Letting our kids be friends with Non-church member neighbors.

[Thinking]

I grew up in Southern California. There were only a handful of active LDS students at my high school. The only thing I had in common with any of them was the church. They were my Sunday friends. My normal friends pretty much put no pressure on me to drink or do drugs or party hard.

[cherryTreez]

14 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

The only experience I have is knowledge of a close friend's experience here in Lincoln City... in her neighborhood, she (RS pres) and her husband (a city police officer) were the only LDS in their neighborhood, and it was their children that were shunned... in fact, none of the other children were allowed by their parents to go into their yard and certainly not to enter the house.   

GG

I was the only lds kid at school.  Other kids were not allowed to play with me because of the church. 

My kids hang out with mostly lds kids. They are together a lot in church and form friendships. It makes sense for them to be friends.  They have non member friends as well, but do more with the lds kids.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Thinking said:

My normal friends pretty much put no pressure on me to drink or do drugs or party hard.

So Mormons are ABnomal, hey?

Sounds like we need a name change or something

https://youtu.be/p9MKDWvtk6Q

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/5/2019 at 11:41 AM, USU78 said:

In practice, I doubt the incidents of shunning of neighbor children by LDS are, by percentage, greater than shunning of LDS neighbor children by non-LDS.

That said, my wife was unbaptized till she turned 18, and she, although active and an a seminary participant, was shunned both by the good Christians of Lynchburg and many of the folks inside the Church on this score.  She was considered too risky to be permitted to date the sons of the Stake President and others.  A nasty piece of business to be sure.

Your wife is a brave soul, Sir.  It sounds like you married well (more than once, too, at that!)

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So Mormons are ABnomal, hey?

Not necessarily. Perhaps I was the abnormal one. None of them were involved in the same activities or were even in the same classes.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sounds like we need a name change or something

Peculiar People?

 

[Thinking]

On 8/5/2019 at 11:41 AM, USU78 said:

In practice, I doubt the incidents of shunning of neighbor children by LDS are, by percentage, greater than shunning of LDS neighbor children by non-LDS.

You sir have hit the nail on the head IMO.

On 8/5/2019 at 11:41 AM, USU78 said:

That said, my wife was unbaptized till she turned 18, and she, although active and an a seminary participant, was shunned both by the good Christians of Lynchburg and many of the folks inside the Church on this score.  She was considered too risky to be permitted to date the sons of the Stake President and others.  A nasty piece of business to be sure.

I was aware of some who would only consider those who were descended from pioneers.

 

 

 

[why me]

On 8/5/2019 at 8:41 PM, USU78 said:

In practice, I doubt the incidents of shunning of neighbor children by LDS are, by percentage, greater than shunning of LDS neighbor children by non-LDS.

That said, my wife was unbaptized till she turned 18, and she, although active and an a seminary participant, was shunned both by the good Christians of Lynchburg and many of the folks inside the Church on this score.  She was considered too risky to be permitted to date the sons of the Stake President and others.  A nasty piece of business to be sure.

Maybe shunning is the wrong word. It has strong connotations. I think that in the mormon corridor kids are so involved with other mormons that they would have little time for non members. And of course it depends on values. Of course if a teenager comes into the neighborhood and they enjoy alcohol or drugs or have values not in sync with lds values most parents would not want their kids to hang around such a kid. Thats only normal. What does the lds church teach? I think that it teaches to befriend non members, be example to them and hopefully they will join the lds church through being a good example. Or just to be loving to your neighbor. I don't see any shunning taught.

[why me]

On 8/6/2019 at 3:46 AM, The Nehor said:

It is also worth noting there has been a culture shift. When I was young there were a lot more church activities at all levels and previous to my birth there were even more. Many only had church friends because they had no time to cultivate others except at work (meaning men had more friends outside the church). Some added in neighborhood friends but in Utah that was still mostly members. With the consolidated block and decreased activities we can branch out more.

This is true now. And I would guess as they do branch out, some will succumb to non member values. This is only natural. As time is becoming more limited, church members are told to do more teaching in their homes. But I would think that  many members just occupy their time with non mormon things and not use the time to teach more at home. There seems to be a survival of the strong now. A sort of social darwinism inside the church.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/5/2019 at 4:03 PM, RevTestament said:

 I guess I've never quite learned how to be Utahn.... 

I made it through one whole year in Salt Lake.  I had just joined the church and I wanted to live in Zion.

It wasn't.  😯

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I was aware of some who would only consider those who were descended from pioneers.

