Standing up for Your (Former) Beliefs
Carol wrote this guest post for the Utah Valley Monitor and asked us to post it concurrently.
My husband is a cultural Catholic. Never mind the fact that he doesn’t believe in God. He was baptized Catholic and raised in a Catholic home; therefore, if you ask him if he is Catholic, he will say “yes.”
So even though he doesn’t practice his religion or believe in its supernatural claims, he still has some sort of attachment to it that manifests itself in strange ways.
For example, it annoys him when Protestants claim that Protestants and Catholics are all fundamentally part of one big church. My dad likes to make this claim. Dad grew up mainstream Protestant — then converted to Mormonism just long enough to marry a returned missionary in the temple and raise all of the resulting kids LDS — then switched back.
Despite my husband’s unbelief, he takes it upon himself to be offended by claims of Protestant/Catholic equivalence on behalf of believing Catholics. After hearing my dad talk about how Christians accept Catholic baptisms (but not Mormon baptisms), in a later private conversation with me my husband commented, “Just let him say that to my aunt, who is a nun. She’ll tell him he’s going to hell!”
Now my husband’s aunt is super-mega-nice, so it would surprise me quite a bit if she told a Protestant — to his face — that he’s going to hell. Still, my husband may be right about his aunt’s fundamental beliefs.
The first time we went to visit Auntie, she asked my husband “Are you Catholic?” Of course he said yes.
Then she asked me what my religion was. I responded that I am a non-believer, not affiliated with any religion. The funny thing was that she wasn’t upset by this at all since she figured that meant it would be no big deal for me to join my husband’s religion. Then she told us how relieved she was because she was worried that I might be a Protestant.
Despite what that story seems to indicate, my husband’s aunt is surprisingly accepting and tolerant. She’s a really old lady (in her 90s) and has been a nun her whole adult life, so normally I would expect her to be really rigid about the whole religion thing, but she has been reasonably accepting of our choices.
Of course, during that same first visit my husband’s aunt told us that she prayed that he and I would get married and have our kids baptized, to which we surprisedly responded “But Auntie, we are married.”
“Civil marriage,” she said.
But after that she didn’t bother us about it again, and all the times we’ve stayed at the convent to visit her none of the nuns have ever pressured us to go to mass or anything.
Since then, on a few occasions Auntie has reminded my husband of the importance of having the kids baptized. But she was fine with my husband’s explanation when he told her that because of our unbelief, we didn’t feel like it was right for us to go through the motions of such an ordinance, but that we wouldn’t try to stop the kids from having themselves baptized if they wanted to later, when they’re old enough to make a mature decision about it.
I thought it was funny that she accepted this because in my mind it’s not a concession at all. If the kids take up a religion once they’re grown, whether we like it or not there’s not a whole lot we can do about it. Sure we could threaten to disown them, but that’s not really realistic. We have only two kids. We can’t go around disowning them willy-nilly over trivialities like what religions they choose for themselves. If we did, we’d pretty quickly find ourselves with no kids at all, and then who would we annoy during our golden years? Think about that.
I can hardly ridicule my husband for his wacky relationship with Catholicism though, considering that my attachment to my LDS heritage is equally wacky, if not worse. I seem to have his same weirdo objection to seeing the true church of my youth diluted into just another flavor of mainstream Christianity. So I catch myself browsing around the Bloggernacle (LDS blog network) posting comments encouraging people to be open about their LDS beliefs and to identify as Mormon first and not just Christian.
Why do I care? Obviously I shouldn’t. I think part of it is that after having grown up with the idea that it’s a virtue to stand up and be counted as peculiar, I have some irrational aversion to seeing Mormons jumping on the mainstream Christian bandwagon.
