Can male missionaries visit single women?
Paula
question. I know that I can't feed the missionaries in my home since
there are only females in our household. But can missionaries teach
women who are home alone or with only children?
--
Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy,
so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay
tomorr...@gmail.com
On my mission (and I assume this is the same elsewhere), male
missionaries cannot enter a home unless there is a male above 18
present, preferably a Melchizedek priesthood holder. If they want to
teach a woman, they either need to bring a male member with them, or
the lesson can take place outside, or in a public area. I went with two
Elders last week to teach a single woman, and because no men were home
(and I'm a girl too), we had the lesson in her backyard.
Eva
joseph_dan...@yahoo.com
Paula のメッセージ:
> When the feed the missionaries list came around, it brought up a
> question. I know that I can't feed the missionaries in my home since
> there are only females in our household. But can missionaries teach
> women who are home alone or with only children?
The bishop or the ward mission leader should be able to answer this.
My understanding, at least in reference to the Japan Hiroshima mission,
is that the missionaries need a male member who holds the Melchizedek
priesthood to go with, to teach them in their home. My memory is that
they _are_ allowed to teach single women at the church without member
help.
Of course, the best solution is to have members doing joint lessons
with them all the time, but that's a hard ideal to hit. What we've done
here in the past is have a couple of returned sister missionaries teach
the single women the bulk of the lessons under the direction of the
ward mission leader and the missionaries. We are generally able to
break an elder or high priest loose for some of the lessons, but single
women who are really interested in the Gospel seem to prefer to be
taught be the returned sister missionaries anyway.
John S.Colton
>When the feed the missionaries list came around, it brought up a
>question. I know that I can't feed the missionaries in my home since
>there are only females in our household. But can missionaries teach
>women who are home alone or with only children?
As other have said, the answer is typically, no.
Where I live, for example, the missionaries must either (a) meet with
the lady outside, (b) bring a long a male member, or (c) bring along
*two* female members (because bringing along just one female would
make it a "double date"). Bringing along a couple would be fine, of
course, as would inviting the nonmember to a couple's house for the
discussions.
I'm thinking that there may be "old age" exceptions. I believe, for
example, they *are* allowed to eat dinner alone with elderly sisters
(I'm not sure what the age requirement is), so perhaps they can
similarly meet alone with elderly ladies to teach them the
discussions.
John
*****
"How do I know what I think until I see what
I say?" --EM Forster
runsrealfast
Paula wrote:
> When the feed the missionaries list came around, it brought up a
> question. I know that I can't feed the missionaries in my home since
> there are only females in our household. But can missionaries teach
> women who are home alone or with only children?
>
The quick anwser is No! Missionaries are not to be alone with women
(single or married) and children. If this situation does arise and you
would like to feed the elders, invite a male friend over (maybe a non
member even). That would allow for the elders to be in your home.
Paula
When I sign up to feed the missionaries, I take them out to a
restaurant. They have a car, so we set up a restaurant and a time to
meet and I pick up the tab. I've done it that way because I had heard
the rule was that they couldn't come to my home since there is no man
around the house. But then I was thinking about what happens if a
single woman wants to be taught, especially if they are just knocking
doors so it isn't like there is an LDS family that referred them who
might be okay with sitting in on discussions with them.
runsrealfast
Paula wrote:
> When I sign up to feed the missionaries, I take them out to a
> restaurant. They have a car, so we set up a restaurant and a time to
> meet and I pick up the tab. I've done it that way because I had heard
> the rule was that they couldn't come to my home since there is no man
> around the house. But then I was thinking about what happens if a
> single woman wants to be taught, especially if they are just knocking
> doors so it isn't like there is an LDS family that referred them who
> might be okay with sitting in on discussions with them.
Yeah those situations are real tricky. A few times we as missionaries
would ask the single investigator if we could meet at the church and if
it would be alright if we invited another couple. Usually after
explaining the women rule for elders most were ok with that. One lady
that I taught had kids so she couldn't do that so, she set up chairs in
her front yard (it was summer) and we taught her out there and her kids
played out there while we taught her. It was a pretty good set up
actually. But, with feeding the elders I would assume (if you will let
me) that one of the main reasons to have them over is to have the
priesthood in your home. While taking them out to eat allows you to
serve them, therefore serving God I would try and allow them into your
home. I know in a couple wards I served in we had single ladies tell us
that her HTers and the elders were her only priesthood source and since
HTers only come over once a month having the elders around helped to
fill a void.
John
Mary
female missionaries. Because I don't like unexpected visits I book about a
week ahead of time. Most of the time they end up cancelling because it's
hard to find someone to come with them.
This whole thing of us having either them or me drag someone else into it
each time is so annoying I've decided to try to ditch missionary visits
entirely in winter. Let them stick with the married women and men. I'm
fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married people. It
makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
"runsrealfast" <runsre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12m65qh...@news.supernews.com...
tomorr...@gmail.com
> female missionaries. Because I don't like unexpected visits I book about a
> week ahead of time. Most of the time they end up cancelling because it's
> hard to find someone to come with them.
No chance finding some place public? In winter that would be harder, I
agree, but I taught people in MacDonalds and KFC, as well as parks.
Good luck!
Eva
runsrealfast
Mary wrote:
> I'm fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married people. It
> makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
Thats not true. I have two sisters that are both single even though
they are at that age they should be married. They are both very active
and love the church. Whether the church is true should have nothing
todo with whether or not you are single and feel like you don't fit in.
