Mormon Softball Team Banned From Mercer County Christian League

[oats]

Switch softball games to Monday night FHE slot. No mormons, no problems.

[Scott Lloyd]

But when the subject was brought up for discussion, and in a most compassionate way by a long time active member who was obviously disturbed by the exclusion of the LDS teams, another member (not sure if he was active or not) simply responded: "exactly how I felt being exclude from seeing my daughter being married in the Mesa temple"! Could have heard a pin drop in a group that was having such a great time up until then.

Maybe that's because, as with most cheap shots, this one caught everybody off guard.

[Kenngo1969]

It's unloving in the sense that they might give the impression to the unsaved that they are saved, thus impeding their rejection of a nonchristian faith for a true faith in Christ (in their POV). Think of it as if we didn't teach to nonmembers our belief that temple ordinances were essential for exaltation.

Fair enough. Fortunately for us, however, we know from scripture that, even if He might employ servants to prevent the wrong people from participating in softball leagues , Christ alone is the keeper of the gate of heaven, and that he "employeth no servant there" (2 Nephi 9:41), not even the most sincere, most well-intentioned, most righteous Evangelical Christian.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

You really think there is a comparison between the two things? I am sorry, but there are only two people this father should talk to and that is their children that chose to marry in the temple. It has nothing to do with the Church and everything to do with the choice of a couple seeking to be married for all time and eternity. You want to enter the temple there is a clear path to doing so. If you don't want to enter the temple the choice is yours. If the couple wants their parents to see a ceremony, then do one outside the temple for their sole benefit. However, it is totally erroneous to blame a church for setting up rules. No one, zero, zip. personne, has to follow the rules. If they do follow the rules, it is their choice and they bear the consequences of their actions.

It has nothing to do with exclusion!

The above, x 2. If I want to be fully involved in an organization, and the organization says, "Fair enough. We'd love to have you. Here's what we require for full participation," and I choose to do everything required of me (save one or two things) I cannot then blame the organization for excluding me from full participation: I excluded myself by my failure to do everything required of me. No one is excluded from entering the temple who is willing to do everything required to do so.

[KevinG]

No one is excluded from entering the temple who is willing to do everything required to do so.

This is doubly true when you consider that confessing sins is a voluntary action within the church. I am sorely missing temple worship through inaction of my own (poor attendance) but over the last year have improved to the point I am comfortable completing a Temple Recommend Interview with my Bishop. I plan to do so within the next few weeks between Summer Camp and job interviews so I can return to the House of the Lord. No one kept me from those doors but me. I might have missed a child's wedding this Spring but the date was changed. Even then i would not have asked for a special dispensation for my lack of obedience to the doctrines and practices required for me to attend.

[CV75]

I’d say any group is within its rights to exclude whomever they want to, based on its own rules and regulations (or lack thereof, or despite them). In this case, I would expect the broader community would empathize with the LDS teams since softball offers a more common community-building experience than religion does. I don’t think the same community cares much about how specific LDS couples marry or worry about the family members that can’t go.

[Jaybear]

I’d say any group is within its rights to exclude whomever they want to, based on its own rules and regulations (or lack thereof, or despite them).

Agreed. Freedom of association is very important in a free country.

In this case, I would expect the broader community would empathize with the LDS teams since softball offers a more common community-building experience than religion does. I don’t think the same community cares much about how specific LDS couples marry or worry about the family members that can’t go.

Here I disagree. I think most people can empathize with the pain/disappointment of a mother/father excluded from watching their daughter marry, but would consider a complaint about not be able to field a softball team to be trivial and petty, especially since Mormons can still play in the league.

The argument that ... "No one is excluded from entering the temple who is willing to do everything required to do so"

... (when used to exclude parents from a child's wedding) has no appeal outside hardline LDS members.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jaybear

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Jesus was a hardliner.

[KevinG]

The argument that ... "No one is excluded from entering the temple who is willing to do everything required to do so"

... has no appeal outside hardline LDS members.

Funny I thought it was a fundamental doctrine that we are responsible for our own agency and the consequences of our actions. I guess that makes me a hardliner.

[Jaybear]

Funny I thought it was a fundamental doctrine that we are responsible for our own agency and the consequences of our actions. I guess that makes me a hardliner.