Also I think it’s because this whole “milk before meat” thing strikes me as counterproductive. I’ve spent a lot of time with ex-Mormons/apostates on the Internet and elsewhere, and I’ve noticed that there is one particular small current of ex-Mormon Christians who insist on disproving Mormonism by holding up a list of Bible passages and saying “Mormons think this scripture means this but of course Christians know it means that.” This is bewildering to many people raised in the church — apostate and faithful Mormon alike — who say, “OK, so you’ve proved that Mormons and mainstream Protestants interpret the Bible differently. Well, no duh!”
But the thing is that it isn’t as much of a “no duh” point as maybe it should be. I get the impression that some ex-Mormon Christians are not so much annoyed about having been duped into believeing Mormonism is true as they are about having been duped into believing that Mormonism is not that different from other flavors of Christianity.
So while this practice of downplaying the unusual aspects of Mormonism by claiming Mormons are monotheists or saying that the church doesn’t emphasize the doctrine of eternal progression, etc., may make Mormonism more palatable and increase the number of converts coming in the door, quantity is not necessarily the only concern here.
If you find a person who is aware of the doctrinal peculiarities of Mormonism and converts in spite of them — or even because of them — now that’s a quality convert. That’s someone who will likely say “OK” when hearing more of the various eccentricities of Mormonism rather than someone who will just become progressively angrier until he gets to the point where he not only leaves the church but feels compelled to debunk Mormonism’s claims of being “Christian.”
It seems to me that one convert of the former type would be worth more than 10 of the latter. But I’m an apostate myself, so obviously faithful LDS shouldn’t be taking my advice.
In fact, if you’re Mormon you should probably do exactly the opposite of whatever I say, just to be on the safe side!
I think this is one of the most interesting posts I’ve read in the ‘Nacle. IJust the title grabbed my attention right away. t’s very interesting to think about the position of those who are previously affiliated to a particular religious group but are non-believers … yet still feel an affinity for that same religious group and will even claim the identity still.
Thanks for writing this Carol.
Comment by danithew — February 17, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
I also think it’s a good article, and I appreciate the sentiments about not watering Mormonism down. I have often felt compelled to call myself “Mormon” as a badge of honor. It’s a strange religion. Truth is often stranger than fiction. But IMO it’s those “strange” qualities that bring the truth to our religion, take away the strangeness and you have to wonder what the restoration was needed for.
Comment by Bev — February 17, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
Yes, very well done. Profound and so true.
Thank you.
Comment by annegb — February 17, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
I never was much for staying on the safe side.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 17, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
It is interesting that we (LDS church members) are really conflicted. On one hand we believe that we belong to the one true church and are a peculiar people. On the other hand, we don’t want to be seen as weird/strange/etc. to our friends, neighbors, coworkers, and to society. We want to have it both ways. Maybe there is some sort of a balance, but you can’t have it both ways.
So I agree that we must recognize the differences between our doctrines and theology and those of other Christian religions (even non-Christian religions).
Comment by Scott — February 17, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
Hey guys, thanks for running my little post!!! Very open-minded of you.
I hope you like the paradox I threw in for you: I say that since I am an apostate, you should do the opposite of what I say. So what should you do? What I say, or the opposite?
Hehe! That’s your paradox for today!
BTW, the link to the Utah Valley Monitor above appears not to work. Here is a link: Utah Valley Monitor. I’m not actually in Utah Valley, but the editors asked me to write a regular column for them since they thought is was interesting that I’m a BYU alum living in France.
Comment by C.L. Hanson — February 17, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
You know, I appreciate what people like Stephen R. Robinson and, to some extent, Gordon B. Hinckley are doing in trying to reconcile “Mormonism” with mainstream Christianity.
But honestly, I don’t want to reconcile. I don’t care if Catholics accept my baptism as valid, and I never want to accept a Methodist’s baptism as valid. I don’t want the “Christian” label if it means I have to self-identify with the Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Catholics.
I’d prefer “follower of Christ.” Because, frankly, the counter-cultists are right. We do worship a different Jesus than they do.
Actually, we worship the true Jesus and they don’t. Period. Plain and simple, end of story. My religion isn’t the one that’s all messed up. Theirs is. Wanna fight about it?