John
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
> Mary wrote:
>
>> I'm fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married people. It
>>makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
>
>
> Thats not true. I have two sisters that are both single even though
> they are at that age they should be married.
II am not sure if that came out the way you intended. It seems to read
as if you see that:
(a) the proper state of every mortal soul is to be married, and
(b) there is a deadline, based on age, for when we need to be married.
I just don't see it that way.
I know too many people who are decent, earnest saints who also happen to
be unmarried for me to think that there is something seriously absent
from their lives or spirituality.
I can think of one sister who was Stake Primary Music leader back when
my mother was Stake Primary President [1]. She's still unmarried after
all these years and I don't see any signs that she is not following
God's plan for her life, and she sure doesn't give any indication of
being denied blessings.
> Whether the church is true should have nothing
> todo with whether or not you are single and feel like you don't fit in.
Seen from the other side, the truthfulness of the church is really
unrelated to whether one feels like they fit in. The church community
(the group of people with whom one attends church) does, indeed, tend in
may parts of the world to be very family-oriented. And in this case,
family means husband and wife with two or more children.
In the average, western culture ward, if you're unmarried then people
will expect that you are looking for your eternal mate and planning on
becoming married.
In the average, western culture ward, if you're married but have no
children then people will expect that you are trying to become pregnant
and planning on starting a family.
In the average, western culture ward, if you're married but have an only
child then people will expect that you are trying to become pregnant
again and planning on expanding your family.
It is difficult for some people to put up with other people's
expectations and those expectations, alone, can make it difficult to
feel like you fit in.
Then you think about the unintentional bias that show up in lessons and
talks about how to be a better husband/wife/father/mother. Think about
sitting through your average, western culture ward's Mother's Day
Sacrament as an unmarried woman or as a childless couple. Think of all
the activities that are aimed at couples or youth or couples with youth
and imagine that you don't fit in to any of those categories.
It's not hopeless, in my opinion, however.
The secret is to find your relationship with God through your personal
scripture study, meditation on the spirit and thoughtful prayer. Blend
this with an active and fulfilling social life (that might be anything
from rock climbing to pottery to continuing education classes to dance
classes - just do something that provides positive feedback for you).
Then you can use church as the place to partake of the sacrament and
offer service in callings. Too often, LdS culture in the US tends to be
something that excludes non-church-related activities so long time
members forget that there is nothing wrong with doing things in your
community instead of your ward.
Craig
[1] Which was back before my mother was a member, so that was a long
time ago.
runsrealfast
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
> II am not sure if that came out the way you intended. It seems to read
> as if you see that:
Yeah you completely took what I said outside the context in which it
was meant. Think of my statement from a church cultural standpoint and
then it makes sense, it goes along with the discussion.
john
John
> Mary wrote:
> > I'm fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married people. It
> > makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
>
> Thats not true.
Well, if Mary feels she is fading away, believe me when I tell you,
that Mary IS fading away. The Church is all about feelings, emotions,
and self worth, and when those feelings are compromised, simply
pointing at them, and saying "no, you are incorrect" avails nothing of
any value, and quite inadvertantly, adds to the problem.
As one who has "faded away" I can vouch for the fact that the feelings
she speaks of are very real. When the prophet says to folks like me
"repent and come back" my reaction, in my state of mind is, 'when will
you address the problem that contributed to my leaving?' Its not
always, only the fault of the one who walks away.
I tend to wonder when he will turn to the 'active' congregations and
tell them that they need to do some serious reflecting on their own
behavior and attitudes, get out of the comfort zone, and work even
harder to make the church a place where -everyone- feels welcome.
Mary needs some help, and it is not going to come from people who think
the solution is to just keep showing up, and getting beaten down. There
are two sides to the issue of inactives. We always hear about the one
side, the people who should just "get over it" and return, but I
believe there is much room for improvement on the other side of the
-net- and when the meetings are places that single and divorced people
will feel fullfiled and loved, then they will attend, and grow. The
inactive person cannot accomplish this all by themselves.
Don't mean to "delurk" into any kind of controversy, but I tend to lean
towards Mary's point of view. Feelings and opinions cannot be dismissed
as wrong, and labeled, as invalid. They are quite real, and in the
end, they are all we really have to get us out of bed, and going about
our business each day.
John
Gerald Fuller
"The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson" <craig...@olsonhome.colm> wrote
in message news:12mom5m...@news.supernews.com...
> runsrealfast wrote:
>> Mary wrote:
>>
>>> I'm fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married
>>> people. It
>>>makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
>>
>>
>> Thats not true. I have two sisters that are both single even though
>> they are at that age they should be married.
>
> II am not sure if that came out the way you intended. It seems to read
> as if you see that:
Snip
> (a) the proper state of every mortal soul is to be married, and
> (b) there is a deadline, based on age, for when we need to be married.
a) It probaly is, but that is not going to happen in this life.
b) Of course I am sure you can imagine that he meant "they are at the age
where many or most people in the Church think it is "normal" to be married.
> I just don't see it that way.
Of course you don't! {8-)> If you did, you would not be responding would
you?
> I know too many people who are decent, earnest saints who also happen to
> be unmarried for me to think that there is something seriously absent
> from their lives or spirituality.
For an easy nit, did this come out the way you wanted? You said, "I know too
many people ...". Are you of the opinion that there is some limited number
of such people allowed, and you believe there are more than that limit that
you personally know? {8-)>
> I can think of one sister who was Stake Primary Music leader back when
> my mother was Stake Primary President [1]. She's still unmarried after
> all these years and I don't see any signs that she is not following
> God's plan for her life, and she sure doesn't give any indication of
> being denied blessings.
Moving the footnote up here,
"[1] Which was back before my mother was a member, so that was a long time
ago."
Are you saying that your mother was the Primary President before she was a
member of the Church? That sounds unusual.
I guess I would like to mention one highly respected sister in the Church
who is unmarried at last report I heard, although she is now probably even
past child bearing age, let alone past the age at which she "should be
married". That is Sheri L. Dew. President Hinckley, among others, frequently
speaks of those who do not enjoy in this life all that we seem to think they
should. They will not miss out on anything, provided they live according to
what God gives them as their "lot in life".
>> Whether the church is true should have nothing
>> to do with whether or not you are single and feel like you don't fit in.
I would say that the other way around. But I guess it is the same. The fact
that you don't feel as if you fit in, has nothing at all to do with the fact
that the Church is true, but it may well have everthing to do with the way
the local members accept their responsibilities under the Gospel. (Of course
it may also have to do with the depth of understanding that the individual
has of the Gospel)
Snip
> In the average, western culture ward, if you're unmarried then people
> will expect that you are looking for your eternal mate and planning on
> becoming married.
That is probably an over-generalization and it certainly is not limited to
Latter-day Saints.
> In the average, western culture ward, if you're married but have no
> children then people will expect that you are trying to become pregnant
> and planning on starting a family.
Same comment as before. That is simply the nosiness and "bossiness" endemic
to humans, I think.
> In the average, western culture ward, if you're married but have an only
> child then people will expect that you are trying to become pregnant
> again and planning on expanding your family.
Same comment. In defense of snoopy and noisy and bossy people though, this
may merely reflect their awkward attempts to show true interest in and
concern for others.
> It is difficult for some people to put up with other people's
> expectations and those expectations, alone, can make it difficult to
> feel like you fit in.
Yes. I hope you are not assigning fault here, but if you are who is
responsible mostly for correcting this fault? I would say, think more about
how you need to act and less about what you think others expect.
Thre is an Old Testament Scripture that in King James English says a lot,
but I like it even better in "The Message" a modern paraphrase.
Here is KJV
Micah 6:8
8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD
require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with thy God?
And here is the version from "The Message"
hlil...@juno.com
Mary wrote:
> This whole thing of us having either them or me drag someone else into it
> each time is so annoying I've decided to try to ditch missionary visits
> entirely in winter. Let them stick with the married women and men. I'm
> fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married people. It
> makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
I know this is a problem in a family oriented church. Being married I
cannot of course understand your viewpoint completely, but I do know
that the church leaders have tried to help those who are single be
accepted and feel loved in the church. Does it always work? Of course
not, we are all human and last I checked membership in the church did
not automatically make anyone perfect. There are married people who
treat the singles poorly. There are singles who could be more outgoing
and go out of their way more to make friends. The "blame" for many
singles feeling like outcasts may belong to either the single person or
to ward members, or even to ward leadership that fails to really care
for the members. Fact is, since we are all imperfect, there are people
who feel left out in this life.
I just got back from visiting some of my family and saw a cousin who is
single, in her 50's. She has felt left out as you might expect.
However she was recently called as primary president and loves it. For
her that was part of the solution. What should you do? Since I don't
know you, I cannot make firm recommendations but I can make some
suggestions you might consider. If you think them worthwhile that is
great. If you think they won't help, well they were still worth what
you paid for them. :-)
First, talk to your home teachers, visiting teachers and bishop and let
them know how you feel. Ask them to pray for you and if they have
suggestions.
Second, take the initiative to get to know people in your ward. Shake
hands at church, maybe even invite some couples over for a meal or game
night.
Third, if your area has a single adult program, get involved.
Forth, participate fully in RS and Sunday School classes, both asking
and answering questions that might contribute to the spirit there.
In my opinion, people in your situation need much the same thing that
President Hinkley said new converts need: a friend, a calling, and
nurturing in the good word of God. You can make the effort to make
friends yourself. If you don't have a calling you can tell the bishop
you want one (in most wards he will be delighted). You can assure your
own nurture in the good word of God both by indivitual study and prayer
(and temple attendance if your situation allows), and by participation
in the meetings.
Now if you want to change your single status, I have a couple of
nephews whose parents would dearly love for them to find eternal
companions. They are almost wishing for the days when parents just
found wives for their sons and told the sons they were about to get
married. :-)
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
I rather suspected that, but I thought it might be worthwhile to respond
to anyone who might actually think that there is an age when people
should be married. No offense intended.
Craig
rich hammett
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, runsrealfast:
> Mary wrote:
>> I'm fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married people. It
>> makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
> Thats not true. I have two sisters that are both single even though
> they are at that age they should be married.
Heh. I have no idea why a single person would feel out of place, with
sentences like this flying around.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.
rich hammett
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, runsrealfast:
> The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
Yes, and think about it from a church cultural standpoint, and it
also demonstrates Mary's own negative experience.
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
> "The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson" wrote:
<snip>
>>I am not sure if that came out the way you intended. It seems to read
>>as if you see that:
>>(a) the proper state of every mortal soul is to be married, and
>>(b) there is a deadline, based on age, for when we need to be married.
> a) It probaly is, but that is not going to happen in this life.
I get hung up on form over function sometime, and settled for the word
"mortal" to attempt to convey that concept. Thinking to myself that
there are so few mortals who are not in this life.
> b) Of course I am sure you can imagine that he meant "they are at the age
> where many or most people in the Church think it is "normal" to be married.
Yep. Which does indeed beg several questions - including why I should
spend time imagining what other people should be doing in regards to
their marital status, but I suspect some of that comes with being mortal.
>>I just don't see it that way.
> Of course you don't! {8-)> If you did, you would not be responding would
> you?
Well, now, that's not always true. Sometimes I respond to messages with
which I basically agree just for the sheer joy of expressing thoughts in
an electronic medium. But I'm probably the only one who posts just for
the hell of it.
>>I know too many people who are decent, earnest saints who also happen to
>>be unmarried for me to think that there is something seriously absent
>>from their lives or spirituality.
>
> For an easy nit, did this come out the way you wanted? You said, "I know too
> many people ...". Are you of the opinion that there is some limited number
> of such people allowed, and you believe there are more than that limit that
> you personally know? {8-)>
Oh, wouldn't Sigmund have a field day with this one! Perhaps I do know
too many people - at least in proportion to the rest of creation. There
are so few, say, jellyfish that I can truly say I know well.
>>I can think of one sister who was Stake Primary Music leader back when
>>my mother was Stake Primary President [1]. <snip>
>
> "[1] Which was back before my mother was a member, so that was a long time
> ago."
>
> Are you saying that your mother was the Primary President before she was a
> member of the Church? That sounds unusual.
I suspect it was a bit unusual. But yes, my mother was Stake Primary
President as a non-member; she had worked her way up through the relief
society and primary organizations during her 20 or so years of activity
in the church before she was baptised. My family isn't known for taking
rash actions.
> President Hinckley, among others, frequently
> speaks of those who do not enjoy in this life all that we seem to think they
> should. They will not miss out on anything, provided they live according to
> what God gives them as their "lot in life".
One of the speakers in Sacrament Meeting recently used a couple of good
quotes that also apply here. I'll see if I can get them from her and add
them to the thread.
Craig
Nathan
> runsrealfast wrote:
> > Mary wrote:
> > > I'm fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married people. It
> > > makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
> > Thats not true.
> Well, if Mary feels she is fading away, believe me when I tell you,
> that Mary IS fading away.
I agree, but what's "not true" is that "it's really a religion for
married people." It's a religion for all kinds of people. Thinking
over the limited number of members of the Church that I know
personally, I can't find anything at all that we all have in
common, besides our membership. But this should be
enough, so that we can "look forward with with one eye,
having one faith and one baptism." (Mosiah 18:21)
> When the prophet says to folks like me "repent and come back" my
> reaction, in my state of mind is, 'when will you address the problem
> that contributed to my leaving?'
John, I know that some of my responses come across as debate, but
in what follows, I'm not trying to contend with you. I sincerely hope
to say something that can help. But do you really miss the prophet's
frequent admonitions to the Saints to treat everybody better? Or are
you looking for something very specific to your individual situation?
> Its not always, only the fault of the one who walks away.
We all have faults. Your agency is *always* your own.
No one else has the power to "walk you away". Do you think
members who continue to participate actively in the Church do so
only because they've never been mistreated in the same way as you?
> I tend to wonder when he will turn to the 'active' congregations and
> tell them that they need to do some serious reflecting on their own
> behavior and attitudes, get out of the comfort zone, and work even
> harder to make the church a place where -everyone- feels welcome.
He addresses this every General Conference, and many times in
between. We all need to work at it, including me and you.
I've been trying. Among my home teaching families are two single
brethren in their forties. One of them has never married and is very
active; the other is divorced and comes to Sacrament Meeting a
couple of times a year. Since I've been home teaching these
men I've been more sensitive to how the teachings of the Church
apply to their specific situations. A First Presidency Message that
seems at first to be about nothing more than teaching your children
actually has an important application to the brother who will
probably never have children in this life. I'm trying to do more to
make these guys feel like they belong, because I truly believe they
do. As elders quorum president, every time I meet with the quorum
instructors I remind them of the importance of relating the lessons
they teach to all the members of the quorum regardless of personal
circumstances. And they've been doing it pretty well. When Brother
So-and-so decides to come to a quorum meeting (and I'm hoping
to help him come to that point), I trust he'll hear a message he
can recognize as relevant to his life.
> Mary needs some help, and it is not going to come from people who think
> the solution is to just keep showing up, and getting beaten down.
Obviously unkind things get said and done in the Church. Sometimes
people speak thoughtlessly or even maliciously, but what do you mean
by "getting beaten down"? Whatever it is, I certainly don't "think the
solution is to just keep showing up". Nor do I think the solution is to
run away from the problem. We've made covenants, and they aren't
conditioned on the way anyone else treats us.
The Lord has given a solution. Matthew 18:15-17 describes the
procedure, and D&C 42:88-92 expands on it. The person who has been
offended is supposed to take the initiative here. Talk to the person
who has trespassed against you. If the two of you can't resolve it,
take it a step further by meeting with the appropriate priesthood
authority. The Church has mechanisms for dealing with unresolved
offenses, but it's up to you to get things started.
> There are two sides to the issue of inactives. We always hear about
> the one side, the people who should just "get over it" and return, but I
> believe there is much room for improvement on the other side of the
> -net- and when the meetings are places that single and divorced people
> will feel fullfiled and loved, then they will attend, and grow. The
> inactive person cannot accomplish this all by themselves.
I would say we always hear about *both* sides. Listen to what
President Hinckley says about kindness. There definitely is much
room for improvement. But if you don't participate, how can you help
things improve, and how will you know when they do?
In the April 2002 General Conference, Elder Oaks gave a talked called
"The Gospel in Our Lives" that has really impacted my view of
participation in the Church. In part of the talk he mentioned "some
others who said they stopped going to Church because the Church
was 'not meeting their needs.' Which needs could they be expecting
the Church to meet?" Then the sentence that really hit me: "Persons
who attend Church in order to *give* to their fellowmen and *serve*
the Lord will rarely be disappointed."
My wife and I read this talk together from time to time. When things
get tough at church, when it seems boring or people get difficult
with us, we remind each other of this message. We try to remember
to go to church in search of someone we can serve, not asking
what's in it for us. Almost paradoxically, it's more fulfilling this
way.
David / Amicus
"A" in it) and another student was an older woman. Older to me - I was
a pup back then. And we - the class - were talking about why we wanted
to study Portuguese and she said it was because her son on his LDS
mission to Brazil had met his prospective bride there during that time
and he was now going back down there to bring her back to the USA. I
don't know the circumstances of how they met - whether he gave her the
lessons or not.
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
There are (of course) many possible situations in which a missionary
might meet a prospective bride.
One possibility is that he and his companion met the young lady as a
single woman, taught and baptized her. [IIRC, the rules about elders
teaching single women were less stringent way back in the 70s - the
thought in many cases was that having two elders together would prevent
any one of them from straying from the desired path].
However, equally possibly the young woman had been born and raised in
the church and simply met the missionary in question at church meetings.
It's not unheard of for missionaries to meet their future spouses while
on a mission - it's just not encouraged. Recently there was a missionary
from Brazil who served in our ward. After his release, he returned
within a matter of weeks and proposed to one of my friend's daughters.
Maybe this was to keep the balance of trade even with missionaries from
the States importing wives from Brazil.
Craig
Gerald Fuller
"The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson" <craig...@olsonhome.com> wrote
in message news:12mrdq5...@news.supernews.com...
> Gerald Fuller wrote:
>> "The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson" wrote:
Snip
>>>I can think of one sister who was Stake Primary Music leader back when
>>>my mother was Stake Primary President [1]. <snip>
>>
>> "[1] Which was back before my mother was a member, so that was a long
>> time
>> ago."
>>
>> Are you saying that your mother was the Primary President before she was
>> a
>> member of the Church? That sounds unusual.
>
> I suspect it was a bit unusual. But yes, my mother was Stake Primary
> President as a non-member; she had worked her way up through the relief
> society and primary organizations during her 20 or so years of activity
> in the church before she was baptised. My family isn't known for taking
> rash actions.
That is interesting, Craig. I think it would be technically impossible now,
because I think to have a teaching or administrative calling a person must
be a member. But as you may know, I left the Church a couple of years after
being baptized (Was a High Priest at the time and had been endowed) and
stayed out some seven years. I realized a lot of reasons that I needed to
come back, and petitioned to come back, and told my bishop that I would like
to be able to go home teaching with a good Senior companion. He actually
assigned me to a Priest and here I am around 60 with a normal age priest as
my senior companion, and me without any active priesthood until I had been
back at least a year and been approved for the restoration of Temple
Blessings. When I did put in that petition, I mentioned that I had been home
teaching, and when the Stake President interviewed me, he said, "How did
they have you do that?" It went on to Salt Lake that way and as far as I
know did not raise any more eyebrows, but that was not really, techncially
permitted either.
Jeffrey Needle
> on a mission - it's just not encouraged. Recently there was a missionary
> from Brazil who served in our ward. After his release, he returned
> within a matter of weeks and proposed to one of my friend's daughters.
> Maybe this was to keep the balance of trade even with missionaries from
> the States importing wives from Brazil.
>
> Craig
>
I was once visited by sister missionaries. I don't recall if I was
surprised at the time -- I was more turned off by their attitude than
their gender -- but looking back, I think it was a bit surprising.
I've met many missionaries since then. They've all been young men. I've
never had sisters visit again.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Needle
jeff....@gmail.com
runsrealfast
no worries craig none was taken, helps me remember to be completly
clear on what I am saying (or typing).
John
Gerald Fuller
"John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12mpaej...@news.supernews.com...
> runsrealfast wrote:
>> Mary wrote:
>> > I'm fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married
>> > people. It
>> > makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
>>
>> Thats not true.
>
> Well, if Mary feels she is fading away, believe me when I tell you,
> that Mary IS fading away. The Church is all about feelings, emotions,
> and self worth, and when those feelings are compromised, simply
> pointing at them, and saying "no, you are incorrect" avails nothing of
> any value, and quite inadvertantly, adds to the problem.
Of course it is true that Mary is falling away. As you say, if she feels
that she is falling away, then the fact is she is faling away. What is not
true, and I hope that is what "runs" had in mind, is that she should be
wearing a veil over her head. That is not to say she does not truly feel
that she should be doing so, but that her thinking and feeling here are
simply incorrect. Not wrong in a way to be condemnatory, but in a way to be
sort of self delusion, perhaps abetted by the members of her ward and their
treatment of her, real or merely perceived.
I do not agree with the statement that the only reality is our perception,
but for many people that might as well be true. Unless the perception can be
changed, they will not accept anything else as reality. Such a condition is
not necessarily mental illness, but often false perceptions do arise from
condition identified by psychology and psychiatry as treatable illnesses. Of
course there are some who think that religions are essentially treatable
mental illnesses.
> As one who has "faded away" I can vouch for the fact that the feelings
> she speaks of are very real. When the prophet says to folks like me
> "repent and come back" my reaction, in my state of mind is, 'when will
> you address the problem that contributed to my leaving?' Its not
> always, only the fault of the one who walks away.
Have you told the prophet what that problem is? I agree it is not always, or
usually for that matter, _only_ the fault of the one who walks (fades) away.
But is there never any share of the fault on the part of the one who has
faded?
> I tend to wonder when he will turn to the 'active' congregations and
> tell them that they need to do some serious reflecting on their own
> behavior and attitudes, get out of the comfort zone, and work even
> harder to make the church a place where -everyone- feels welcome.
I really think he has. One of the ways he has is by telling us repeatedly
that every member needs a friend, a responsibiltiy and nurturing by the good
word of God. Now that may not satisfy what you want him to say, but it is an
example and a start. He has also repeatedly told us to "be a little better"
each day. He has told us to be the best we can be and he has emphasized,
"the very best". But I cannot do for you that which you must do for
yourself, and you cannot do for me what I must do for myself. It is no
benefit for any one of us to diagnose the sins of others of us.
> Mary needs some help, and it is not going to come from people who think
> the solution is to just keep showing up, and getting beaten down. There
> are two sides to the issue of inactives. We always hear about the one
> side, the people who should just "get over it" and return, but I
> believe there is much room for improvement on the other side of the
> -net- and when the meetings are places that single and divorced people
> will feel fullfiled and loved, then they will attend, and grow. The
> inactive person cannot accomplish this all by themselves.
Of course there is room for improvement on the part of the ones who are
happy as things are. Certainly. And "enduring to the end" should not be
uncomfortable in the House of the Lord, even in the local ward building and
group. I thinnk Psalm 30, which we attribute to King David really applies to
all of us at times, when we feel we are fading and want to blame everyone
but ourselves. In a paraphrase called "The Message" it proabably says about
the same thing as the King James Version or other familiar versions, but it
is enough diffferent that I think it is worth reading just to get a fresh
look.
Psalm 30
A David Psalm
1 I give you all the credit, God- you got me out of that mess,
you didn't let my foes gloat.
2-3 God, my God, I yelled for help
and you put me together.
God, you pulled me out of the grave,
gave me another chance at life
when I was down-and-out.
4-5 All you saints! Sing your hearts out to God!
Thank him to his face!
He gets angry once in a while, but across
a lifetime there is only love.
The nights of crying your eyes out
give way to days of laughter.
6-7 When things were going great
I crowed, "I've got it made.
I'm God's favorite.
He made me king of the mountain."
Then you looked the other way
and I fell to pieces.
8-10 I called out to you, God;
I laid my case before you:
"Can you sell me for a profit when I'm dead?
auction me off at a cemetery yard sale?
When I'm 'dust to dust' my songs
and stories of you won't sell.
So listen! and be kind!
Help me out of this!"
11-12 You did it: you changed wild lament
into whirling dance;
You ripped off my black mourning band
and decked me with wildflowers.
I'm about to burst with song;
I can't keep quiet about you.
God, my God,
I can't thank you enough.
I think the last part of verse 5 is especially hopeful for us. Now if King
David really know what he was talking about ... {8-\>
> Don't mean to "delurk" into any kind of controversy, but I tend to lean
> towards Mary's point of view. Feelings and opinions cannot be dismissed
> as wrong, and labeled, as invalid. They are quite real, and in the
> end, they are all we really have to get us out of bed, and going about
> our business each day.
That is true, but we don't have to remain bogged down by them if we don't
want to.
Gerald Fuller
"Gerald Fuller" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:12mpakt...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson" <craig...@olsonhome.colm>
> wrote
> in message news:12mom5m...@news.supernews.com...
>> runsrealfast wrote:
>>> Mary wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married
>>>> people. It
>>>>makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
Snip
I had posted at some length in response to Mary, and then hit a wrong key
and the message was setn incomplete. Starting at about where it left me, I
will add a bit.
> Thre is an Old Testament Scripture that in King James English says a lot,
> but I like it even better in "The Message" a modern paraphrase.
>
> Here is KJV
>
> Micah 6:8
> 8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD
> require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly
> with thy God?
>
> And here is the version from "The Message"
8But he's already made it plain how to live, what to do,
what God is looking for in men and women.
It's quite simple: Do what is fair and just to your neighbor,
be compassionate and loyal in your love,
And don't take yourself too seriously-
take God seriously.
Now Mary, I don't want to attribute fault to you or to the people who are
not accepting you the way you would like to be accepted. I think most of us
find times that we are not accepted the way we would like to be accepted.
But when that happens, we need to remember that "He has shown us how to
live. He has made it plain what to do. He is looking for us to do what is
fair and just to our neighbor (and in the New Testament story of the Good
Samaritan, Jesus made it plain that our neighbor is not necessarily the ones
who treat us well all the time), to be compassionate (forgiving even to
those who we think "put isdown" and disrespect us, etc.) and be loyal in our
love (particluarly in our love for God and for His teachings.)
And finally and ultimately and very important don't take ourselve, our hurt
feelings, etc, too seriously. And a corollary, don't take the actions of
thers too seriously. But do indeed take God seriously. If you believe the
Church teaches truth even if the members don't seem to practice it, then
cling to it anyway.
>> Then you think about the unintentional bias that show up in lessons and
>> talks about how to be a better husband/wife/father/mother. Think about
>> sitting through your average, western culture ward's Mother's Day
>> Sacrament as an unmarried woman or as a childless couple. Think of all
>> the activities that are aimed at couples or youth or couples with youth
>> and imagine that you don't fit in to any of those categories.
>>
>> It's not hopeless, in my opinion, however.
That is correct. It is not hopeless.
>> The secret is to find your relationship with God through your personal
>> scripture study, meditation on the spirit and thoughtful prayer. Blend
>> this with an active and fulfilling social life (that might be anything
>> from rock climbing to pottery to continuing education classes to dance
>> classes - just do something that provides positive feedback for you).
And even more in some sort of service to others. Maybe volunteer at a
homeless shelter or a food pantry, etc.
>> Then you can use church as the place to partake of the sacrament and
>> offer service in callings. Too often, LdS culture in the US tends to be
>> something that excludes non-church-related activities so long time
>> members forget that there is nothing wrong with doing things in your
>> community instead of your ward.
>>
>> Craig
I would not say, "instead of your ward" but "as well as your ward". Even
full time missiionaries perform service in the communities where they are
serving. I thnk most of them do not take themselves too seriously, they take
God seriouosly.
Snip
John
> John wrote:
> > Well, if Mary feels she is fading away, believe me when I tell you,
> > that Mary IS fading away.
>
> I agree, but what's "not true" is that "it's really a religion for
> married people."
But perception is nine tenths of the law, or something like that :-) We
cannot help people like Mary, if we do not strive to know how they
feel, and if we do not comprehend things from their perspective.
Things look very different when viewed in the brilliant light of the
sun, rather than the darkness of despair....
>
> John, I know that some of my responses come across as debate, but
> in what follows, I'm not trying to contend with you.
Nah. no problem. I claim the same thing back tho. I am not here to do
anymore than discuss, and I hope it always comes out just that way.
However....... :-)
> > Its not always, only the fault of the one who walks away.
>
> We all have faults. Your agency is *always* your own.
> No one else has the power to "walk you away".
In pure form, I would agree, but mortals are not perfect, and with few
exceptions, we do have the power to drive people away as well. Not that
its always intended, but I cannot allow the notion that its always the
person's choice, to walk away, for in real life, I know that is not
true in all cases.
>Do you think members who continue to participate actively in the Church do so
> only because they've never been mistreated in the same way as you?
There is no way to compare one person's trials with anothers, therefore
there is no way to answer that question. I have seen modern day Jobs,
who stand tall, and I have seen people walk away because someone told
them they needed to wear a white shirt and tie to church.I can't judge
them, I can only hope to be able to help them, by understanding their
point of view and cirucmstances. We are all quite different, and there
is no way to know who can abide what.
> Obviously unkind things get said and done in the Church. Sometimes
> people speak thoughtlessly or even maliciously, but what do you mean
> by "getting beaten down"?
Perhaps a better term might have been used. When one is hurting, life
still goes on. The kids still fight, and there is tension in the home.
The job may be a struggle, the list is endless, we all go through it.
All of these things require attention, and effort. If going to church
is not fulfilling, enjoyable, and something that is looked forward to
and overall beneficial, it becomes a detriment, and as such, one gets
'beaten down' rather than lifted up.
> The Lord has given a solution. Matthew 18:15-17 describes the
> procedure, and D&C 42:88-92 expands on it. The person who has been
> offended is supposed to take the initiative here. Talk to the person
> who has trespassed against you.
In cases like I am referring to, its not persons, its the organization,
its the promise of a feast at the table, but when one shows up, the
food is just not what was promised.
FWIW, I have no problem with, and have often, gotten right up there
against people who personally offend me :-) .
>
> But if you don't participate, how can you help
> things improve, and how will you know when they do?
Don't presume that everyone who has walked away, or gotten lost, has
not tried to remain, and ultimately chosen to leave. I can only say
that I have tried the participation, and it has failed, but I don't
want this to be about me. Many quit at the first sign of trouble, but
for those who try to persevere, there does come a point at which its
just time to walk away.
> the Church to meet?" Then the sentence that really hit me: "Persons
> who attend Church in order to *give* to their fellowmen and *serve*
> the Lord will rarely be disappointed."
These are good words, for people who are moving ahead, and "succeeding"
(if you will allow the term, for purposes of brevity) in the church but
for those whose faith is waivering, or has collapsed, and who would
really benefit from a helping hand, I am not sure they mean much.
> My wife and I read this talk together from time to time. When things
> get tough at church, when it seems boring or people get difficult
> with us, we remind each other of this message. We try to remember
> to go to church in search of someone we can serve, not asking
> what's in it for us. Almost paradoxically, it's more fulfilling this
> way.
Uhhh..... I get your point, but do you realize that you just did, what
so many dissafected members find to be, .... well part of what puts
them off? :-) You are able to fall back on your spouse for strength
when things get difficult, and it is hard to do it alone........ so
you ought not be suprised to find that some of Father's children not so
blessed, fall by the wayside.
The kid with the old, worn out,and holey (no pun intended <g>) shoes,
will tend to react badly, when the rich kid goes on and on about how
fast he can run in his brand new sneakers ..... It is true, that the
poor kid just has to deal, but the rich kid has some responsibility for
how the poor kid feels, as well. IMO
Thanks for listening. I know I get long winded.......<shrug>
John
Stormin Mormon
temporarily unordained man) to a younger priest for home teaching. In
the years I've been in the church, I thought at least one of the HT
should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. And that HT is a priesthood
ordinance.
Yes, it's been done that men take their own wife along, and I've also
seen unordained boys go along home teaching.
But, it seems more sensible to assign you a HP in your own age range
as a companion.
In any case, I do wish to welcome you back from your absence, and
encourage you to stay around for awhile longer.
--
Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
..
"Gerald Fuller" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:12mtuu2...@news.supernews.com...
Bruce in Alaska
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-&spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And that HT is a priesthood
> ordinance.
Not "Ordinance" but a "Calling"........
Bruce in alaska
--
add a <2> before @
Gerald Fuller
"Bruce in Alaska" <bru...@btpost.net> wrote in message
news:12n4255...@news.supernews.com...
And Bruce, I disagree, but no reference handy, that HT is a calling. It is
an assignment that should be given to every eligible Priesthood holder.
Gerald Fuller
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-&spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12n1rm3...@news.supernews.com...
> That's an interesting turn of events -- to be assigned (as a
> temporarily unordained man) to a younger priest for home teaching. In
> the years I've been in the church, I thought at least one of the HT
> should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. And that HT is a priesthood
> ordinance.
Home Teaching is indeed a Priesthood Ordinance. But the basis for it is
really Doctrine and Covenants 20, verses 51 and 53-55 , I think. A few more
verses apply as well. President Exra Taft Benson gave a talk, I think in the
Priesthood Session of the April conference in 1978, titled "To the Home
Teachers of the Church. It was later published separately and I am sure is
still available from the Distrution Center,
In this talk, President Bsnson said
Quote
Home teaching is not to be undertaken casually. A home teaching call is to
be accepted as if extended to you personally by the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Savior Himself was a teacher. The only perfect man to walk the face of
the earth was a humble, dedicated, inspired teacher who brought to His
followers salvation and exaltation.
Oh, that all the brethren of the Church would catch that vision of home
teaching!
Tonight I am not teaching new doctrine, but I am reaffirming old doctrine.
Quoting from section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants, revealed to the
Prophet Joseph in April of 1830, the Lord declared to the priesthood:
"Watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;
"And see that there is no iniquity in the church. .
"And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the
members do their duty" (D&C 20:53-55).
"And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in
secret and attend to all family duties" (D&C 20:51).
Brethren, that is priesthood home teaching.
End Quote
As I read this, it is primarily the Priests and Teachers who are the
standing ministers and the Elders are able to act as Priests and Teachers
simply because the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek, or
all priesthood is Melchizedek, but for administering in outward ordinances,
etc, the Aaronic Priesthood also exists.
> Yes, it's been done that men take their own wife along, and I've also
> seen unordained boys go along home teaching.
Thos unordained boys have usually been young sons of Melchizedek Priesthood
holders, haven't they? They have in my experience. And it is sort of a baby
sitting assignment for the father I think, but it may be a good example of
fatherhood for the father in the Home being taught.
> But, it seems more sensible to assign you a HP in your own age range
> as a companion.
Technically, I should not have been assigned as a Home Teacher. I merely
expressed a willingness to go along home teaching with a qualified and
experienced Home Teacher. I had never really had such a companion, and
really I still never really have had one. I have been close, but never
really there.
> In any case, I do wish to welcome you back from your absence, and
> encourage you to stay around for awhile longer.
Maybe. I am finding it difficult to break away this time.
Paula
>I'm single and this is a bad problem in my area since there are almost no
>female missionaries. Because I don't like unexpected visits I book about a
>week ahead of time. Most of the time they end up cancelling because it's
>hard to find someone to come with them.
>
>This whole thing of us having either them or me drag someone else into it
>each time is so annoying I've decided to try to ditch missionary visits
>entirely in winter. Let them stick with the married women and men. I'm
>fading away anyway because it's really a religion for married people. It
>makes me feel as though I should be wearing a veil over my head.
>
I'm sorry you are feeling left out, Mary. I have had times like that
as well. I got married later in life than most LDS girls and ended up
divorced. The church is a family-oriented church and it can be hard
to hang out at church when you are not married. There are people in
the church who are welcoming of those who don't fit the married with
children mold, though. When I divorced, I was afraid that I would be
an outcast in my ward. I found that there were people who were
judgmental, but there were also many people who were very accepting. I
chose to hang out with the accepting and try to ignore the judgmental.
That doesn't always work, but at least it helps.
My aunt and I were talking about problems with going to church over
the Thanksgiving weekend. She has had to leave the building during
many a lesson or talk since her daughter died of leukemia. People say
things that upset and offend her regularly without even meaning to. I
find myself much more likely to speak up during a lesson and remind
people that faith won't always heal everyone, for example, since
becoming close to my aunt after her loss. That's on top of opening my
mouth about the things that set me off. Other times, I just let it
go.
More often than not, lately, I find that going to church meetings
actually makes me feel less connected to the Gospel than staying home
and studying in other ways does. I keep looking for ways to emphasize
the parts of the church structure and the people in it that feed me
instead of those that turn me away. I don't know how it will work out
for me. I hope that for both of us, we can find our niche wherever
God wants us to be. Regardless of what anyone else thinks or how they
act in church or out, I am absolutely certain that God knows and
understands both of us and has a plan for us to meet our full
potential. It will no doubt be difficult. It has already been. But
when things look darkest, something or someone comes along to help get
me through. I hope it is that way for you, too. Keep looking out for
those things and persons and don't give up on God. Whatever the
people in your local ward have made of the church you attend, it is
ultimately God's church and your eternal salvation depends on his
judgment of your heart, not on any person's judgment on your marital
status or anything else.
--
Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy,
so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay