Mormons; why don't you have crosses in your churches?

[dianaiad]

My experience is as a white and delightsome mormon, growing up pre-1978. My best friend for a few years was a girl who was in the mormon Indian placement program. Do you remember this program?

I was just a young girl. Every summer, my friend would leave for the reservation, and I would be alone because there were no other kids my age. In the fall she would come back and we were inseperable. She taught me a lot about her culture, not like a school lesson, but in the things we did and talked about. We were very close, like sisters. There are things I didn’t realize she was telling me until I was much older. Like, once she told me the name she went by was not her real name, that it was really something else, and that I should never call her by that name or tell anyone what it was. I just thought, ok, no problem. Many years later another woman told me that she shared with me something that her culture only shares with the closest of family. I had no idea.

In the meantime, I am going to church, and being taught that Native Americans are “Lamanites” and have “red” skin because they are cursed. Lamanites in the Book of Mormon were lazy, loathsome, evil, everything negative.

The Indian Placement program had its faults, but at least with it the Indians got decent educations. They no longer do. Just ask them. …and if you think that the Book of Mormon Lamanites were lazy, loathsome and evil because they were brown skinned, or that they were that all the time, you haven’t read the book much, or don’t remember it. The two groups, Lamanites and Nephites, traded places in that ‘lazy, evil, negative’ slot several times, depending upon which group was righteous. Sometimes, if you remember the book, it was the NEPHITES who were lazy, loathsome and evil.

As a young girl, the two didn’t seem at odds. My friend was none of these things, and I made no connection that she was. We were just kids. Best friends. As we got older, it became harder and harder for her to come back. Eventually, she never did come back. Our friendship never left me. Those experiences never left me. Fast forward a couple of years, and my good friends are Mexican. And here I am, hearing the same thing about them.

When I was about 13 yrs old, I began to question this idea, that my best friends were these things my church was teaching me. I began to question a lot of these sort of things, and by the time I was 16, I rejected them completely.

That explains a great deal.

It wasn’t long after this that the priesthood ban for blacks was lifted. Everyone I knew was very happy for this, as was I. (I heard of Mormons who weren’t so happy, and left “the church”.)

I could not reconcile it Diana. I don’t know how you can look at your own daughters and think that at one time your church taught their spirits were less valiant, and so they were given a body with a cursed color of skin so that you know just where they stand in God’s eyes, before they were even born.

I never believed that ‘their spirits were less valiant’ and the church never taught that. There was a great deal of speculation…backwards reasoning; the priesthood was banned, and people wanted to come up with reasons WHY. It wasn’t the other way around.

It is truly the most mysterious thing you have ever said. I can understand wanting to believe somethig so badly, that you white-wash things away. Pretend they didn’t exist. But this one, you have to do nothing but pretend that your church did not exist before 1978.

I would have to pretend I was not taught the things I was taught. It is not something I can do.

I think that what you remember being taught has been seen through some years of anti-filtering. What you remember being taught sounds, quite frequently, like the script written by the anti’s. It also sounds like you got a lot of ‘folk’ Mormonism. You didn’t stick around long enough to do any actual studying. You didn’t go to seminary, attend institute classes…In other words, if you left at sixteen, you never did quite get through the ‘catechism.’

 

[dianaiad]

Not in the hearts of the people but it was in the laws on the books, except the Morman books that is.

It is in the hearts of the people that racism must be truly ‘fixed,’ and you really need to do some more research if you think that everything was done ‘in the laws on the books’ by 1968.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am sorry, Rebecca, but I haven’t got the patience or the character to humbly accept criticism for being a racist (ME?) or belonging to a racist group, from people whose history shows so much more evidence of racism than mine has ever done. It is not disdain for 'anything not Mormonism," far from it. It is a disdain for hypocrisy.

It’s not just this post/thread/subject. You seem to be getting more bitter and hateful by the day. Ascribing things to me and others that are nothing more than your own fantasy. Why, I am not sure. But it’s not really anything I want to do with.

Unfortunately, yes, he did…it’s one of those times in which Brigham let his mouth get away with him. He did that several times. It may be one of the reasons it took us so long to wake up.

I agree he defined your church, it’s doctrines, and what it taught, for decades after his death. If it were just “some guy” talking (as I believe he always was) then I’d say, it was just some guy. But he was claiming to speak for God, in a position that Mormons believe was a prophet, one of authority and leadership. He was “just some guy” and had nothing to say of God’s truth.

