A few years later, my bishop got up to speak in church. He told about how he had his kids going to a neighbor church's vacation bible school or some such thing (something I have long thought would be worthwhile to look into sending my own future children to). And the pastor or whatever mentioned having the same problem with Mormon parents not letting their children play with non-Mormons. And he (my bishop) told the congregation how utterly wrong-headed that was.
When Alison told me about the discrimination she and Jake faced, my immediate response was to say, "That's wrong." But I'm not writing today to convince people that it is wrong; it's my hope that my readers already get that. I'm just expressing why it's so hard for me to understand what makes anybody think that's a good idea.
We are supposed to be followers of Jesus Christ. So look at Christ's life. He was criticized for eating with sinners. He healed a Roman's servant - at the Roman's request. He went up to a Samaritan woman to converse. Refusing to associate with people who are a little bit different from us is in no way following his example.
And what does Christ have to say that's relevant to the situation? Oh, how about "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God" or "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." I remember no reference saying that the worth of a Mormon soul is more valuable, and I really don't think we want to ostracize Christ because of the family he was born into. Of course I am not advocating ostracizing people based on their chosen religion either - note my last sentence in the paragraph above. But to take it out on children, who are generally just following the religion taught by their parents, seems even more egregiously wrong.
And there is also the story of the good Samaritan - a Samaritan, a person who the Jews despised, is the good guy.
Really the only rationalization that makes any sense at all to me is that the parents are somehow protecting their child. But from what? Jake and Alison both struck me as good, nice people. Yes, I wasn't close to either of them - Jake was several years younger than me, and Alison and I were also in different grades and had different interests. But I did see them around enough to form that much of an opinion.
So these parents must be protecting their kids from other beliefs and opinions. But if that is the case, when do they think their children will be old enough to handle being confronted with opposing viewpoints? They are sure to come across them at some point in their lives. Wouldn't they rather be there to explain things rather than have their kids have to make sense of it all on their own the very first time they come across an opposing viewpoint? And if they expect their children to serve as missionaries - well, how can you explain the difference in what you have when you have no idea what else is out there?
In my conversation with Alison, she said that either she or her brother wanted to be baptized as soon as they were old enough to do so without their parents' permission. Well, maybe some would think that is the ideal outcome. But I didn't really like it then and still don't like it now. Not because I am against people joining the church. But because it's not the right reason to join the church. It is making a serious covenant with Heavenly Father for reasons not really related to Him or His promises, possibly without understanding what is involved in the covenant.
But I did not express my dislike of the decision. Because how do you tell somebody not to do something that will allow them to find the acceptance that they really deserve? I didn't know then, and it would still be hard now.
When Alison told me about the discrimination she and Jake faced, my immediate response was to say, "That's wrong." But I'm not writing today to convince people that it is wrong; it's my hope that my readers already get that. I'm just expressing why it's so hard for me to understand what makes anybody think that's a good idea.
We are supposed to be followers of Jesus Christ. So look at Christ's life. He was criticized for eating with sinners. He healed a Roman's servant - at the Roman's request. He went up to a Samaritan woman to converse. Refusing to associate with people who are a little bit different from us is in no way following his example.
And what does Christ have to say that's relevant to the situation? Oh, how about "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God" or "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." I remember no reference saying that the worth of a Mormon soul is more valuable, and I really don't think we want to ostracize Christ because of the family he was born into. Of course I am not advocating ostracizing people based on their chosen religion either - note my last sentence in the paragraph above. But to take it out on children, who are generally just following the religion taught by their parents, seems even more egregiously wrong.
And there is also the story of the good Samaritan - a Samaritan, a person who the Jews despised, is the good guy.
Really the only rationalization that makes any sense at all to me is that the parents are somehow protecting their child. But from what? Jake and Alison both struck me as good, nice people. Yes, I wasn't close to either of them - Jake was several years younger than me, and Alison and I were also in different grades and had different interests. But I did see them around enough to form that much of an opinion.
So these parents must be protecting their kids from other beliefs and opinions. But if that is the case, when do they think their children will be old enough to handle being confronted with opposing viewpoints? They are sure to come across them at some point in their lives. Wouldn't they rather be there to explain things rather than have their kids have to make sense of it all on their own the very first time they come across an opposing viewpoint? And if they expect their children to serve as missionaries - well, how can you explain the difference in what you have when you have no idea what else is out there?
In my conversation with Alison, she said that either she or her brother wanted to be baptized as soon as they were old enough to do so without their parents' permission. Well, maybe some would think that is the ideal outcome. But I didn't really like it then and still don't like it now. Not because I am against people joining the church. But because it's not the right reason to join the church. It is making a serious covenant with Heavenly Father for reasons not really related to Him or His promises, possibly without understanding what is involved in the covenant.
But I did not express my dislike of the decision. Because how do you tell somebody not to do something that will allow them to find the acceptance that they really deserve? I didn't know then, and it would still be hard now.