Yes, this is a very combative stance. Yes, it is ultimately, a closed stance.
It’s not that I don’t think Baptists have some neat things to teach us about the Bible. In fact, I think there are several places where the Baptists are right, and we Mormons are wrong. But I have drawn a line in the sand on divine authority.
Baptists have no divine authorization, Catholics don’t either, Mormons do. And we’re the only ones who do. If the rest of the world wants ultimate access to God, it must be through the principles of God’s restored Gospel or not at all.
I think that our guest has touched on something very important. The “let’s be friends” movement going on in the Church has some real drawbacks. Namely, it does a disservice to both our religion, and theirs. Pretending that “we’re just like you” is fundamentally dishonest. We most certainly are not like them.
We know it, and they know it. I pay ten percent of my income to the church, follow odd dietary restrictions, participate in temple ordinances, and, most importantly, believe that Christ is actually my brother, that Satan is my brother, and that I can acheive godhood.
Now, come on! Who else in “Christianity” really believes all that?
Comment by Seth R. — February 17, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
#7. Seth, I agree with you: we’re right, they’re wrong, let’s remember and teach that. I do not believe that precludes us from “let’s be friends” / treating our neighbors lovingly.
I believe and testify that it is the mission of this Church to stand as an ensign to the nations and a light to the world. We have had placed upon us a great, all-encompassing mandate from which we cannot shrink nor turn aside. We accept that mandate and are determined to fulfill it, and with the help of God we shall do it. […] We cannot be arrogant. We cannot be self-righteous. The very situation in which the Lord has placed us requires that we be humble as the beneficiaries of His direction. While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. - Pres. Hinckley GenCon 10/2003
Comment by manaen — February 17, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
We’re not like them and we are like them. I think the problem we LDS have is a fundamental distrust of diversity. There is so much alike between us, other Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and what I’ll call Moral Unbelievers. True, we have some valuably distinct doctrine and we shouldn’t really water it down. But building on what’s common, even if it’s just common respect, does so much in helping us build friendships. And friendship is (ought to be) the true foundation of any potential missionary work we do, so it ought to be paramount in out outlook.
Comment by Artemis — February 17, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
It’s a fine line to walk between “openness to other thoughts and beliefs” on one hand, and “moral relativism” on the other. Between “conviction” and “plain smugness.”
But I think that respect does not require agreement. I would prefer to keep the Baptists and others as respected adversaries, but adversaries nonetheless.
Manaen, thanks for the quote. I think it shows that while Pres. Hinckley is leading a push for reconcilliation, he still isn’t backing down one inch on the “one true church” stance we’ve always had.
Comment by Seth R. — February 17, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
I’m sorry if my guest post comes off as overly antagonistic towards finding common ground with other followers of Christ. I’m generally in favor of people working out their differences through positive dialog, and clearly there is benefit in various churches working together, particularly for charity work and the like.
For myself, I am somewhat more interested in finding common ground and sparking positive dialog between current and former LDS, as you already know if you’ve noticed my various bloggernacle comments, my column/blog, and my antics over on the dark side of the Internet (the exmormon sites
).
I understand why a lot of people are suspicious of this sort of dialog. Still, there are a lot of people out there who stop believing for one reason or another, and the whole situation puts a huge amount of strain on the family. So I generally try to encourage people to try to make an effort to get along as much as possible.
Here’s a blog entry/column where I talked about making connections here in France: The Mishies and Me.
Comment by C.L. Hanson — February 18, 2006 @ 5:13 am
I didn’t find you particularly antagonistic.
I think that would be me. This is kind of one of my pet issues.
Comment by Seth R. — February 18, 2006 @ 7:28 am
Carol, you can’t worry how your posts will be taken, “for always there will be people who agree and those who disagree” (a take on Desiderata. Be true to yourself. You wrote a good post and if people disagree, that’s their right.
Exploring these issues is good for us.
