More Exclusion...Lds Child Not Admitted To "Christian" School

[Libs]

I haven't really read this thread and needless to say, I think the discrimination is wrong...but, I have to wonder why an LDS parent would want their child in an Evangelical Christian school. Normally, religious classes are required, and it seems like they would be learning a lot of things counter to their own religion. Not to speak of the whole idea that the LDS child would not even be considered Christian.

[Calm]

I don't personally think the discrimination wrong. Teachers have enough problems trying to not say the wrong things to kids to avoid setting them up with poor self esteem or being picked on by other kids or just having them go home feeling like they don't belong with the rest of the class. If the teachers are under contract to teach a certain set of beliefs that put them in the position of telling a child his or her own beliefs are wrong, his or her parents are wrong and the teacher believes their beliefs may send them to hell....and have to tell the kids these kinds of things in front of a class where it will be picked up and handled quite differently than the teacher would want it to if there is an ounce of kindness in her heart....no, I just don't see how it is appropriate to ask a teacher to operate under those circumstances.

I would assume that a school that emphasizes teaching religion wants to have it taught in all subjects (much like BYU wanted teachers to add religious/spiritual principles to their classes while I was there; my logic teacher, IIRC, bore his testimony for a few minutes at the beginning of the semester and then said something along the lines of "now that we've got that out of the way, let's get on to logic" and nothing more religious was said the rest of the semester). If so, then the unfortunate opportunity to tell nonbelieving children (in the standards set by the school) they are wrong with the implication they are going to hell if they don't change is going to occur again and again.

I can understand an LDS parent wanting a child in a good environment in a good school, but I don't think it is fair to ask either the child or the teacher to deal with the difficulties this creates.

Edited June 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

I can understand an LDS parent wanting a child in a good environment in a good school, but I don't think it is fair to ask either the child or the teacher to deal with the difficulties this creates.

That, I could agree with. Private schools are, of course, legally allowed to discriminate in any way they feel is proper. I can also understand LDS parents wanting their child in a good environment...just not sure how, a school teaching things contrary to their religion (not even just contrary, but somewhat hostile towards their religion) could be considered a good environment for an LDS child?

[BlueDreams]

I don't understand it entirely as well. I think the school has every right to discriminate as they see fit and I wouldn't want my kids going to an evangelical private school anyways. Teen memories of living in the bible-belt are too strong for that. I do understand being frustrated at once being able to go and then suddenly being asked to leave by enforcing a policy no one made aware to me while enrolling my child. That would be annoying as a whole.

Still the school has the right. Consistency would have been nice though

Libs,

Often there is plenty of common ground to build on. My little brother went to a catholic-run preschool and my other bro went to a vacation bible camp a number of times. THere wasn't a whole lot we wouldn't have agreed with. The most they teach (especially young children) is fairly basic....bible stories and such. And I assume the children would continue to receive the majority of their religious education from home and church. So I don't think conflicting school teaching would be a problem, no more than going to another service would be a problem. Doing so, for myself, has personally helped strengthen my understanding and appreciation for my faith and I'd hope my children would receive the same.

Storm and Bernard,

I too lived in the south and experienced the overt misunderstanding and suspicion that came with being mormon in a heavily evangelical/non-denom population. Even among my friends my opinion could be discreditted by saying, well you are a mormon. Others would have ridiculous notions about mormonism, there were radio broadcasts about the evils of mormonism or deride us more subtley as just obviously wrong, etc. You could always tell when they had a local special on mormonism becuase there would be a sudden increase in questions about the faith that were similar and terribly idiotic. Plus we had an aunt who was the daughter of a baptist minister who would use religion as a means to wedge a gap in our extended family. The stories go on and on. That stated, I think it a terrible wrong to paint all evangelicals with the same brush. I remember the first time I went to an evangelical service as a teen. I felt like some spy going behind enemy lines, hoping my mom wouldn't blab about our faith. And to my horror she did. The people were nice and as my mom, bawling about the troubles our aunt had put her through and how nice the service was, the person she talked to had a pretty strong look of disapproval for the behavior. For a while she would go church hopping, going from mega-church to church each sunday night....it was almost a form of therapy to help her let go of the resentment that had spilled out. They were still wrong on many points, especially when it came to depicting our faith. But overall it was a positive experience for her. Our neighbors were of all sorts of faith and we got along fine with them. The bad experiences still stick out like a sore thumb. But it is disengenuous to paint them all (or even the majority) in the same poor light. Just as it is equally wrong that so many did so to our faith.