Yes, I would absolutely put you in that boat.

What you fail to grasp is that the nonmormon who finds themselves excluded from their child's wedding, is not going to see the exclusion as matter of their own choosing.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Jesus was a hardliner.

You are looking at the from the wrong perspective.

If a nonMormon believed that it was Jesus' idea that they should be excluded from their daughter's wedding, then they wouldn't be a nonMormon.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

The Church has always been upfront about what is required to attend the Temple. It is not our responsibility to make sure every nonmember likes it.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

See the tail of the Ten Virgins. Those virgins are believers, not unbelievers.

[CV75]

Agreed. Freedom of association is very important in a free country.

Here I disagree. I think most people can empathize with the pain/disappointment of a mother/father excluded from watching their daughter marry, but would consider a complaint about not be able to field a softball team to be trivial and petty, especially since Mormons can still play in the league.

The argument that ... "No one is excluded from entering the temple who is willing to do everything required to do so"

... (when used to exclude parents from a child's wedding) has no appeal outside hardline LDS members.

But I’m talking about overall community sentiment and reaction toward excluding people from a common community activity, not overall community empathy over a parent’s disappointment over what amounts to an elopement. Communities simply don’t care that much about manageable family issues. A wedding is a relatively private affair and community softball is not.

Members of this Ohio community are not being asked, “How do you feel about the LDS team being excluded (they would likely answer much as I did);” they are experiencing it first hand and I would expect them to be shaking their heads, “Poor form.” Neither are they being asked, “How do you feel about a mother not being able to attend her daughter’s marriage ceremony in the LDS temple because she drinks coffee;” “What are you talking about? Stop bothering me!”

I can see a community supporting a parent whose child was injured or killed under conditions the community is committed to prevent, as public and child safety is fundamental to the community. Or rally around raising money to meet a child’s medical costs because the “humanity” of it is also fundamental. I don’t see LDS weddings being of high community regard, and even in a 100% LDS community (and if everyone knows each other pretty well), there would probably be a great deal of empathy for a disappointed parent while acknowledging the reality that everyone knows the drill.

Communities are based on individuals' attitudes, but at the same time individuals' attitudes about community matters get tempered when considering their role in the community at large. So I see softball and temple practice as apples and oranges; sofball being far more relevant to the community at large than a couple's marriage ceremony.

[CV75]

the nonmormon who finds themselves excluded from their child's wedding, is not going to see the exclusion as matter of their own choosing.

And in the case of those excluded nonmormons that care about the community's reaction to their problem, a more negative light is cast upon them than on the community.

Edited May 29, 2012 by CV75

[selek1]

I find it interesteing how steadfastly the anti-Mormon and pseudo-Mormon polemicists ignore basic reality in pursuit of this chimera.

Parents and family members are "excluded" from weddings every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year.

Some are excluded for reasons of health.

Some are excluded by reason of distance.

Some are excluded by money.

Some are excluded by bad blood between the relatives.

Some are excluded because of their own immaturity or the immaturity of the marrying couple.

Some are excluded by death.

Some are excluded by duty- as military service takes them far away from the loved ones in defense of us all.

And yet the only one that is decried as lamentable, dishonorable, hateful, or wrong is the principled decision to respect the sanctity of the Temple.

When I weigh all the events I have missed in my daughters' lives due to military service and distance, I find I have little sympathy for those who wail and gnash their teeth over missing fifteen minutes in a Temple they have rendered themselves unworthy to enter.

[Scott Lloyd]

Funny I thought it was a fundamental doctrine that we are responsible for our own agency and the consequences of our actions. I guess that makes me a hardliner.

Me too. Shall we start a club?

And since I'm no great favorite of Jaybear's, I guess I don't have much to lose in that respect.

[Jaybear]

I find it interesteing how steadfastly the anti-Mormon and pseudo-Mormon polemicists ignore basic reality in pursuit of this chimera.

I was wondering when you were going to show up and put us in our place for having temerity to express an opinion that contradicts your own.

Parents and family members are "excluded" from weddings every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year.

Some are excluded for reasons of health.

Some are excluded by reason of distance.

Some are excluded by money.

Some are excluded by bad blood between the relatives.

Some are excluded because of their own immaturity or the immaturity of the marrying couple.

Some are excluded by death.

Some are excluded by duty- as military service takes them far away from the loved ones in defense of us all.

Yep.

And yet the only one that is decried as lamentable, dishonorable, hateful, or wrong is the principled decision to respect the sanctity of the Temple.

Nope. First, on this this thread, no one but you used the words "lamentable" "dishonorable" "hateful" or "wrong."

Second, to most people, the thought of missing your daughter's wedding is a big deal, no matter the reason.

Weddings are more important than softball games.

When I weigh all the events I have missed in my daughters' lives due to military service and distance, I find I have little sympathy for those who wail and gnash their teeth over missing fifteen minutes in a Temple they have rendered themselves unworthy to enter.

What a surprise. Selek has no sympathy for those who are not worthy of entering the temple.

[Scott Lloyd]

What a surprise. Selek has no sympathy for those who are not worthy of entering the temple.

Actually what he said is that he has "little sympathy" for those who wail and gnash their teeth over a circumstance that, in the final analysis, they themselves have chosen.

[selek1]

I was wondering when you were going to show up and put us in our place for having temerity to express an opinion that contradicts your own.

My eagerness to respond to your pedanticisms is inversely proportional to my enthusiasm for other projects.

In the event, it came down to a choice between responding to this thread or getting a root canal without anaesthesia.

Rather foolishly, I thought interacting with you would be the less unpleasant choice.

I stand corrected.

Nope. First, on this this thread, no one but you used the words "lamentable" "dishonorable" "hateful" or "wrong."

Not in so many words, no. Nonetheless, the thrust of your arguments (and those of other witless polemicists) have fallen perfectly in line with my examples.

Second, to most people, the thought of missing your daughter's wedding is a big deal, no matter the reason.

True. But it still happens every day.

We all make choices and sacrifices, trading moments and opportunities that we hold dear for other things that are more precious to us. I cannot tell you how many Christmas mornings, birthdays, and school concerts I missed in defense of my daughters' freedom and security.

Would I have preferred to have been home for all those events? You bet your bippy.

Was it a sacrifice? Yes.

Was it worth it? I believe it was.

Weddings are more important than softball games.

I tend to agree with you- though this is, inarguably, a subjective judgement. Others are under no obligation to agree with us.

What a surprise. Selek has no sympathy for those who are not worthy of entering the temple.

What a surprise....Jaybear has sacrificed integrity for what is (to him) "a greater good".

In point of fact, that is not what I posted. But why would you let little things like honor or honesty get in the way of a good screed?

[Calm]

I was not able to go to my older brother and sister's wedding due to the fact I was not endowed. I was not able to go to my younger sister's wedding because of distance, IIRC only my parents could do so and that is because they fly free due to my dad having worked for an airline. My mom and dad were not able to go to my youngest brother's due to my dad being in brain surgery at the time. There was a good chance I might not have been able to go to my son's wedding because of health due to the length of travel to get there.

Not once did I feel that those being married should change their choices so I could participate, even in the case of my son's (if they had chosen a nearer temple there would have been must less of a chance I couldn't go).

I can understand why those who live with a different expectation are disappointed when they cannot attend as expected. What I do not understand is when parents or other family members put their own personal desires of what is seen as one of the most important days in a person's life ahead of the individuals actually getting married. I understand it can hurt when a child makes a decision that puts the 'dream' of what they want their wedding to be over the wishes of others, it may seem to them that they are not important to the child if the child choses to have the wedding somewhere they cannot attend whether it is in the Alps, at a beach in Hawaii they cannot afford to travel to, eloping because the child does not want his/her wedding surrounded by the usual turmoil, or in the temple because the child sees the eternal nature of his/her primary relationship with the spouse as most important, but still if one believes that the day is so important to one's child, then why wouldn't they want that day to be a perfect for their child in their child's eyes rather than what they want?

And if the relationship is so very important to them that they are hurt and disappointed they cannot attend the wedding ceremony, then why would anyone turn around and damage or even sacrifice the relationship itself for those hurt feelings?

If my children married spouses whose families were not members and thus could not attend the weddings, if it were okay with my children I would stay with the inlaws outside the temple during the ceremony rather than attend myself. I don't need to witness the wedding itself to know of the love and commitment my children give to their loved one, I can see that every day while I watch the relationship grow and develop. The sealing is between the couple and God and does not need my presence to make it more sacred or special for the day.

Edited May 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

The Church has the right to exclude anyone they choose from the temple, and this Christian organization can also do the same. Take away that right from one group and it will be taken away from the other.

Now, we don't want that, do we?

They have already agreed that individual players can participate, so what's the big deal. Let's be grownups.

Edited May 29, 2012 by cdowis

[Jaybear]

I was not able to go to my older brother and sister's wedding due to the fact I was not endowed. I was not able to go to my younger sister's wedding because of distance, IIRC only my parents could do so and that is because they fly free due to my dad having worked for an airline. My mom and dad were not able to go to my youngest brother's due to my dad being in brain surgery at the time. There was a good chance I might not have been able to go to my son's wedding because of health due to the length of travel to get there.

Not once did I feel that those being married should change their choices so I could participate, even in the case of my son's (if they had chosen a nearer temple there would have been must less of a chance I couldn't go).

If your point is that in the Mormon culture, its not as important for families to attend weddings, I think that has been made clear.

I can understand why those who live with a different expectation are disappointed when they cannot attend as expected.

Great, we agree. Do you also agree that they can also be hurt, and angry if purposely excluded.

What I do not understand is when parents or other family members put their own personal desires of what is seen as one of the most important days in a person's life ahead of the individuals actually getting married.

We agree again. I think the nonLDS parents should bottle up their anger and resentment and pretend that they are happy for the sake of their child.

If my children married spouses whose families were not members and thus could not attend the weddings, if it were okay with my children I would stay with the inlaws outside the temple during the ceremony rather than attend myself. I don't need to witness the wedding itself to know of the love and commitment my children give to their loved one, I can see that every day while I watch the relationship grow and develop.

That is very thoughtful.

The sealing is between the couple and God and does not need my presence to make it more sacred or special for the day.

That concept is alien to nonLDS. In a traditional Christian wedding, the father gives the bride to the groom, and vows are made before God and those present.

[KevinG]

Yes, I would absolutely put you in that boat.

What you fail to grasp is that the nonmormon who finds themselves excluded from their child's wedding, is not going to see the exclusion as matter of their own choosing.

I grasp plenty- my non-Mormon parents were not at my sealing. We had long talks about the Temple and what it meant. My friends parents accompanied them on the Temple grounds during the ceremony. Strangely enough they understood the concept of a sacred ceremony for those who were prepared. They have been supportive of my Mormonism without fail.

As a convert I'm not quite as ignorant as you seem to think. It is you that has shown ignorance and a hard line attitude.

[selek1]

That concept is alien to nonLDS.

Only in your opinion. As has been amply demonstrated, parents, family members, and other interested parties are routinely "excluded" for a variety of reasons.

Contrary to your rampaging myopia, "exclusivity" is neither exclusive nor endemic to Mormonism, but is general to humanity as a whole.

In a traditional Christian wedding, the father gives the bride to the groom, and vows are made before God and those present.

Unfortunately, that is only one variation on the theme. The tradition is by no means universal nor definitive.

I offered the following link in another thread, but the more I think about it, the better this video serves as a metaphor for the behavior you're trying to defend.

[media=]

Watch the video: the hero makes a ghastly mistake that threatens to disrupt (or at least upset) the wedding and covers his error by making a public (if entertaining) spectacle.

Towards the middle-end of the video, it's all about the musician (rather than the bride and groom) as he's hoisted on the shoulders of the guests and celebrated for the spectacle.

To me, the most poignant points of the video are in the 4 minute 15 second, to 4 minute 30 second range- showing the bride and groom dancing and towards the very end, where the distraught bride reasserts her equanimity and carries on despite someone else's error.

Of course, at the end of the video, the "hero" hasn't learned anything- he's still bored and egocentric.

He is still focused on his own boredom and the mundane nature of the performance rather than upon the joy and sacred nature of the ceremony- let alone the happiness of the couple he is supposed to be serving.

I suspect that this thread will turn out no differently.

Edited May 29, 2012 by selek1