Comment by annegb — February 18, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Thanks annegb!!!
Comment by C.L. Hanson — February 18, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
I wonder sometimes if my overt openess regarding my mormonism would actually irritate “mainstream” members of the church. Obviously we can neither view nor describe our relgious beliefs objectively–a little fact that actually provides me with considerable solace when whackiness emanates from the pulpit on occasion. Still, my mother would undoubtedly say that I misrepresent Mormonism. “Hers” doesn’t believe in a grace; mine most certainly does. Hers gets stuck on folk doctrines about the pre-existence, fence-sitting, how the celestial kingdom looks like a mult-level marketing system, blah blah blah. I just can’t find all that stuff to be relevent. So maybe I’m one of the annoying folks who identifies as Christian first and Mormon second.
I *have* noticed though, that if I’m open about the “peculiar” aspects of my faith which I *do* see as essential, nobody seems to act like they’re weird.A friend helped me pack for a vacation and informed me that my underwear “looked comfy” and “helps you avoid panty lines!” (No, not really–they’re just around my knees!). I recently answered an email query from a very new friend who wanted to know why some Christians hate Mormonism by describing our rejection of the Nicene Creed as well as a belief in priesthood authority and corporeal diety. She didn’t bat a cyber-eyelash. Maybe I’m just lucky?
Comment by momentarilyanon — February 18, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
I’m somewhat in the same boat as Carol. (I adore all your columns, by the way, dawlin’.) I am a former Mormon trying my best to be a good person, stand up for what I believe in, even stand up for the little guy when I feel it’s necessary.
When I hear people say, “Mormons aren’t Christian,” I feel that there are at least two possible meanings behind those three words:
1) Mormons don’t worship or believe in the historical/religious figure known as Jesus Christ.
2) Mormonism is different than traditional Christianity.
As for the first interpretation, I believe that Mormons absolutely do believe in Jesus Christ and try their best to follow his teachings, as they interpret and understand them.
As for the second interpretation: duh. Mormons are different from Baptists are different from Pentecostals are different from Presbyterians are different from Catholics. So what else is new?
I think if we were to categorize all religions like we categorize living species, we’d find that Mormonism would fall somewhere in the “Restorationist Christianity” section.
Do you disagree?
Seth: I don’t know if I’d say Mormons worship the “true” Jesus. I think all Christian churches are essentially worshiping the same figure, just in their own different ways. It’s kind of like how James E. Talmage showed that even ancient remote island villagers who bow before the sun, believing the sun to be God, are still, in essence, worshipping God, even though they are attributing their feelings of spirituality to the “wrong” symbol.
All of the feelings of humility and reverence are there, and God won’t ignore that just because those ancient remote island villagers haven’t had the discussions yet.
Comment by Peter — February 19, 2006 @ 12:49 am
It is true it seems, that Catholics always consider themselves Catholic no matter what their practice is, but Mormons classify themselves by their practice level. I don’t know why we need to judge and catagorize so much.
Carol, I’m not going to do what you say or not what you say….that’s giving you (or anyone) too much power for my likes. I believe in following my own heart, my own conscience and my own inspiration. (What is it you’re saying to do, anyway?)
I like President Hinkley’s “we have a lot of truth, we’d like to add it to the truth you already have” attitude a lot better than “we are the true church” and/or “we’re right and you’re wrong!” Please!!!!
I also believe we all Christians are following the same Jesus, we just have different understandings of him.
I feel one of the biggest social problems the church has is this “we’re superior” attitude the members often take on…..it makes it very difficult for nonbelievers of all degrees both within and without the church. What would Jesus do?!!!
Comment by jeannine — February 19, 2006 @ 7:48 am
Hi jeannine,
As far as my little paradox is concerned, I’m mostly kidding.
The only reason I ended my post with that line is that I appear to be giving advice to Mormons on how they should practice Mormonism and interact with other religions. So I imagine that people are going to say “Why should I listen to you? You’re an apostate!”
