.
Posts: 1467 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:what about the five year old kid who comes into your house, talks about "sexing the missus" and talks like a toilet. His parents are sexual swingers, drug addicts? Sure he knows no better, but clearly he has no understanding of how to treat girls?
Not letting someone come into your house, isn't the same thing as shunning.
We're pretty tight with our next door neighbors, and the kids like each other, although we don't let their kids into our house.
Posts: 2119 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowing how some kids enunciate, I think there is a good chance he didn't say what you think he said. At least, I'd hope.
Posts: 5050 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
rayb has posted about these neighbor children several times. His house appears to be their "safe place to fall". Between the lines, I have read the pain and frustration he feels for those kids and their situation.
Posts: 2600 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have lived behind the Zion curtain for years and I have never known anyone that wont let their kids play with kids who aren't Mormon. I do know people who don't let their kids play with kids whose families they don't know and that seems to be where the Mormon thing actually comes in. They don't know the non-member family and so it is harder to make that connection. Especially in a neighborhood where you know every one else.
I did have one friend who was an evangelical Christian and was lovely to me but didn't want our kids to hang out. I was fine with that. Kids ruin lunch dates.
And I am absolutely fine with my kids not dating outside the church. No problem. I don't know if they would or not but I don't see that as a bad standard. If marrying in the covenant is important, I don't see why dating members wouldn't be as well.
Posts: 7941 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curelom! Not President Smith, the people he loved! Anyway, the lesson (for anyone who wasn't in RS/Priesthood today) was about urging us to love everyone and understand that everyone is our brother or sister, even those who don't follow our standards.
Posts: 1467 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) the LDS Church demands quite a lot from its members. In time certainly, but also in decorum, activity and personal choices. It is certainly possible to be a non-member and share the same goals and manner as one who is, but the sheer volume of directions and beliefs make such a possibility unlikely to say the least. Differences in goals, in manner and in recreation make a shaky foundation to a relationship you wish to last at least a lifetime. Raising children in an environment of unsettled views on the fundamental properties of the world cannot be a simple task. All of which is not to say that such a union can’t result in contentment, but it seems hardly unreasonable if one were to limit oneself to dating only within the Church. And hard to call such a decision callous or unfeeling: it is simply recognition of reality, personal desires and abilities.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Or maybe you have a different GA in mind.