Lessee…in 1488 Pope Innocent V!!! accepted a gift of 100 Moorish (black) slaves, giving some of them to his favorite Cardinals.

However, it is very true that the popes condemned slavery in no uncertain terms…and one of them made owning slaves grounds for communication. However, NOBODY LISTENED to them, and y’know what? The conquistadors who invaded the Americas practiced very real slavery by the millions, with the church’s full support. There were remarkable stories of Catholic protection of the natives in spite of this (the Jesuit Republic of Paraguay) but the fact remains (speaking of Jesuits) that in Maryland during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Jesuits owned slaves. One Dominican father, Bartolome de Las Casas (1474-1566) faught very hard against enslaving Indians–proposing that they solve the problem by importing African slaves, instead.

Slavery did not become race-based until the 17th century. Before then, taking slaves in war was very normal. The Moores were taken as slaves in a war, not because of the color of their skin, and that color seen as divinely made inferior.

As I said, people should listen to popes. They didn’t, and many Catholics still don’t, as today, with the issue of abortion. You will find Catholics who speak out and act against church teachings.

…and the fact is, the Catholic church never excommunicated a single American slaveholder. Not one. Southern slave owners were in full fellowship–allowed to take communion–throughout the Civil War. The attitude of the church, as evidenced by Cardinal Hyacinthe Gerdil, was this: “Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle…For slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men…[and is] subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely.”

As was the “norm” for slavery for thousands of years. American slavery, that of enslaving Africans, and treating them as cattle, was a new form of slavery, never practiced before. You would be taught this in any soc101 course.

Pope John Paul issued an apology for the church support of slavery in 1993 (note; that’s FIFTEEN YEARS after that 1978 June morning)

Yes, and when has your church apologized for its stance on anything? Including this?

It is true that Popes have been preaching against slavery since 1435, but it took Catholics over five hundred years to actually pay attention, including the priests and Cardinals.

What, you want them to be beaten into submission?

It is also true that Brigham Young and the early Mormons were bigots, even as all the people around them (slave owners mostly) were…and that bigotry may well have tainted the Mormons for a hundred and fifty years. However, when another prophet asked for guidance from God, received it and proclaimed it one sunny summer morning, we all listened, found joy in the listening, and everything changed in an instant.

So, the prophet who ended this bigotry was guided by God, and the one who instituted was not guided by God (as he claimed and those who followed him believed)?

Again, the question, “what is your so-called prophet teaching you today that is merely his opinion and you are accepting as divine guidance?”

Which group is most worthy of criticism? Both? Neither?

As good friend (Mormon) of mine was fond of saying: “People suck.”

One final note, regarding ‘disdain,’ Rebecca. I did not bring this issue of Catholic racism up, nor would I ever have done so; I understand the history and struggle of racial equality and how hard many Catholics have fought for it. There are many, many Catholic heroes in the history of blacks in America, and I honor all of those individuals.

However, you have attacked MY people over this issue, and are claiming that our refusal to allow blacks to hold the priesthood proves that we are not ‘true.’ The problem with that, of course, is the mote and beam thing. Or ‘he who is without sin,’ and all that. If you will condemn the Mormons for racism, then you must leave the Catholic church for the same reason.

There is cultural racism, and there is racism taught by a person who claims to be a prophet and receiving divine guidance. Even teaching a whole “truth” of non-valiant and valiant spirits, and the color of your skin is determined by that valiance, and your position in that next life is secured (as a servant). This goes FAR beyond cultural prejudices, it is claiming to speak for GOD.

Nope, not really, he was just making **** up. (No kidding.)

I can understand you rejecting this teaching, as I do too.

No Pope has taught that skin color indicates one’s standing with God.

 

[dianaiad]

It’s not just this post/thread/subject. You seem to be getting more bitter and hateful by the day. Ascribing things to me and others that are nothing more than your own fantasy. Why, I am not sure. But it’s not really anything I want to do with.

You know, you are quite right. I am getting more bitter, and more unable to deal with the constant lies about what I believe and the hypocrisy of those who criticize our history. When I am criticized for belonging to a ‘racist’ church…by those whose churches were segregated and slave owners for hundreds of years longer than we have even been around, I tend to get annoyed.