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

It is possible the policy was changed because of problems for LDS children and complaints were made by LDS parents and the admin. wanted to avoid such in the future. The school didn't want to become more open to accommodate as they might have seen that as lowering their standards so instead they became less open.

Edited June 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Ron Beron]

Has any Mormon apologized to Catholics and Protestants for Joseph Smith writing in his vision account that all

their creeds are an abomination to God or [others stating] that all their baptisms and ordinations are really

useless because they are said not to have the proper priesthood authority?

Come to think of it, has any LDS President apologized in any way to another religious faith (apart from the

backlash that arose when some deceased Jews were proxy-baptized)?

As for my apology, I am sorry but I do not believe in Joseph Smith's teaching that a man became a God (i.e.

Elohim), nor do I worship this being. But as always, we can agree to disagree.

Thanks,

Jim

Apologize for telling the truth? Why?

[Saints Alive]

Apologize for telling the truth? Why?

that statement can cut both ways.

[Storm Rider]

Has any Mormon apologized to Catholics and Protestants for Joseph Smith writing in his vision account that all

their creeds are an abomination to God or [others stating] that all their baptisms and ordinations are really

useless because they are said not to have the proper priesthood authority?

This type of question shows an extreme degree of ignorance. First, Joseph Smith did not say the creeds were an abomination, God did. If you or anyone else has a problem with that, you need to talk to God about it.

Come to think of it, has any LDS President apologized in any way to another religious faith (apart from the backlash that arose when some deceased Jews were proxy-baptized)?

I had to get up off the floor from laughing so hard. Apologize to another church....for what? We are sorry you killed our prophet; we are sorry that your ministers feel compelled to deride the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than teach repentance and baptism? We are sorry that you don't know your Bible very well. We are sorry that you like to picket wherever we build a church building or temple. We are sorry that you devote untold millions of dollars to lies, distortion, misinformation, etc. in order to denigrate our beliefs. Exactly where should we stop? As for me and our house, we will serve the Lord and it is to him from whom we will seek forgiveness.

As for my apology, I am sorry but I do not believe in Joseph Smith's teaching that a man became a God (i.e. Elohim), nor do I worship this being. But as always, we can agree to disagree. Thanks, Jim

Please read this carefully: we could not care less if you believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet, the restoration, the resurrection of Jesus, or anything else. It is not our responsibility to make you believe! Our only responsibility is to teach by the Holy Spirit. After we have fulfilled the Great Commission, we are washed the blood and sins of this generation from our hands and they become liable for their own lives. You will need to answer God for how you lived your life and no one else.

Please do not so silly as to portray there is another God except God. There is One God and he is the Father. It is to him that each LDS prays; it is the same God to whom Jesus prayed. If you don't pray to him, we say great. You have your agency to pray to a rock, to the wind, to a tree, to anything else. BUT, when people pray and God of the universe answers, don't play games of semantics. Know that it is God and be still.

[Pahoran]

Has any Mormon apologized to Catholics and Protestants for Joseph Smith writing in his vision account that all their creeds are an abomination to God or [others stating] that all their baptisms and ordinations are really

useless because they are said not to have the proper priesthood authority?

Of course not. Why should we apologise for telling the truth?

Come to think of it, has any LDS President apologized in any way to another religious faith (apart from the backlash that arose when some deceased Jews were proxy-baptized)?

I presume by "backlash" you mean a loud and rather impotent whine, and by "apologized" you mean agreed to reiterate the long-standing policy that names submitted for proxy baptisms should be of direct ancestral family members.

Apart from that, no.

As for my apology, I am sorry but I do not believe in Joseph Smith's teaching that a man became a God (i.e. Elohim), nor do I worship this being. But as always, we can agree to disagree.

Thanks,

Jim

Indeed. You can believe your doctrine, and we will believe God's.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Of the 700 million people who identify as Evangelical (Lausanne Global Analysis, 2010) how many would you say you've been exposed to? How many have you known on a personal basis, i.e., counted as friends? Just curious. I've been living "among them" for decades and my experience is quite different.

I agree with you that all of us have limited exposure the the 700 million people who identify as Evangelical, or indeed to whatever fraction of them who actually attend church on any given Sunday.

But we do have a few data points to go on with. For example, we have been exposed to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

I agree with you that all of us have limited exposure the the 700 million people who identify as Evangelical, or indeed to whatever fraction of them who actually attend church on any given Sunday.

But we do have a few data points to go on with. For example, we have been exposed to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

So, am I to assume your data point places me as among the "lost people full of hate, contention, dishonesty and evil"?

[theplains]

First of all, Joseph never said that. That's a caricature. What he said was that God is a man like ourselves,

He did teach that. If you don't believe me, you can confirm it with your ward's bishop. If he is not sure about the source

material, let me know and I will provide some.

Second, do you believe the New Testament's teaching that the divine became man?

Yes. Jesus is fully God and fully man.

If so, then what's so crazy about man becoming divine?

I noticed from the email that I received when you replied to my post that you originally asked, "If so, then what's so crazy

about man becoming God?"

Why did you change becoming God to becoming divine? Is this due to some theological difference?

It is not a crazy idea that a man and woman from another planet became the Heavenly Father and Mother of our

planet. I just don't believe this or the LDS gospel principle that "if we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of

joy that our heavenly parents have received". I also don't believe "through a continual course of progression, our Heavenly

Father has received exaltation and glory, and He points us out the same path".

Thanks,

Jim

[Mudcat]

Then I would want my ordination to serve as a bishop in the LDS church to be recognized by the Catholic Church.

I would also want to be bishop of your church.

Bernard

Sorry for the snarky overtones Bernard and the delayed response.

I guess in my thinking, membership in the CoJCoLDS is an exclusive sort of thing.. like any church I suppose. I think the "one true" thing sort of exaserbates the concept...

I just don't see that LDS who feel they have been excluded from this or that on religious grounds have much of leg to stand on.

I dunno what the Catholics would say about your bishopric, my own church doesn't have bishops. We believe all believers men and women have the priesthood of Christ, though. But.. I'd be happy to let you teach my Sunday School class. The class is for our orchestra, so it's a little abreviated.. to allow for a short rehersal and warmups. Only contingent being that you bring your own instrument and sit in with us.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[altersteve]

He did teach that. If you don't believe me, you can confirm it with your ward's bishop. If he is not sure about the source

material, let me know and I will provide some.

I'm aware of the sources where Joseph appears to have taught (according to some interpretations) that God was once exactly like us. I just don't think that's what he meant.

I don't bother my bishop with things like this anyway.

I noticed from the email that I received when you replied to my post that you originally asked, "If so, then what's so crazy

about man becoming God?"

Why did you change becoming God to becoming divine? Is this due to some theological difference?

I just thought it would have been more accurate to say "divine" rather than "God."

It is not a crazy idea that a man and woman from another planet became the Heavenly Father and Mother of our

planet. I just don't believe this

Me neither. God is the God of everything, not just "our planet." I don't believe He is a man "from another planet," only that He lived somewhere as a mortal, like Jesus Christ did. This, in my opinion, is what Joseph Smith taught.

Edited June 10, 2012 by altersteve

[Aliwe]

Has Jesus apologized to the saducees and pharisees for the things he said about them?

No, but in the throes of the painful execution they finagled for him from the Romans, Jesus forgave them. Go thou and do likewise.