Telstar,
This thread sort of belongs in tabloid journalism. One ought to really find out reality before jumping to conclusions from someone else’s conjecture.
Here are some reality checks on this subject:
- A minor child under age eighteen would need specific written permission of both parents or the custodial parent if that child desires to be baptized as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The missionaries of course know this. They of course under normal circumstances seek the parents’ permission if a child has requested to receive the missionary lessons and it is going to be done in someone else’s home such as a friend’s home.
- If it is a young woman or a single woman there will always be other adults present and not just two young women, by the rules for the missionaries for their visiting and their teaching.
- If the missionaries persisted in teaching a young person without the parental permission, it would soon be figured out by district or zone leaders as they discuss who is being taught and visited by the specific missionaries, and the missionaries would be told they need to stop visiting with the young person, and be reminded that the young person can only be baptized after age eighteen if the parents haven’t consented, and be reminded that parental consent for baptism before age eighteen would need to be in writing, and that they are sent out to teach those who are reasonably considered to be able to be baptized within the period of time when they are being taught–not three years later.
So there’s the reality, as compared with the conjecture that has been propounded on this thread in several cases.
Peace to you and all readers.
Parker,
I was not ‘jumping to conclusions’ by any means. If you reread my post, you’ll see that I used words like they ‘could’ or ‘might’ have done something, rather than they ‘did’ or they ‘will’. I’m not accusing anyone of anything as a statement of fact, except that under the circumstances, those particular missionaries
seemed to be doing something that I consider to be highly unethical, and so were the other parents. I wasn’t there, so I can’t know for sure, but based on what was said to be happening, I gave my opinion on it as if it were true. If you’re saying that it didn’t happen, or couldn’t have happened, then you might also be jumping to conclusions, based on your own opinion of the situation.
I don’t have a problem with missionaries talking with the girl
if her parents are there, or if it happens in their own home. But, I do have a problem with it happening in someone else’s home, especially if the adults in that home have not been honest with her parents and informed them of what was going on. Let’s face it, if there were missionaries there, teaching the girl, it had to be because those parents called them in to do it. Even if it was because the girl showed interest in learning about their beliefs, this is not the way it should have been handled. It would seem to me that those parents might have had the ulterior motive of converting the girl, while ignoring the fact that allowing it to happen might cause a serious conflict between her and her own parents. That’s even more unethical, in my opinion. Being in that situation, the girl might feel pressured by all of them to consider converting. That’s no way for anyone to proselytize, and it’s much more than just having a simple discussion of beliefs. Missionaries are on a mission to convert others, and no matter how you look at it, that’s exactly what they were trying to do.
No offense intended, but if it were my daughter, I would never allow her to go back to that house, for her own soul’s protection. Having to do that could certainly cause a huge rift between members of the family, that might cause serious damage in the long run. But, until our children are adults, their souls are our responsibility and we will be judged by God on how well we guarded them. That being said, I would be much more concerned with offending God than my teenage daughter’s friends, or their parents.