When people who support publications like 'the God Makers" and “Maze of Mormonism,” who quote from “Mormon Research Ministries,” “Lighthouse Ministries,” et. al actually get insulted because we believe that an apostasy required the restoration of the gospel/priesthood, I find that hypocritical in the extreme.

When these same people deny me the right to call myself a Christian–and get insulted because I don’t agree with them on this issue, I find that unjust.

When I am expected (and comply) with the directive to treat Catholicism with respect (and I do.) but the Catholics and others here are quite free to be as disrespectful and insulting of MY faith as they wish…I find myself getting a tad bitter.

I think…I need a vacation. So…I think, I’ll take one.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You know, you are quite right. I am getting more bitter, and more unable to deal with the constant lies about what I believe and the hypocrisy of those who criticize our history. When I am criticized for belonging to a ‘racist’ church…by those whose churches were segregated and slave owners for hundreds of years longer than we have even been around, I tend to get annoyed.

When people who support publications like 'the God Makers" and “Maze of Mormonism,” who quote from “Mormon Research Ministries,” “Lighthouse Ministries,” et. al actually get insulted because we believe that an apostasy required the restoration of the gospel/priesthood, I find that hypocritical in the extreme.

When these same people deny me the right to call myself a Christian–and get insulted because I don’t agree with them on this issue, I find that unjust.

When I am expected (and comply) with the directive to treat Catholicism with respect (and I do.) but the Catholics and others here are quite free to be as disrespectful and insulting of MY faith as they wish…I find myself getting a tad bitter.

I think…I need a vacation. So…I think, I’ll take one.

It takes two to tango.

 

[Worthy5]

You are quite right. Symbols mean things…and they mean what the user says they mean.

So, if you want to wear a cross or a crucifix, and use them properly (according to your faith) then you should.

but you should NOT criticize those whose symbols are other, for they are equally meaningful. Just not yours.

I didn’t. I simply noted that to conflate the use of symbols (an aspect of Apostolic Christianity) with a characterization of an individual’s behavior (made by Publisher) is a veiled attempt to discount the use of symbolism specifically and Apostolic Christianity in general.

 

[Janet1983]

Now there are about 123 times as many Catholics as there are Mormons in the USA. Why is it, do you suppose, that in thirty years we have managed to have 100 times as many black priests in thirty years as you have managed to come up with in 141?

That’s easily explained. Not every Roman Catholic male is a priest, while every Mormon male becomes one at the age of 16 (deacons at 12).

Here are some numbers:
African Americans in the United States: 36.0 million
African American Catholics: 2.5 million
African American Catholic Bishops: 12
African American Priests: 225
African American Seminarians: 26
African American Religious Sisters: 400
African American Religious Brothers: 75
African American Deacons: 437
(30 May 2006)

Among these 2.5 million you’ll also find women and children. Only males who are Catholic and have finished their seminary degree can become priests. That narrows it down already.
Not everybody is called to be a priest in the RCC however (especially because it does require celibacy… a good reason why the number of permanent deacons is significantly higher)
Here come the assumptions without statistics…
2,500,000 black Catholics…
50% female…
1,250,000 black male Catholics…
2/5 boys…
750,000 black male Catholics who could become priests if they wanted to…
225 priests + 437 deacons = 662 men in the clergy with another 26 in seminary…

There are only few people who want to become priests or deacons however…

That however tells us that in 2006 the ratio between African American parishioners and African American priests was under 1%… That’s dreadful if you ask me…

But before we jump to conclusions let us look at the whole of the Catholic population using the exact same standard:
Statistics non-regarding the race:
Catholics: 64.8 million
Priests: 42,839
Seminarians: 3,308
Religious Sisters: 68,634
Religious Brothers: 5,451
Deacons: 14,574
(2005)

Let’s put the same standard I applied to the African American population:
64,800,000 Catholics…
50% female…
32,400,000 male Catholics…
2/5 boys…
19,440,000 male Catholics who could become priests if they wanted to…
42,839 priests + 14,574 deacons = 57,413 men in the clergy with another 3,308 in seminary…

That ratio is under 1% too. To declare that there are only a few black priests out there does not tell us anything (about racism), except that it tells us that statistically as many black men are called as there are of any other race.
The Mormon church had a quick rise in the last 30 years because all black men over the age of 16 became priests once they were allowed to do so and all the boys between 12 and 16 became deacons… It’s just a natural thing for these numbers to be significantly higher… If an average of less than 1% of the Mormon church were priests in a special priesthood the numbers would look dramatically different too.

