JAHS Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 26 minutes ago, pogi said: I agree that it was in poor taste. I am just wondering at the apparent double standard of it being ok to seek to convert (without baptism at least) their children with or without parental permission, but it is not ok for them to seek to convert ours by the same means, where efforts are coordinated and directed by adult leaders. In most all the wards I have been in the leaders have been very careful to let parents know what they are doing so as to not usurp their authority. But that can vary from one ward to the next. 3 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 7 hours ago, JAHS said: In most all the wards I have been in the leaders have been very careful to let parents know what they are doing so as to not usurp their authority. But that can vary from one ward to the next. Do they teach children to get permission from other childrens' parents before trying to tell them about the gospel? Of course not. Link to comment
Popular Post Calm Posted July 11, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Do they teach children to get permission from other childrens' parents before trying to tell them about the gospel? Of course not. I think at issue is intentionality. Most church leaders and members who teach kids to share beliefs with friends most likely would love it if the friends involved their parents from day one. And while a kid might not back off if they knew the parent was against it, most adult members would IMO, at least outside of encouraging the kid to keep acting as a great example of gospel living. There is too high respect for the stewardship of parents in our faith, IMO. In practice, there is a range of seeking parental involvement…on a casual, social level between kids, much less likely to happen; when adults are involved in the process…especially women it would seem (though maybe that is because Primary—where kids are at an age where they are tracked more—has a larger female presence and YW’s activities are more often more organized, not just activities that feel more or less unorganized even when not, such as basketball) and some areas are more likely to seek parental permission as well (possibly due to habits of leaders or history of conflicts in the area leading leaders and others involved to be more careful)…parental permission is more likely expected and sought out. OTOH, the song conveys the intentionality to not only not seek out permission at all, but if they (adults) were to learn the parents objected, they wouldn’t stop, wouldn’t care. There is no space in the song, IMO, for respect for parental stewardship where otoh, even if permission is not always sought, parental respect is present in word and deed among adult church members. The kids may not be thinking at that level yet though. Since I think the song wasn’t serious, to me it is no big deal. It is one of those ‘did you really not see the PR disaster coming or did you just not care’ moments for me…much the same feeling I got when the gay apostasy/baptism of children ban was leaked. Edited July 11, 2021 by Calm 6 Link to comment
bluebell Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 14 hours ago, pogi said: I agree. As I have maintained throughout this thread, I don't have a problem with it. I believe that sharing beliefs is fair game for anyone. What people are refusing to acknowledge is that our methods do indeed subvert parenting and that it is coordinated by adult leaders of the church. Are you willing to at least recognize and acknowledge that fact? I will also add that it is more than just a passive casual sharing of beliefs initiated by the youth. It is largely initiated in the programs of the church by church leaders who are coordinating the entire effort. We train our youth from primary on how to be missionaries and share the gospel, through song and scripture and lessons. As they age we encourage them more strongly. We give them media to pass-along. We give them videos to share. We encourage them to share scriptures on social media. We give them all sorts of other media to share on-line targeted to youth. We give them Book of Mormons to pass out. We encourage them to write their testimonies in the from cover before handing it out. It is a highly directed and coordinated effort. We help them set goals. We commit them to their goals. We follow up. We give further direction and counsel with follow up. I don't think we can in honest integrity pretend like adults are not directly involved in the process of targeting youth - with or without parental approval. The verse "we are coming after your children" is indeed happening in the church and is coordinated by leaders through youth programs. Again, we would never come out taunt others with that fact, but that is indeed our intent. It is our mission. How can we pretend to hide it? We don't discriminate when it comes to conversion. We do come after children. We have adult coordinated efforts to do that specifically. We have well trained youth subverting parents in doing so. Sure, if we can get the parents on board, all the better, but that is not a limiting factor to conversion. I directly asked Scott if he felt it would be ok if the gay community used the same tactics. He explicitly stated that it would not be ok. That is the double standard I am addressing. My intent here is to 1) get people to acknowledge that we are indeed targeting children in the mission of the church. Not exclusively (but neither is the gay agenda exclusively targeting children - the song was a joke! - in bad taste, I admit, but a joke), but they are targeted. 2) that parents are indeed being subverted and that it is kind of built into the program in many ways. That is life! Peer-to-peer influence and sharing rarely goes through parents. But lets not pretend like it is not coordinated and directed by adults. I also would like people to acknowledge that our missionary efforts are highly more sophisticated and coordinated than the gay movement, with much more central leadership oversight with training programs and manuals with the specific goal/target of teaching our youth member-missionaries to convert their youth peers - with or without their parents knowledge and approval. We'll have to agree to disagree on it. I do not see it as you do. 4 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 2 hours ago, Calm said: I think at issue is intentionality. Most church leaders and members who teach kids to share beliefs with friends most likely would love it if the friends involved their parents from day one. And while a kid might not back off if they knew the parent was against it, most adult members would IMO, at least outside of encouraging the kid to keep acting as a great example of gospel living. There is too high respect for the stewardship of parents in our faith, IMO. In practice, there is a range of seeking parental involvement…on a casual, social level between kids, much less likely to happen; when adults are involved in the process…especially women it would seem (though maybe that is because Primary—where kids are at an age where they are tracked more—has a larger female presence and YW’s activities are more often more organized, not just activities that feel more or less unorganized even when not, such as basketball) and some areas are more likely to seek parental permission as well (possibly due to habits of leaders or history of conflicts in the area leading leaders and others involved to be more careful)…parental permission is more likely expected and sought out. OTOH, the song conveys the intentionality to not only not seek out permission at all, but if they (adults) were to learn the parents objected, they wouldn’t stop, wouldn’t care. There is no space in the song, IMO, for respect for parental stewardship where otoh, even if permission is not always sought, parental respect is present in word and deed among adult church members. The kids may not be thinking at that level yet though. Since I think the song wasn’t serious, to me it is no big deal. It is one of those ‘did you really not see the PR disaster coming or did you just not care’ moments for me…much the same feeling I got when the gay apostasy/baptism of children ban was leaked. Indeed, there is a difference in intent. The song is just that, a song. It is recent and relatively unknown and not expressive of actual intent or action. The church's efforts and intent to convert are real and actual, verifiable in its past, present, and planned behaviour and word. Conversion including the conversion of children compromises is stated existential purpose and mission. The church is coming for everyone *even after we die*. And it does indeed claim the authority to sever bonds between parent and child. It does indeed claim authority to even assign new parents to children. The actualised intent of the church is to include every accountable soul who lives and has lived in its efforts. There is no comparison here. The only real effort and intent to convert is the church's. Link to comment
Calm Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The church is coming for everyone *even after we die*. We have never claimed we are going to convert everyone. Or that is our intent. Desire, sure; intent, no. We are pretty explicit we won’t convert everyone as well. Invite everyone to be taught, sure. Give them the chance, sure. Continue to try, sure. Never, ever thinking we will be globally successful in conversion. Edited July 11, 2021 by Calm 2 Link to comment
pogi Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, JAHS said: In most all the wards I have been in the leaders have been very careful to let parents know what they are doing so as to not usurp their authority. But that can vary from one ward to the next. It goes tar beyond ward activities though. The youth are trained by adult leaders and provided media and other materials and encouraged/committed to share the gospel everywhere, including online. Never are they encouraged to get parental permission before handing out Book of Mormons or pass along cards, or before posting videos and other media and scriptures online. Parents absolutely are being subverted. Edited July 11, 2021 by pogi 1 Link to comment
JAHS Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 16 minutes ago, pogi said: It goes tar beyond ward activities though. The youth are trained by adult leaders and provided media and other materials and encouraged/committed to share the gospel everywhere, including online. Never are they encouraged to get parental permission before handing out Book of Mormons or pass along cards, or before posting videos and other media and scriptures online. Parents absolutely are being subverted. Subvert means to "undermine the power and authority". Children sharing the gospel are not undermining the power and authority of the parents; they are simply sharing. Power and authority are not subverted until the their child is actually being taught the gospel by missionaries or are baptized into the church without parental permission. It means the child is being convinced to actually do something without permission. I just think the word "subvert" is the wrong one to use. 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, JAHS said: Double post Edited July 11, 2021 by california boy Link to comment
california boy Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 32 minutes ago, JAHS said: Subvert means to "undermine the power and authority". Children sharing the gospel are not undermining the power and authority of the parents; they are simply sharing. Power and authority are not subverted until the their child is actually being taught the gospel by missionaries or are baptized into the church without parental permission. It means the child is being convinced to actually do something without permission. I just think the word "subvert" is the wrong one to use. How big of problem do you think it is for most parents to teach tolerance and fairness? "WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN... WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR." 1 Link to comment
pogi Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 45 minutes ago, JAHS said: Subvert means to "undermine the power and authority". Children sharing the gospel are not undermining the power and authority of the parents; they are simply sharing. Power and authority are not subverted until the their child is actually being taught the gospel by missionaries or are baptized into the church without parental permission. It means the child is being convinced to actually do something without permission. I just think the word "subvert" is the wrong one to use. We are attempting to convert the minds and hearts - without parental consent. How is that different from the gay community? Isn’t that what they mean by convert? Why are their efforts subverting and inappropriate, but ours aren’t? I truly don’t see a difference. They are missionary efforts. It is called member missionary work. The gay community doesn’t have missionaries or baptism, so I guess the word subvert cannot apply to their efforts of “conversion” either. Aren't they just “sharing” too? Why is one in appropriate and the other is not? When we don’t want people to share their gay beliefs to our children in an effort to convert their minds and hearts behind our backs and without permission, we call that subverting and inappropriate. But when we do the same to their children, it is just “sharing”. If the gay community was making missionaries out of primary aged children, there would be outrage. 2 Link to comment
JAHS Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, california boy said: How big of problem do you think it is for most parents to teach tolerance and fairness? "WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN... WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR." Hopefully not a problem for most. This was a good message but delivered in the wrong way. 1 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Calm said: We have never claimed we are going to convert everyone. Or that is our intent. Desire, sure; intent, no. We are pretty explicit we won’t convert everyone as well. Invite everyone to be taught, sure. Give them the chance, sure. Continue to try, sure. Never, ever thinking we will be globally successful in conversion. The church claims to have power and influence over all human souls in a fundamental and ultimate way. There really is no comparison. There are very few in institutions in humanity that make such grandiose claims about how they are entitled to and will influence human life. 1 Link to comment
JAHS Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 7 minutes ago, pogi said: We are attempting to convert the minds and hearts - without parental consent. How is that different from the gay community? Isn’t that what they mean by convert? Why are their efforts subverting and inappropriate, but ours aren’t? I truly don’t see a difference. They are missionary efforts. It is called member missionary work. The gay community doesn’t have missionaries or baptism, so I guess the word subvert cannot apply to their efforts of “conversion” either. Aren't they just “sharing” too? Why is one in appropriate and the other is not? When we don’t want people to share their gay beliefs to our children in an effort to convert their minds and hearts behind our backs and without permission, we call that subverting and inappropriate. But when we do the same to their children, it is just “sharing”. If the gay community was making missionaries out of primary aged children, there would be outrage. We do not convert anyone. Conversion is a personal thing that one does using their own agency. We only share ideas and beliefs. If it gets to the point where the person wants to actively seek membership that is where parental permission must come into play. The gay community's "intended" efforts can also not be called conversion. They are not trying to convert children into being gay. Their intended message is encouraging tolerance and love for all, which is a good thing. What was inappropriate, for this song, the message was deeply hidden in a rather poor attempt at satire that most people did not get and thus were offended by it because it sounded like they were trying to take the responsibility away from the parents. 3 Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 (edited) 37 minutes ago, JAHS said: that most people did not get and thus were offended by it because it sounded like they were trying to take the responsibility away from the parents. I’d venture to say that almost everyone “offended” by the song (not speaking of those that find it merely in bad taste or a PR blunder) are those that found it via right wing sites that shared it with the intent to inflame the cultural wars. I’d also venture to say that “most” people in the United States understood the song as intended just fine. ETA:(and it’s not just right wing sites that make money off inflaming the cultural divide. Plenty of left wing sites doing that as well) Edited July 11, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding Link to comment
teddyaware Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The church claims to have power and influence over all human souls in a fundamental and ultimate way. There really is no comparison. There are very few in institutions in humanity that make such grandiose claims about how they are entitled to and will influence human life. Do you believe it’s also true that the New Testament Church made the same kind of “grandiose claims” that you think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is making today? And if so, do you believe the New Testament Church was as arrogant and exclusive in its day as you believe the Latter-Day Saints are today? The point being, if the restored Church is indeed a restoration of the New Testament Church, why should anyone reasonably expect it to be any different today than it was at the time of the apostles? Edited July 11, 2021 by teddyaware Link to comment
JAHS Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 42 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The church claims to have power and influence over all human souls in a fundamental and ultimate way. There really is no comparison. There are very few in institutions in humanity that make such grandiose claims about how they are entitled to and will influence human life. CFR? Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, JAHS said: CFR? No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith…every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are… [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim”Oh,that is very disagreeable!…But it is true.” Brigham Young,JoD, vol.7,p.289-91 Just a start 1 Link to comment
rodheadlee Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 It's just another brick in the wall. "Hey teacher leave those kids alone." Pink Floyd. 1 Link to comment
SteveO Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: The church claims to have power and influence over all human souls in a fundamental and ultimate way. There really is no comparison. There are very few in institutions in humanity that make such grandiose claims about how they are entitled to and will influence human life. Jesus of Nazareth? 2 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 27 minutes ago, JAHS said: CFR? 23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith…every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are… [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim”Oh,that is very disagreeable!…But it is true.” Brigham Young,JoD, vol.7,p.289-91 Just a start SeekingUnderstanding gives a good example here. The church says it has the keys, and ordinances, through which all must pass to enter into salvation and/or exaltation. Link to comment
JAHS Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: 42 minutes ago, JAHS said: CFR? 36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith…every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are… [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim”Oh,that is very disagreeable!…But it is true.” Brigham Young,JoD, vol.7,p.289-91 Just a start SeekingUnderstanding gives a good example here. The church says it has the keys, and ordinances, through which all must pass to enter into salvation and/or exaltation. Yes but I don't see where that suggests "power and influence over all human souls." All human souls have their agency to allow or not allow the church to have power or influence over them. It's not an absolute thing and the church would not have it that way. 1 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 39 minutes ago, teddyaware said: Do you believe it’s also true that the New Testament Church made the same kind of “grandiose claims” that you think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is making today? And if so, do you believe the New Testament Church was as arrogant and exclusive in its day as you believe the Latter-Day Saints are today? The point being, if the restored Church is indeed a restoration of the New Testament Church, why should anyone reasonably expect it to be any different today than it was at the time of the apostles? I'm not arguing that the LDS church claims less authority than the early NT church. Indeed, I'm saying that if you believe in the church's restoration claims, then surely you would better understand their gravity and implication. And would instantly understand how the LDS church's claims are incomparably larger claims than this satirical song. 1 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JAHS said: Yes but I don't see where that suggests "power and influence over all human souls." All human souls have their agency to allow or not allow the church to have power or influence over them. It's not an absolute thing and the church would not have it that way. Power does not necessarily mean absolute control. The ordinances and priesthood authority are examples of power and influence over all human souls. Edited July 11, 2021 by Meadowchik Link to comment
california boy Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 1 hour ago, JAHS said: Hopefully not a problem for most. This was a good message but delivered in the wrong way. I think everyone agrees with that. And it took 18 pages to decide that the message was fine, the song was not. Maybe people just like to get upset, especially with the LGBT community. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts