DiscussMormonism.com

Here in Arizona we've got Proposition 102, which is our version of Prop 8 in California, and Prop 102 is receiving its share of attention from the LDS Church here. The proposition would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Last night my daughter was getting ready to go to Mutual, which in our ward is held on Tuesday evenings. As she was getting ready to depart, I asked her what they were planning on doing that night. She started to say she didn't know, but 15 or 20 seconds later she corrected herself and admitted that she did in fact know what they were doing, and that they were going to go around the neighborhood handing out "Yes to 102" leaflets.

She had begun to lie to me about this, but immediately thought better about it and "confessed" their true plans. I'm upset that she never discussed this with me in advance, knowing I'd care, and then started to lie to me about it. This would have been the first time she'd lied to me that I know about, and it really pisses me off that this first knowing deception was to cover up a church activity. I'm glad that, when push came to shove, she couldn't bring herself to lie to me though, and repented and told me the truth.

I got pretty upset about this. They were actually using the youth on Mutual night to go out and lobby their neighbors on a political issue, and a bigoted, hateful one at that?

I talked to my daughter about this a little bit. I said that I didn't want her to go do this, that her mother probably would want her to do it, but that it was up to her and she could choose whether she wanted to go. She said she didn't really want to hand out the leaflets, because she didn't really agree with Prop 102, but that she had wanted to be with the other youth. I gave her a little parental lecture on taking issues like this more seriously, telling her that she would have to learn these values herself, but that in my opinion it was unwise to go participate in something this important, that you don't actually support, just to hang out with some aquaintances for an hour or two.

Be that as it may, she decided not to go as soon as I announced that I was going to go and talk to the leaders about it. She begged me not to go, because she was afraid that I'd show up and act all indignant and make a scene about it in front of her friends. As it turns out, her fear is misplaced, because I have enough respect for her feelings, my wife's feelings, and the feelings of those other members of the ward not to show up and harangue them all like this. I promised her that I'd be diplomatic and not discuss it with the other youth, only the leadership.

I rode my bike down to the park they were meeting at, asked a husband and wife who were there who was in charge, and asked that person if I could speak with them for a minute, privately. We went off to the side and I started to tell him what I thought of this whole thing, and he asked if he could start everyone on their way, and then he and I could speak. I stood off to the side as they made assignments, arranged rides, and whatnot, and everyone left except this guy. This guy's wife went up to get their car.

We spoke for a few minutes, and I expressed that I was appalled that the church would actually use the weekly Mutual night to get all the youth out there passing out this political literature. I also spoke about the grotesque irony of a church that suffered religiously-motivated repression of its "peculiar" form of marriage by the majority of Americans in the 1800s to now be on the other side, doing their best to repress the "peculiar" practice of another group of fellow Americans, on religious grounds. I asked him how many gays were present that night at the park, amongst the gathered LDS. Probably none, right? Ok, that being the case, how does gay marriage affect any of them at all? It doesn't. Anyhow, we spoke for five or ten minutes or so, and this guy's wife started making angry signals with the car, so he excused himself and went out to pass out his leaflets.

As part of our discussion, the guy explained that this wasn't technically a Mutual activity. He explained that it had been decided not to actually hold Mutual that night, and instead make this a voluntary youth and family activity for the same time and place as Mutual. Technically this was just a private, voluntary get-together of likeminded individuals. He apologized if this hadn't been made adequately clear.

Actually, I'm very upset that this was excused-away as a non-church-sponsored activity, but all but represented as one. That's because when I allow my daughter to go by herself to participate in Mutual, I at least have the legal implication of Church responsibility for her well-being and whatnot for the duration of that activity. If this get-together were actually not really sponsored by the church at all, and my daughter showed up to it without us parents there, and without our knowledge of that fact, then she was on her own with no implied protection from the church.

I'm kind of upset about the whole charade. I'm upset that they roped the youth into this most dubious activity in the first place, and I'm upset that they tried to get plausible deniability for the Church's involvement by cancelling Mutual and then planning this "voluntary" youth activity in its place and time slot.

I haven't had a chance to call up the bishop and speak with him about this. I've told him in the past that I have no objection to my daughter's participation in church activities, but I will tell him that if shenanigans like this happen again, I may very well have to reevaluate my stance on this. I respect my 16 year old daughter enough to make her own decisions that I would not try to forbid her participation, but I might be forced to withdraw my support and make my daughter choose to participate against my wishes, and perhaps without the benefit of my car or whatever.

Since I haven't discussed this with the bishop yet, I'm interested in any perspectives you guys might have on this kind of thing. I'm still trying to pin down my exact thoughts and what I ought to discuss with the bishop about it, and your comments might help me solidify my response.

ad buffer space

To say it was not a "Mutual night" strikes me as a typical Mormon deception.

Look at the positve.. the activity will set a note in some of those youth's minds that their (parent's) religion is bigoted and one day set them on a different course.

As a parent, you have a right to be upset. There are also some legal implications regarding her safety. Maybe Skippy and Bob can weigh in.

If this was a volunteer, non-sponsored Church activity, the leaders should have provided a separate permission form so that parents had something IN WRITING to advise them of what was happening.

As you said, if heaven forbid, some type of car accident had occurred, it wouldn't have been covered in any means under the Church umbrella.

It is not right that you, as a parent, were not informed of what was happening, and it was the leaders' responsibility to at least send something home with all of the youth.

Now, if they DID send something home, and your daughter simply chose not to show it to you, then that's a separate issue. But, from what you described, it doesn't sound like that is the case.

How old are the youth? The church is usually pretty good about covering their butts legally, but it seems there should be laws about using kids for political reasons. Does anyone know what the laws are for using kids like this? Do they just need a permission slip from the parents?

Seth, didn't this thing go down in flames last time? I didn't know they were trying again, but we shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.

Now I'm wondering what my daughter did for mutual last night.

I think you're on the right track, Seth.

My greatest concern is the shift of responsibility from the church to a few zealot members that most likely don't have proper insurance coverage to cart 12 kids around in their Econoline minibus.

This prop issue is too hot. I don't want my daughter ending up as a human shield in some bigot provoked smackdown either.

You make a good point concerning the hypocracy of the ammendment (a man/a woman) seeing that the church still approves of multiple sealings. There are many member divorcees as well that are remarried temporally to a new spouse that are yet sealed to their first spouse.

Case in point, my mom was forced to remain sealed to my dad for several years after she remarried a better man. She spent those years petitioning her local leaders and even the FP before the nullification was finally granted. She was then able to be sealed to her current husband.

Sethbag,

My presumption is, your daughter is going to church because your wife is active and she wants to raise the girl in the church.
If this is the case you need to talk to her, express your concerns. If you guys diametrically oppose where you stand that is something between you to work out. As for your daughter being influenced by church, you can act as catalyst from an opposing viewpoint.
I have a daughter (18), who is active, my ex & I are not active. She knows where we stand, she is constantly bombarded with moderate viewpoints, if she still wants to be influenced by extreme CULT doctrines she is welcome to it.
You have right to equip your child with the best tools you can.

I agree with Liz on this.

When you meet with the leaders, please be sure to bring up the liability issue vis-à-vis the lack of insurance coverage for non-church activities.

Since this was a political action event, you might even want to ask them why there wasn't an equivalent number of "No on 102" leaflets for the kids who disagreed with it.

Dr. Shades wrote:I agree with Liz on this.

When you meet with the leaders, please be sure to bring up the liability issue vis-à-vis the lack of insurance coverage for non-church activities.

Since this was a political action event, you might even want to ask them why there wasn't an equivalent number of "No on 102" leaflets for the kids who disagreed with it.

This is an easy one. Many Mormons on these boards like to claim how much diversity of thought there is amongst LDS, and how much freedom there was to believe differently from the crowd. But on this issue, there is no room whatsoever for disagreement. The party line is "Yes on 102", and if you disagree with that, either you don't have faith, you don't support the Prophets, or you shut the hell up.

This is exactly the kind of "when the Brethren speak, the thinking has been done" type of thing that the Internet Mormons have been denying happens within the church for years.

Sethbag wrote:
They were actually using the youth on Mutual night to go out and lobby their neighbors on a political issue, and a bigoted, hateful one at that?

Webster’s Dictionary defines a bigot as “: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”.

Those that support Prop. 8 are supporting an issue that is "bigoted"? Does Prop. 8 which defines marriage as between a man and a woman then in turn insinuate through the language in the amendment that supporters of the proposition should demonstrate/show hatred and intolerance towards gays? My guess is that if you polled most of the supporters of Prop. 8, you would find that very few of them would encourage hatred and/or intolerence of gay folks.

Unless, of course, you are indirectly trying to make a point that a supporter of Prop. 8 is automatically/innately a hateful and intolerant person? Or that the simple act of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman shows intolerance towards gays that choose to live together? In other words's, don't you think that the average person voting for Prop. 8 would have a very difficult time seeing their decision as being hateful and/or intolerant?

I'm not convinced that Prop. 8 is a bigoted amendment. If it promotes vitrolic hate and intolerance towards gays then everyone should shun the amendment like the plague, shouldn't they?

I can see opposing Prop. 8 on philosophical grounds, but not on the assumption that the proposition is in and of itself bigoted in nature.

Regards,
MG