 

[dianaiad]

It takes two to tango.

Really?

Has it occurred to you, then, that you should be the one to stop dancing?

 

[dianaiad]

I didn’t. I simply noted that to conflate the use of symbols (an aspect of Apostolic Christianity) with a characterization of an individual’s behavior (made by Publisher) is a veiled attempt to discount the use of symbolism specifically and Apostolic Christianity in general.

That’s illogical. Publisher is a member of an organized religion (or is that why you changed your charge from ‘organized religion’ to ‘apostolic Christianity?’) and therefore cannot be, with his opinions, attacking religion, or Christianity, in general.

Indeed, the opposite may be true here; you seem to be the one with the problem–somehow asserting that one cannot be a ‘true Christian’ without prominent display of these symbols.

All Publisher said was that they were not needed, and that if worn, they should be lived up to; hypocrisy is never a good thing. It is, after all, the heart that God judges, not the accessories one wears, no matter how symbolic.

As for me, well, Mormons are among the most symbolically rich of religions. We just don’t display them for other people. The symbols we use are to remind US of our promises, commitments and beliefs, not so much for display. Not that there is anything wrong with such outer display (such as crosses, liturgical collars, habits and whatever) because there isn’t. It’s just–that there’s nothing wrong with not wearing them, either.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Really?

Has it occurred to you, then, that you should be the one to stop dancing?

I believe that is what I have already stated.

 

[Worthy5]

That’s illogical. Publisher is a member of an organized religion (or is that why you changed your charge from ‘organized religion’ to ‘apostolic Christianity?’) and therefore cannot be, with his opinions, attacking religion, or Christianity, in general.

Indeed, the opposite may be true here; you seem to be the one with the problem–somehow asserting that one cannot be a ‘true Christian’ without prominent display of these symbols.

All Publisher said was that they were not needed, and that if worn, they should be lived up to; hypocrisy is never a good thing. It is, after all, the heart that God judges, not the accessories one wears, no matter how symbolic.

As for me, well, Mormons are among the most symbolically rich of religions. We just don’t display them for other people. The symbols we use are to remind US of our promises, commitments and beliefs, not so much for display. Not that there is anything wrong with such outer display (such as crosses, liturgical collars, habits and whatever) because there isn’t. It’s just–that there’s nothing wrong with not wearing them, either.

I do not like the tango, I like the Cha Cha Cha. But yes, the better word is Apostolic Christianity.

 

[Jerusha]

:whackadoo: One can dance alone. :whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo:However, it is more fun for many to dance together. :whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo: Lets stick with the Mormon debate, OK?

One Dominican father, Bartolome de Las Casas (1474-1566) faught very hard against enslaving Indians–proposing that they solve the problem by importing African slaves, instead.

And he died regretting that statement.

Thomas Jefferson was aware of his work, and said that there may be something about slavery that makes people seem less intelligent. I would have to say that his dearest Sally had something to do with that statement.

I would have to say that individual friendships with people of different cultures and races and religions do a lot in breaking down barriers. And on the internet, often that just doesn’t happen.

 

[dianaiad]

:whackadoo: One can dance alone. :whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo:However, it is more fun for many to dance together. :whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo: Lets stick with the Mormon debate, OK?

And he died regretting that statement.

Perhaps. But he made it–and it was well within common practice at the time.

Thomas Jefferson was aware of his work, and said that there may be something about slavery that makes people seem less intelligent. I would have to say that his dearest Sally had something to do with that statement.

I would have to say that individual friendships with people of different cultures and races and religions do a lot in breaking down barriers. And on the internet, often that just doesn’t happen.

True. There is a problem with the internet: its purported anonymity makes it possible to say, and write, things that one would never say or write in person. Because of that, it is sometimes difficult to get past perception and opinion on one topic to understanding and knowing the whole person.

I have often thought that, perhaps, the internet is like a private diary; one puts one’s deepest–or passing–thoughts down to look at them and decide whether they are what you really feel, or whether it was something you should simply say–and then erase as unworthy of you. That’s fine–if it is in a diary. However, everybody can read what you write on the internet, and it never, ever goes away. That makes making friends a little tough here; it’s really easy to hold grudges, and a little difficult to forgive, when the offense is ever fresh and readily recalled with a button click.**

 

[Jerusha]

I agree with the freedom of expression statement, after all, it is a constitutional right. I grew up in an environment where we feared the consequences of making any kind of statement that might offend LDS. Never mind how offensive they were to us.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Indian Placement program had its faults, but at least with it the Indians got decent educations. They no longer do. Just ask them.

In high school I had another friend from “the res”, she was also in the placement program. At the end of our jr. year she said she was not coming back the next year, as a school had opened on the reservation and that is where she was going to go. She was very excited, and very happy, and when I contined to write her, she was getting educated just fine. Is it a private school education? No. But it is a far better arrangement than putting your 5 year old on a bus, to send them hundreds of miles away, to live with people who are purposely trying to de-culturize them for 9 months.

…and if you think that the Book of Mormon Lamanites were lazy, loathsome and evil because they were brown skinned, or that they were that all the time, you haven’t read the book much, or don’t remember it. The two groups, Lamanites and Nephites, traded places in that ‘lazy, evil, negative’ slot several times, depending upon which group was righteous. Sometimes, if you remember the book, it was the NEPHITES who were lazy, loathsome and evil.

I believe I linked for ParkerD what your church is teaching now, today. Same thing, different day. Nothing has changed.

I never believed that ‘their spirits were less valiant’ and the church never taught that. There was a great deal of speculation…backwards reasoning; the priesthood was banned, and people wanted to come up with reasons WHY. It wasn’t the other way around.

Fair enough.

I think that what you remember being taught has been seen through some years of anti-filtering.

Nah, I figured it out on my own and left long before, years before, I read anything, at all, that you would call “anti”.

What you remember being taught sounds, quite frequently, like the script written by the anti’s. It also sounds like you got a lot of ‘folk’ Mormonism. You didn’t stick around long enough to do any actual studying. You didn’t go to seminary, attend institute classes…In other words, if you left at sixteen, you never did quite get through the ‘catechism.’

I attended seminary for four years, graduated and everything. :curtsey: That is where I was taught more of the weird stuff that I didn’t believe, and still don’t. As to “folk doctrine”, Mormons like to tell me this, but where else would I learn what Mormons teach but at church, and what your church teaches? What you are telling me is that I should have studied to un-learn what your church taught me. Eventually I did just that, and thus, I was led out completely.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s easily explained. Not every Roman Catholic male is a priest, while every Mormon male becomes one at the age of 16 (deacons at 12).

Here are some numbers:
African Americans in the United States: 36.0 million
African American Catholics: 2.5 million
African American Catholic Bishops: 12
African American Priests: 225
African American Seminarians: 26
African American Religious Sisters: 400
African American Religious Brothers: 75
African American Deacons: 437
(30 May 2006)

Among these 2.5 million you’ll also find women and children. Only males who are Catholic and have finished their seminary degree can become priests. That narrows it down already.
Not everybody is called to be a priest in the RCC however (especially because it does require celibacy… a good reason why the number of permanent deacons is significantly higher)
Here come the assumptions without statistics…
2,500,000 black Catholics…
50% female…
1,250,000 black male Catholics…
2/5 boys…
750,000 black male Catholics who could become priests if they wanted to…
225 priests + 437 deacons = 662 men in the clergy with another 26 in seminary…

There are only few people who want to become priests or deacons however…

That however tells us that in 2006 the ratio between African American parishioners and African American priests was under 1%… That’s dreadful if you ask me…

But before we jump to conclusions let us look at the whole of the Catholic population using the exact same standard:
Statistics non-regarding the race:
Catholics: 64.8 million
Priests: 42,839
Seminarians: 3,308
Religious Sisters: 68,634
Religious Brothers: 5,451
Deacons: 14,574
(2005)

Let’s put the same standard I applied to the African American population:
64,800,000 Catholics…
50% female…
32,400,000 male Catholics…
2/5 boys…
19,440,000 male Catholics who could become priests if they wanted to…
42,839 priests + 14,574 deacons = 57,413 men in the clergy with another 3,308 in seminary…

That ratio is under 1% too. To declare that there are only a few black priests out there does not tell us anything (about racism), except that it tells us that statistically as many black men are called as there are of any other race.

Except that no, it does not. 5% of American Catholics are African-American…if there were 'as many black men called as any other race," then 5% of the clergy would also be black. It is not. THAT percentage is 1% or less.

If we extend the population of black members world wide, the percentage falls; 3% of the world wide population of Catholicism is black–yet the percentage of black clergy is still under 1% OF THE CLERGY.

If there were not systemic discrimination in the church throughout history, then at least 8 Popes should have been ‘black,’ and yet at the moment only three Popes have been identified as ‘possibly’ black.They are identified as such only because of their country of origin—and there were as many Romans and Arabs in those nations as there were those of negroid ancestry. So…it is by no means certain that there have been ANY black popes. I think that there is a distinct possibility for one in the near future, and that is good, but the past? Not so much.

The problem, of course, that in both our cases we have a disconnect between official statements and cultural practice. The popes who have been preaching against slavery for five hundred years didn’t make much of a dent in the practices of their own clergy, much less the population at large. The discrimination was indemic and solid.

In our case, the current thinking about why the priesthood was restricted could have been as uncomfortably pragmatic as…under the circumstances surrounding the early saints, square in the middle of slave country, it would have been a REAL problem to elevate slaves over their masters in priesthood authority. Or it could have been…because the whites were hard headed and not ready. Perhaps it was a simple, and as bad a comment upon us as ‘white’ Mormons, that WE weren’t worthy. I do know (as long as we are quoting Brigham Young in this matter) that he said there would come a time when every black man and woman would have every right and blessing that every ‘white’ did.

I think (and it is just my thoughts, not representative of official church doctrine) that the reason it took as long as it did was because we, the white folks, had to get to a place where we not only would accept it, but pleaded for it; we were the problem that needed fixing. Our sin and attitude, in other words, not theirs.

 

[dianaiad]

In high school I had another friend from “the res”, she was also in the placement program. At the end of our jr. year she said she was not coming back the next year, as a school had opened on the reservation and that is where she was going to go. She was very excited, and very happy, and when I contined to write her, she was getting educated just fine. Is it a private school education? No. But it is a far better arrangement than putting your 5 year old on a bus, to send them hundreds of miles away, to live with people who are purposely trying to de-culturize them for 9 months.

I believe I linked for ParkerD what your church is teaching now, today. Same thing, different day. Nothing has changed.

Fair enough.

Nah, I figured it out on my own and left long before, years before, I read anything, at all, that you would call “anti”.

I attended seminary for four years, graduated and everything. :curtsey: That is where I was taught more of the weird stuff that I didn’t believe, and still don’t. As to “folk doctrine”, Mormons like to tell me this, but where else would I learn what Mormons teach but at church, and what your church teaches? What you are telling me is that I should have studied to un-learn what your church taught me. Eventually I did just that, and thus, I was led out completely.

Wait. You said you left at 16? How did you manage to get in four years of seminary if you threw everything out at 16?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wait. You said you left at 16? How did you manage to get in four years of seminary if you threw everything out at 16?

I said I rejected what I was being taught at 16. At my house, there was no choice whether or not I was enrolled in seminary. For a while I didn’t go, extending my lunch into a conveniently located seminary class right after lunch. Until the seminary teacher told my bishop who then told my dad who then made it clear I was going to seminary. This was followed by people in the ward asking me why I didn’t go to seminary. So I went. I graduated. I continued going to church, mostly, until I was 23, at which point, I moved, and no one to bother me about why I wasn’t at this or that. I stopped going completely. VT came around, I let them in. I still have one to this day who sends me a letter once a month, talking to me like we’re BFF. I’ve never met the woman in my life, and have never responded to any of her letters. I’ve been thinking about writing her back and thanking her for her kind letters, but I am Catholic.

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca J,
Your father was completely wrong to insist you go to seminary, and the teacher was wrong to tell him you weren’t going. I think anyone who was “forced” or “coerced” as a youth about religious decisions in their life, has been hurt in a major way and God will be very tender and non-judging about the impact on the particular youth who faced that in their life.

Have a good weekend.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca J,
Your father was completely wrong to insist you go to seminary, and the teacher was wrong to tell him you weren’t going. I think anyone who was “forced” or “coerced” as a youth about religious decisions in their life, has been hurt in a major way and God will be very tender and non-judging about the impact on the particular youth who faced that in their life.

Have a good weekend.

ParkerD, my father is a good man, a very true believing mormon, who has given me nothing but love. I have never once blamed him for me leaving mormonism, and neither should you.