As if genetics had something to do with it?  Before my wife was baptized into the church at 19, while growing up in Utah she was often told by other kids how she was going to Hell because she wasn't a Mormon. It was amazing she was able to see past all that and still join the Church. After she joined she was sometimes told that it really takes about 4 generations before a person is a real strong member of the church.  She would tell them OK I will just stand over there with other converts like Joseph Smith,  Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Hartman Rector Jr., etc.  

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

As if genetics had something to do with it?  Before my wife was baptized into the church at 19, while growing up in Utah she was often told by other kids how she was going to Hell because she wasn't a Mormon. It was amazing she was able to see past all that and still join the Church. After she joined she was sometimes told that it really takes about 4 generations before a person is a real strong member of the church.  She would tell them OK I will just stand over there with other converts like Joseph Smith,  Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Hartman Rector Jr., etc.  

That makes no sense. I have six generations and I am pretty mediocre.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I made it through one whole year in Salt Lake.  I had just joined the church and I wanted to live in Zion.

It wasn't.  😯

I probably seem overly critical of Utah members. Overall Utah is a pretty nice place to live. All in all I just haven't really enjoyed being in the Church in Utah. Many members are super nice, thoughtful, caring people though. It is probably really just me. I tend to be an independent thinker, which is how I ended up in the Church. But to me there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room in Utah for independent thought. It is more like tow the line without questioning. That is just against my nature. I feel smothered. I like examining things in new light. I like pursuing the mysteries of God. I like learning, and one of my avocations has become learning about the nature of God. To the extent that is different from the Church narrative, I have to say I haven't felt welcome, and feel somewhat ostracized. Most people probably won't have my experience. 

The sum total of my experience with California is the LA airport.... so I can't say whether Ca is more zionish than Utah. I doubt it. What I can do is try to live zionish....  

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I made it through one whole year in Salt Lake.  I had just joined the church and I wanted to live in Zion.

It wasn't.  😯

Salt Lake has changed a lot since you lived here, though I don't know if I would say (or if you would think) that it's changed for better or for worse.    Given the advantages you've probably had in some of the other places that you've lived, I could understand why it might not be your cup of [herbal!] tea.

While I know that, often in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we speak of Zion less as a place than as a state of heart and mind (and I think it is that), looking at some of the things that happen in other places and the conditions that prevail in some areas (and even, to a certain extent, things that happen here and conditions that prevail in some areas here, such as crime, poverty, squalor, desperation, and on and on), when it comes to reestablishing physical, literal Zion, I'm tempted to say, "Hasten the day!  Is the prophet looking for volunteers to walk back to Missouri?  Let me grab my crutches!"   

While I'm quite fiscally and socially conservative, I can understand why a lot of people are concerned by income inequality (which, in turn, results in other forms of inequality).  I'd like to own a fairly small (say, 1,000 square foot) free-standing house on a (very) small, xeriscaped plot.  (There are a couple of features I would like that I think would be difficult to have in a higher-density situation such as a condo or a townhouse.)  But, in large part because real estate tends to appreciate like heck (either that or the bottom drops out and you end up owing more on it than it's worth), it ...

ain't ...

gonna ...

happen.

I'll never be able to afford it.

Would a lot of us have to give a lot of [material] stuff up to reestablish Zion?  Perhaps.  Would it be the kind of "stuff" that we would rue having to give up?  I doubt it, otherwise we wouldn't be a Zion people.  Some people in a Zion society would have considerably less than they had outside that society, but that's only because they had considerably more to begin with.  I'd like to think that if I had the means, I wouldn't mind giving up an "upper-class" or an "upper-middle-class" existence to settle for "solidly middle-class" so that others could have that kind of existence by moving from "lower class" to "solidly middle class."  Most of the well-to-do Latter-day Saints I have known seem to have had that attitude, as well.

I think a lot of people of varying socieconomic, religious, and cultural backgrounds would want to join us in Zion, not necessarily because they agree with us religiously, but because they would say something like, "You know what? those Mormons [sic] might be weird, but that Zion thing they've got going on?  That's not half-bad!"  Far more people would be far better off in [literal, physical] Zion than they would be elsewhere because "a rising tide lifts all boats," and the government wouldn't have to redistribute a single cent for it to happen.

All of this having been said, I'm not necessarily a "Zion Person": I'll need most of eternity to finally make that happen.  But perhaps I can have a nice little cottage just on the outskirts of the Celestial City.  

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

On 8/5/2019 at 3:12 PM, Jeanne said:

As a child, I was not allowed to have non mormon friends.

Please do not misunderstand me- I do not mean to give you answers over the internet when I do not know you even a little, except by your posts.

I have noticed that your posts tend to be against what you see as authoritarianism in the church, and what you see as its "truth claims" etc.  Nearly always I think "The church doesn't teach that".  In my personal opinion you see authoritarianism in the church that I do not see after being a member for 40 years and most of that in leadership positions on various levels, though I have never been in a stake presidency.

Is it possible the fact you have just revealed above has anything to do with your belief that the church is authoritarian?

I don't mean to pry- it just crossed my mind that there might be a connection there, and if so, you might want to ponder it.

[bsjkki]

My inactive niece and nephew would like to move back to Utah and be closer to family. They just had their first child and are worried about how he will be treated by members. It is a valid concern. 

[USU78]

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your wife is a brave soul, Sir.  It sounds like you married well (more than once, too, at that!)

Her struggles continued after she moved, at age 19, to Utah, knowing few people, having no education or kills, but a burning testimony and a sucky used car (though the bruises on her whatchacallit from the pincers of the pigs that surrounded His Nibs in Lynchburg when she worked shifts during and after big events at His Nibs' church faded by the time she got to Zion).  There wasn't much infrastructure to help out a convert girl from Baptist Central.

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Salt Lake has changed a lot since you lived here, though I don't know if I would say (or if you would think) that it's changed for better or for worse.    Given the advantages you've probably had in some of the other places that you've lived, I could understand why it might not be your cup of [herbal!] tea.

While I know that, often in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we speak of Zion less as a place than as a state of heart and mind (and I think it is that), looking at some of the things that happen in other places and the conditions that prevail in some areas (and even, to a certain extent, things that happen here and conditions that prevail in some areas here, such as crime, poverty, squalor, desperation, and on and on), when it comes to reestablishing physical, literal Zion, I'm tempted to say, "Hasten the day!  Is the prophet looking for volunteers to walk back to Missouri?  Let me grab my crutches!"   

While I'm quite fiscally and socially conservative, I can understand why a lot of people are concerned by income inequality (which, in turn, results in other forms of inequality).  I'd like to own a fairly small (say, 1,000 square foot) free-standing house on a (very) small, xeriscaped plot.  (There are a couple of features I would like that I think would be difficult to have in a higher-density situation such as a condo or a townhouse.)  But, in large part because real estate tends to appreciate like heck (either that or the bottom drops out and you end up owing more on it than it's worth), it ...

ain't ...

gonna ...

happen.

I'll never be able to afford it.

Would a lot of us have to give a lot of [material] stuff up to reestablish Zion?  Perhaps.  Would it be the kind of "stuff" that we would rue having to give up?  I doubt it, otherwise we wouldn't be a Zion people.  Some people in a Zion society would have considerably less than they had outside that society, but that's only because they had considerably more to begin with.  I'd like to think that if I had the means, I wouldn't mind giving up an "upper-class" or an "upper-middle-class" existence to settle for "solidly middle-class" so that others could have that kind of existence by moving from "lower class" to "solidly middle class."  Most of the well-to-do Latter-day Saints I have known seem to have had that attitude, as well.

I think a lot of people of varying socieconomic, religious, and cultural backgrounds would want to join us in Zion, not necessarily because they agree with us religiously, but because they would say something like, "You know what? those Mormons [sic] might be weird, but that Zion thing they've got going on?  That's not half-bad!"  Far more people would be far better off in [literal, physical] Zion than they would be elsewhere because "a rising tide lifts all boats," and the government wouldn't have to redistribute a single cent for it to happen.

All of this having been said, I'm not necessarily a "Zion Person": I'll need most of eternity to finally make that happen.  But perhaps I can have a nice little cottage just on the outskirts of the Celestial City.  

 

Would you consider a tiny home? https://tinyhouselistings.com/search?lat=40.3641&lng=-111.739&purchase_type=purchase&search=Pleasant Grove%2C Utah%2C United States of America

https://utahtinyhomecommunity.blogspot.com/2016/10/pleasant-grove-legalizes-tiny-homes.html?fbclid=IwAR1c1gGEgFCWxeicjywUsKzSbWpaWO8ZCAn9GDBdv9csaBKMCZavNne7vsM

ETA: Or a mobile home. There are some nice parks out there, that give you some land to work with. I've lived in one before while saving for a home. I had four children under the age of 8 and we lived there for 4 years! Of course the lot fees now are more. But at least you own the home, not the land. So same thing if you moved to a property in a tiny home. Of course a park would have sewer, garbage etc. or more ammenities. And you are able to plant a garden/flowers etc. And you aren't a wall away from your next door neighbor. 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Tacenda

[JAHS]

So how would this go over. Let's say you as a church member have a small child who met another child in the neighborhood who is not a member and wants to play with him and be friends.
Would it be reasonable for you to contact the other kid's parents and ask if you could come and talk with them (or invite them over) about the desires for them to be friends and get to know the parents
and let them know what your child is allowed to do and see and what he is not allowed to do and see or be exposed to? Would this be asking for too much or would even this not be enough
to alleviate any fears about them playing together at each other's house? Or is all of this completely unnecessary?

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So how would this go over. Let's say you as a church member have a small child who met another child in the neighborhood who is not a member and wants to play with him and be friends.
Would it be reasonable for you to contact the other kid's parents and ask if you could come and talk with them (or invite them over) about the desires for them to be friends and get to know the parents
and let them know what your child is allowed to do and see and what he is not allowed to do and see or be exposed to? Would this be asking for too much or would even this not be enough
to alleviate any fears about them playing together at each other's house? Or is all of this completely unnecessary?

I wouldn't ever let a young child play at another's house no matter if they were a member or not. I would ask the new neighbor if they'd like to go to a park with you and your child and have a play date all together. Years ago I made a terrible mistake letting my young daughter play at someone's house in the neighborhood that was related to someone I knew well. We were new to the neighborhood and very trusting, but no more.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

having no education or kills

That threw me for a second....

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wouldn't ever let a young child play at another's house no matter if they were a member or not. I would ask the new neighbor if they'd like to go to a park with you and your child and have a play date all together. Years ago I made a terrible mistake letting my young daughter play at someone's house in the neighborhood that was related to someone I knew well. We were new to the neighborhood and very trusting, but no more.

Definitely a safer way to go but would be difficult to practice.  Playing together and being friends usually involves things like playing video games, sleep-overs, parties, watching movies, eating meals, etc. 

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

That threw me for a second....

😂🤣😂

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Definitely a safer way to go but would be difficult to practice.  Playing together and being friends usually involves things like playing video games, sleep-overs, parties, watching movies, eating meals, etc. 

Sleepovers are easily avoided, but playing in each other’s homes is essential imo for a close relationship. I had a next door friend who was over to our house all the time, but due to her mother’s issue with cleanliness (the type where we were afraid to walk on their lawn, who threatened dog owners, etc....great looking lawn, btw) I probably was in her home twice in the 6 years we lived there while she was in ours many times a month. It was a very unequal relationship where it was hard to know where I stood in terms of how much was actual liking and how much was convenience (free babysitting, entertainment, etc)

Edited August 7, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sleepovers are easily avoided, but playing in each other’s homes is essential imo for a close relationship. I had a next door friend who was over to our house all the time, but due to her mother’s issue with cleanliness (the type where we were afraid to walk on their lawn, who threatened dog owners, etc....great looking lawn, btw) I probably was in her home twice in the 6 years we lived there while she was in ours many times a month. It was a very unequal relationship where it was hard to know where I stood in terms of how much was actual liking and how much was convenience (free babysitting, entertainment, etc)

I just meant real young children, JAHS mentioned a small child. Were you old enough that you could tell an adult if you were harmed or exposed to things that are harmful? But honestly, sleepovers should be a big no-no. I enjoyed them growing up but did have an older boy abuse a neighbor during the night at one of them, so it happens to older children as well.

But I know this is getting depressing and the OP wasn't necessarily talking about abuse, but attitudes. So I hope more won't be discussed on this, my fault of course.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Please dby o not misunderstand me- I do not mean to give you answers over the internet when I do not know you even a little, except by your posts.

I have noticed that your posts tend to be against what you see as authoritarianism in the church, and what you see as its "truth claims" etc.  Nearly always I think "The church doesn't teach that".  In my personal opinion you see authoritarianism in the church that I do not see after being a member for 40 years and most of that in leadership positions on various levels, though I have never been in a stake presidency.

Is it possible the fact you have just revealed above has anything to do with your belief that the church is authoritarian?

I don't mean to pry- it just crossed my mind that there might be a connection there, and if so, you might want to ponder it.

Actually, I should have clarified my truth.  There are not a lot of church authorities that specified that one should stay away from other faiths...other than from lessons taught to seek marriage and good friendships with faithful members.  That being said....I was taught by my priesthood holding father as head of the household that I would not be allowed to play with or invite non mormons to my home. In a tiny all white LDS town with two families maybe that were catholics...going to jr high and high school in Tooele was a new world....!  One that Dad had a hard time accepting.  But there are a lot of teachings that were taught to an extreme in my home that would church authority would see differently.