Clearly I’m just being paraniod though.
Obviously I fit in better over on the exmormon Internet sites. It’s just that I’m curious about discussing various LDS issues with faithful Mormons, but it’s not always clear to me what I can say without wearing out my welcome and what’s not okay.
It looks like I’m being overly cautious. My impression is that most of the bloggernacle regulars aren’t too easily offended.
Comment by C.L. Hanson — February 19, 2006 @ 9:39 am
I was working last Sunday at Wal-Mart and a lady came through my line and asked, “Are you a Christian, because that’s a beautiful necklace.” I was wearing a necklace that said “I Am A Child of God.”
I instantly, without thinking, said, “no, I’m a Mormon.” Then I felt stupid, and added, “well, yes, I’m a Christian, as well.” She looked confused and asked about my necklace and I explained it was from a childrens song. She hadn’t heard it, which I guess meant she was fairly new to the area.
But my response bothers me. Because I’m convinced we are Christians, I embrace the doctrine of grace and I emphasize it every chance I get. But we are different.
Carol, unlike you, and others, I have chosen, despite my misgivings and problems with personalities, to cling to the principles I believe in and stay active. I’m not known for my devout attitude, but I am known for my devout obedience and service to others. I ask God to help me serve and glorify Him.
But I don’t fault anybody else’s choice, not for a second. God is good and He loves His children. I don’t think He’s keeping score near as much as we are. That’s one of the reasons I get assigned to visit and befriend people like you a lot, because I say, “hon, I agree. I take a different path, but I recognize the validity of your position and respect it. Let’s talk about Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.”
And yet, it hurts my feelings that I am questioned a lot by the leaders and treated differently by others. For instance, I recently asked the bishopric to dance in tutus for the visiting teaching convention. I got the idea from my neighbor, the patriarch’s wife, and a former college stake Relief Society president. She’d done the same thing for a program in the college stake.
They were so suspicious of me and a member of the stake presidency asked her specifically if I was telling the truth. I started to cry when she told me that.
But I brushed it off and the program went off like it was supposed to and it was a huge success. Thank God for my shill.
I’ve used her several times now because they don’t trust me to do the right thing.
I know there are others like me. I am now going visiting teaching with a girl who was just baptized. She has a history like mine and she said she couldn’t have been baptized on the strength of her former husband’s family activity because they were hypocrites. She’s seen both sides and chosen activity. Me, too. But you guys, it’s so not easy.
Comment by annegb — February 19, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Peter and Jeannine,
I agree with you. But, as I said before, I’m drawing the line at divine authority. In my world view, only one church has it. You’ll get the same view from President Hinckley. There is only one church authorized to act in God’s name. That’s where Mormonism is different from all the others.
Baptists and Catholics, and Presbyterians can compete well with our faith on many other fronts: quality of instruction, humanitarian service, interpretation of the Bible, and so on.
But however correct the other religions may be, they are not authorized. They do not have the Priesthood.
Being the “true Church” isn’t so much about being correct as it is about being authorized of God. Correctness of doctrine and practice often accompanies the true Church, but it isn’t the essential characteristic.
The Methodists may indeed be more correct in their take on Jesus than we are. But they still are not authorized to speak for Him.
Comment by Seth R. — February 19, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
Re: #16, I teach a course on American religious pluralism at Brandeis University (short version: a Mormon teaching Jews about Protestants), and I definitely teach my students that Mormons are part of the Restorationist branch of Christianity (though we don’t consider ourselves to be this). I think it’s a helpful perspective for outsiders trying to place Mormons in the American religious mosaic. And since Restorationist groups tend not to agree with one another on anything, it goes a long way towards explaining the animosities that persist among Mormons, other Restorationists, Protestants, and Catholics.
By the way, I think it’s interesting that recent General Conference talks have taken notice of Protestant martyrs and Bible translators. Though this doesn’t help me build bridges with my Catholic friends, I think it’s an interesting tack for our leaders to be taking.
Comment by Tona — February 19, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
I think that Carol shows something interesting in her article by using a familiar term for those who leave the church: apostate. Why use this term in the article? Does her catholic husband call himself an apostate? Probably not. This term is particularly found in the LDS church. And it signifies difference, which I am sad to say negates carol’s entire post. By using this word, she separates herself from the flock and denies her lds background. Why? because apostate signifies someone who works against the church. And I know that Carol is not doing that. But why did she need to use that term?
Comment by why me — February 21, 2006 @ 6:18 am
why me,
I think it’s because it’s a term that the lds flock itself uses to refer to those who are no longer practicing, sometimes even when the person is not hostile or angry. Often, it seems, the flock imposes much of the separation. And since Carol is culturally from the fold, she knows the lingo.
Comment by Artemis — February 21, 2006 @ 8:34 am
I’m a lifelong member and I never understood the term “apostate” to mean anything other than “one who actively tries to undermine and harm the church.”
I never understood the term to include those who simply stop coming to church or have their names removed from the membership records.
I assumed that Carol was using the word sort of tounge-in-cheek, in a self-mocking sort of way. I wasn’t aware that she seriously considered herself “an apostate.” I think that would be giving her a label that she quite frankly hasn’t shown that she has earned.
Comment by Seth R. — February 21, 2006 @ 10:56 am
Seth, when I read your post #20 I can see your point but I have to say that President Hinckley’s way of wording this thought is so much easier on the ears than your previous posts. I travel a lot for work and always run into people who think that “mormons” are smug people who look down their noses at all other religions. I feel badly about this misconception (because I don’t feel that way personally) and am sad that someone who agrees with our wonderful prophet could phrase it in such a malicious way. I believe that our gospel is the only restored gospel on the earth but I have personally seen so many members completely shrug off anyone of other religions - forgetting the importance of seeing the good in their acts, their intentions, and their spirits, and the importance of identifying with those people when and where we can. I’m sorry but if I was a member of another religion and I saw your post, I’d probably think, “well, F___ you”… however, if I heard President Hinckley speak about being friends with other religions (as I have during some past general conference), I’d be MUCH more open to the church and it’s people.
Also - am I the only one who has had many people outside of the church tell me that they think we actually worship Joseph Smith as they do Christ? I thought I remembered the church itself pushing the official title of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints instead of the contant reference to “mormons” to try and dispel this myth? I don’t want people to think I’m not Christian because in my experience that equates to people thinking we believe that Christ was great but not our true redeemer and savior - instead that Joseph Smith is. I don’t want anyone to think for a second that I don’t recognize that Christ is my own redeemer and Savior.
Comment by Leslie — February 21, 2006 @ 11:26 am
Regarding the term apostate: Artemis and Seth are both right. My column is meant to be a humor column, so a lot of my terminology is chosen for humorous effect. Additionally, since I’m writing for both current and former Mormons, I’d like to be sure to use a term everyone understands. I hesitate to just write “exmormon” because I’m afraid that if I start using jargon from the other side, some people will be alienated.
I’ve posted comments on a few different bloggernacle blogs, and I often write “exmormon/apostate” just so there’s no confusion.
I always thought that the term for someone who actively tries to harm the church was “anti-Mormon”, and that “apostate” didn’t have quite as negative a connotation. I would not call myself an “anti-Mormon” unless it was very clear that it was just a joke. Maybe “apostate” means the same thing to some people. Not sure. Semantics can be so confusing!!!
Comment by C.L. Hanson — February 21, 2006 @ 11:52 am
#19
annegb,
Loved your post. I am DYING to hear more about the Bishopric dancing in tutus for visiting teaching. What was the point and can you outline the program?
Comment by nicole — February 21, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Yet another lesson on how we ought not to take our definitions of words for granted. How often we learn this lesson on this site… FWIW, I am also a life-long member, and I’ve never understood the word “apostate” to be synonymous with “anti.” It’s always just meant ex-mo (or on the high road to ex-mo) to me.
CL, Thank you for this post. I don’t know that I have anything to add that hasn’t been said, but I wanted to tell you I appreciate the way you and some of the other former Mormons we’ve met and interacted on this site are able to continue in a dialogue of exploration and friendship with us, even though we’re not on the same “sides” anymore.
Comment by EmilyS — February 21, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Carol, I completely empathise with you. I am in a very similar situation, but reversed. I am and have been raised catholic, while my husband was raised LDS. He currently has no ties to the church, and has been coming with me for about a year to Catholic services. After listening to my inlaws and brother in law, who just returned from a mission, I realized that the mormon faith was not for me. I applaude you for your post… my gripe is with Seth R. First, all chuches have their problems and scandals. The Catholic church has just been perfecting it for much longer. To say that every church has had their problems except the mormons is completely ignorant, just look in the history books. Then you go on to say that the Jeasus you worship is not the same as Jeasus I worship, yet we both believe in the same bible. Maybe I just wasn’t getting your point, but I am offended. When it comes to baptism, we believe that infants are born with the orginal sin of Adam and Eve. All the baptism does is forgive you of orginal sin, period, dot, end of sentence. My inlaws are up in arms that I’m having my children baptised, but I do want them to be exposed to both religions, and I want them to have the freedom to choose which is best for them.
On another point, all churches believe that they are the one true church. I am not here to say that mine is or isn’t, but I will point out that all religions are boned by the same golden rule; “do unto others as you will have others do unto you.” I do not think that I am better than the mormon, methodits, jewish, muslims, ect. But that is what you post made me feel you were saying. To live as one of god’s children one must have a little humility… so try to humble yourself a little seth r. I have learned to respect my inlaws faith as they have mine. I am very fortunate to have a family as understanding as my husbands’. I know that there are some things that we do not agree on, but ultimately they do reliaze that I am an adult, and I can make my own educated decisions myself.
Comment by Tina — February 22, 2006 @ 12:05 am
Typo: “bonded by the same golden rule” not boned. my bad
Comment by Tina — February 22, 2006 @ 12:09 am
I have sometimes wondered if we allow children too much freedom of choice. I have heard it often from various posters on the blogs that I will let my children choose when they are old enough. I sometimes cannot buy into this idea. I suppose it is because I find it hard to believe. In post 29 tina states that she wants her children to be exposed to both religions and allow her children to decide which church is best for them when they are older and yet, she is having her children christened (baptized) in the catholic faith. How is this giving her children an honest choice? And can any parent be outside the box when it comes to religion and their children? And not exert any influence? Will these children make their holy communion at 7? and their confirmation at 11? Again I take no issue with these practices but only with the statement “I want them to be able to choose what is best for them”.
I can understand her wanting her children christened as babies but I take issue with her free choice comment. I see no free choice here. But it sounds good and it sounds very tolerant.
But I am assuming that the baptism she refers to is in the catholic faith and her in-laws are feeling just a little uncomfortable with it but perhaps I am wrong.
I am also writing as someone who is lds with catholic roots and at times I can be found in the catholic church ligting candles for my parents. Also I can on occasion attend mass. I consider the catholic faith as my home also. My children attended mass on saturdays when they would visit grandma and to this day when they are now 16 and 18 I refer to the catholic faith as ‘grandma’s church”.
Comment by why me — February 22, 2006 @ 3:23 am
Opps..the last sentence should read: 2…..I refer to the catholic church as grandma’s church”.
To give free choice to me means no baptism until the children for themselves what is right. But I cannot agree with this either. I do believe that children should be baptised regardless of the faith involved…but it was free choice that I took some issue with in Tina’s post.
Comment by why me — February 22, 2006 @ 3:57 am
Leslie, You’re right. Tone can make all the difference.
Just remember that tone is very difficult to convey in the written format.
Comment by Seth R. — February 22, 2006 @ 10:37 am