Quick question for any Mormons on this board that might know the answer. If I call tomorrow morning to talk to a member in my area, how quickly could they do it? I ask since I only have a few days here before I go home (since my semester will be over). If anyone has an answer, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm. I had a Mormon question too, but I don't remember what it was. I will now take my leave of this thread without depositing any actually useful information. Thank you for your attention.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
What reason would you need to call? It all depends on why.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
And are you calling someone you know, or calling the local meetinghouse and expecting someone to be there, or calling the missionaries if you happen to have their number, or... Who are you calling and do you have a previous relationship with them?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I want to learn a little more about the church and the Book of Mormon and such. Plus it's been recommended to me twice to call and talk to someone in person (rather than just relying on what I hear/read on the internet).
See how it has a form and a number. I was thinking of calling that number.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Also, who would you call? I remember last time I tried to call, I couldn't reach anyone. Same thing happened to dkw once.
Ah, never mind. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm sure they will do their best to work within whatever time constraints you have.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why not meet with a Mormon after you go home? I'm pretty sure they'd be glad to drop by anywhere you happen to be. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Because of my parents. They don't look too kindly on Mormons for some reason.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
If you call that 1-800 number, you'll get a call center in Utah- it takes up to two weeks for the missionaries to get your information to visit you. You're in Richardson, right? If you'd like for them to come before you leave, I can e-mail you the info of someone who can put you in touch with missionaries in your area.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Yeah, I'm in Richardson. I'd love the info for the people in this area.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
I have to call my parents to get the number. I'll e-mail it to you tomorrow morning. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Thanks Coccinelle.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
You might be able to call the numbers for these wards - when I went to UTD, these were the wards that I was in. Try Tuesday or Wednesday night, and the Bishop's office. I'm sure that they'll be surprised by your call, but it won't be unwelcome. Richardson 2nd Ward - Family Ward
Coccinelle, are you giving him the number for the missionaries of the D11 ward?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Because of my parents. They don't look too kindly on Mormons for some reason.
Might I suggest, then, that you not look into the church until you've moved out, one way or another? Seriously, your soul will keep.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh* I can't be you're actively campaigning to deter someone from exploring a religion, Tom. That's kind of low.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Isn't that kind of Tom's MO when this subject comes up?
He is an active recruiter for agnosticism.
Don't know why you express suprise. . . I rather expected it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm..Tom is generally more courteous, as a rule. This is like several booths are set up, someone comes over to a booth to flip through a brochure, and Tom comes over from the next booth to interrupt and try to head him off. It's a little more rude than I think Tom approves of.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not actively seeking to deter him at all. I'm saying that if his parents are actively hostile to the church to the extent that they would be unlikely to permit him to welcome missionaries, it would make more sense for him to wait until he was no longer under their roof before starting to explore the church -- rather than, say, hurriedly trying to schedule something last-minute, and squeezing various visits furtively into his schedule. There's no reason to suspect that his interest in the church will wane, and there's no immediate reason for him to have to confront his parents -- or sneak around them -- on this issue. There's no particular call for urgency on this, and that urgency might in fact come with a significant cost.
Do you disagree?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Actually I do. If he was still a teenager, I would say wait, but he's an adult. I don't think that parents should be able to dictate their children's life choices once they have grown up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Great. But he's still living in their house, apparently, which means he's not really an independent adult yet. I don't see the benefit in ticking off one's parents when one can avoid the entire hassle by waiting a bit.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think parental care should be contingent on unquestioning obedience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which isn't what I'm saying, either. I'm saying that if his choices are:
1) Sneak around behind his parents' backs and schedule missionary visits without their knowledge;
2) Anger them by inviting missionaries to their home against their wishes;
3) Wait until he's fully independent to research the church semi-openly and on his own schedule;
...the third option is the most mature and practical of the three.
A certain amount of required respect for his parents and their moral choices IS, I believe, a cost of sharing a house with them. I don't think most people can really search effectively for a code of ethics in secret. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
4) Have the missionaries visit the place he lives when he is not at his parents' house.
I think that's why he's doing it before he is in their house.
He's 20. It could be years. It seems very unfair to ask someone to wait until they are grown up before they explore something they might want in their life. At that point, they will have formed their life without it. I suspect that's what you're hoping will happen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I suspect that's what you're hoping will happen.
Ah. So you're going to assume mean-spirited motivations on my part because why, exactly? I know Scott's drunk that Kool-Aid, but I expect better from you.
Seriously, I'm mentioning this only because most people I know who're twenty years old a) are basically kids; b) will have moved out of their house within two years; c) don't need more reasons to fight with their parents.
You'll notice I don't usually advise young Christian children to reject their family's faith while they're still under the same roof. Why do you think that might be, assuming as smug, self-righteous idiots do that my primary purpose and ultimate goal in every exchange is to reduce the number of Christians on the planet?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Reading this thread, it seemed like you switched reasons for him not to talk to the missionaries as the story came out more. The reasons changed, but the goal remained the same. That does make it seem like it.
I think that someone doesn't reach a magic age and then are grown up and ready to handle the big stuff. In other words, it is precisely by wrestling with serious issues and making mature decisions that someone stops being a kid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*points back up to what he's actually written*
No, I didn't. I asked why he couldn't see missionaries at home.
When he answered that his parents didn't approve, I advised him to wait. When I was asked why I thought he should wait, I gave the same reason -- in response to regular badgering -- three times. His being a kid doesn't have anything to do with why I advised him to wait; it only has something to do with why I think he should comply with his parents' wishes.
Anything else you're seeing in that, Katie, is your own baggage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't want to argue with you, Tom. If I was mistaken as to your goal, I'm sorry for considering it. It did seem weird - I was surprised by it.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Wow, you guys argued a lot about this. Tom, I spent most of my time away from my parents' roof. About 4 hours away to be precise. The only times I'm at home are holidays from school. You might have been right about the urgency, maybe I should wait until I come back to school in January. My thought line though was "What's the harm in talking to them now and then exploring it further when I return in January?" As far as officially being out from under the same roof, katharina is right; it'll be years. I still have at least 3 more semesters on my bachelor's degree and then I'm going after my master's (which will take another year to year and a half). Even after all that though, I'll probably still see my family with similar frequency (holidays and the like), so I'm not sure what difference it makes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm just a bit ticked off at the Mormon terriers lately, for obvious reasons. It's like I've been wrongly tagged by some of the more clueless antibodies, and I'm really losing patience with their stupidity on the topic.
--------
BTW, pfresh, I don't want to imply that I think you shouldn't see missionaries on your own time, although I do think this will lead to complications if you really believe your parents are going to disapprove of that choice; I wouldn't try to keep your interest in the church a secret for long, and certainly wouldn't make your first mention of it something like "Oh, by the way, I'm being baptised next week." I'm glad you're going into this as maturely as you are.
The only "harm" I envisioned about the rush to meet (especially since the whole conversion process, even if you chose to undertake it, takes a lot longer) was this: zeal can be really awkward to hide. If you're fired up about a church, it's probably a mistake to spend the Christian holiday with Christians of a different stripe and try to hide it from them. I've seen that particular approach, and it's rarely worked out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm just me. I promise that I will take my opinions from my own thoughts and your posts, and not from the weekly memo.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Tom,
That last made no sense to me.
Anyway, if someone just comes home for the holidays, aren't they already moved out?
Sergeant
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Anyway, if someone just comes home for the holidays, aren't they already moved out?
Hm. I think the magic point at which you're moved out is when you stop thinking of it as going home for the holidays, but rather consider visiting family for the holidays.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then I'm not there yet.
No wait, I am. But it didn't happen until I was ~28.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I only stopped "going home" for the holidays when my parents moved away from my childhood home.
I do think there's a difference between respecting the parents' wishes to not have Mormons come teach in their home, and trying to keep it a secret. I didn't see any evidence that Pfresh would be trying to hide anything from the parents, but you do have to pick your times to bring it up (and "I'm getting baptized tomorrow" is the wrong time, to be sure). I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing how it goes at first before "alarming" the parents.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Woof, woof!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>So you're going to assume mean-spirited motivations on my part because why, exactly? I know Scott's drunk that Kool-Aid, but I expect better from you.
I don't think you're mean-spirited, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whether or not I'm mean-spirited, those motivations certainly are. I'd hate to think that they're part of my "regular MO," as someone has recently asserted.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
pfresh, this is a good taste for you of what you might see from others if you join the church. Hopefully your experience won't be like mine, but my parents let me know that they had puzzled over my conversion and decided "that I just turned off my brain". My boss who was an evangelical protestant fundamentalist told me "the devil got hold of me" and later seemed to believe I was lying about important stuff on the job. I could see no reason for him to believe that except 1) that he used to lie to his boss when he traveled (as he had confided to me) and 2) I was LDS, and we know how evil that cult is.
Don't worry, though. The blessings far far outweigh the troubles that come, and now even my mother is changing her view. She sent her gift for Tsunami victims through the LDS Humanitarian Fund. Gradually the words "Mormon" and "LDS" became okay to mention in her presence, and I had told her how economical the church is and how they pinch every penny until it screams. <laughs> Also how they have people on the ground that are locals in almost every location, so I felt very sure that the resources went where they are most needed. I was amazed and gratified to see that her opinion of the church had changed so much in just a few years.
So stick with what you feel is true and right. When something is the truth, it will always be the best and wisest choice. The truth has that huge overwhelming advantage of being true. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: pfresh, this is a good taste for you of what you might see from others if you join the church.
You should be so lucky. Although you probably will get a lot of Mormons coming out of nowhere to applaud your decision. That happens a lot. *grin*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What motivations? Whose said anything about what motivates you? I said what you DO.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
*comes out of nowhere to applaud pfresh’s decision, and unwittingly falls into Tom’s trap*
If you can contact the local missionaries and convey your desire to see them soon, I’ll bet you see them before you leave.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. But, see, Scott, you suggested -- in reply to Katie -- that what I was doing was "actively deterring" someone from exploring a religion. That most definitely is not "what (I) DO." I'd like to see a single post I've ever made recommending that someone not research a religion.
Just because I'm confident that you're wrong about your faith doesn't mean that I consider it my place to dissuade people from it. There are others on this forum who're more interested in that job, and they're welcome to it.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
I think both katharina and Tom were giving sensible advise. I'll just throw this out there, but maybe you can put off the missionary visit until you get back from Christmas break. While you're on the break, you could perhaps mention the fact that you're going to be looking into the faith to your parents. They might not approve, but they should certainly support your decision and if they don't, what's the worst that could happen?
It's best to get that cat out of the bag as soon as possible Andrew. If your parents decide to support your decision, you might actually be able to talk to the missionaries while you're on your break. If they don't, then you'll at least feel better when you come back and it won't feel like you're sneaking behind your parents backs when the missionaries come visit you at Richardson.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I feel like this might be a lot of pressure on Andrew. Talking to the missionaries isn't the same thing as deciding to full-on investigate, and investigating isn't the same as joining the church.
Not wanting to tell might just be my gut instinct to keep the things I'm contemplating away from other opinions until I know what I want myself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You'll notice I don't usually advise young Christian children to reject their family's faith while they're still under the same roof. Why do you think that might be, assuming as smug, self-righteous idiots do that my primary purpose and ultimate goal in every exchange is to reduce the number of Christians on the planet?
Perhaps they are confusing you with me?
Anyway; I don't really have time for a good quarrel on the subject of religion right now, but I remembered my question! It's in Lost Boys, where Step is giving the blessing to the newborn Zap, and they have to ask the doctor for permission to open up the incubator. He puts a single drop of oilve oil on Zap's forehead, and I was wondering, why olive oil? Is there any particular significance? I seem to recall that the baptists mentioned in the Bible mainly use water. And the Book of Mormon is set in America, so there can hardly be very many olives in it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, I just realized that I have advised at least two people on this site not to consider Scientology. So I take that bit back -- except, in my defense, I don't actually consider Scientology a religion. *wry laugh*
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
KoM,
You are assuming that because the Book of Mormon is set in America that the religion is based only on the Book of Mormon.
Olive oil is likely used because of its prevalence in Israel. And oil because in the Bible there is mention of anointing someone with oil.
I would go more into depth but my professor is actually being interesting today
Sergeant
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
KingofMen: It comes from here, I believe, in the Bible (yes, we use that too):
quote:(James 5:14) Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord
I'm not sure why it's been interpreted to mean olive oil, but that is the oil we have been instructed to use.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I'd like to see a single post I've ever made recommending that someone not research a religion.
quote:1) I am, as I declared earlier, an evangelical agnostic. This was a conscious decision, designed to hopefully reduce the number of people in the world who are willing to worship a God who intends to kill me.
Given this, I find your last statements rather suspect. But that requires me to judge your motivation, which I already said I didn't do.
:shrug:
Can you see why, given your quoted opinion above, someone who has been on this site for more than a month might draw the conclusion that you are attempting to persuade believers one way or the other?
Just in case you try to transform into TomDavidson, the Amazing Pariah-man (see efforts above-- reference 'Mormon terriers')-- just remember NO ONE, but NO ONE, beats out Mormons when it comes to persecution complexes. We'll out do you every single time. You're a babe in the woods in that area, Tom, I can't see a single reason why you think you can take our schtick for your own. . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Given this, I find your last statements rather suspect. But that requires me to judge your motivation, which I already said I didn't do.
*grin* Just so we understand each other, then, Scott.
But, seriously, I don't consider Mormons a threat to my way of life. As far as I can tell, they're not worshipping a God who intends to kill me and seem to enjoy self-segregating their society anyway, so it's no particular concern of mine.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, could you resolve the apparent conflict between your last posts and the quote Scott presented?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie, is it your contention that you attempt to convert people to Mormonism with every single post you make at Hatrack, despite the fact that this is clearly in violation of the user's agreement? Would it be reasonable to assume that every comment you make on any religious issue is intended to drive more people to your faith, which is a banning offense? As Anne Kate has pointed out, it's perfectly possible to live a good example and have faith that the Truth -- which has the advantage of being the Truth, after all -- will out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
WTH?
Is that a no?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, it's a "yes." But it's also a "if you really give it a moment's fair thought, Katie, you can resolve it on your own without any difficulty, and I shouldn't have to do it for you." I didn't deign to do it for Dagonee in that thread, either, you'll notice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm. Religions do change. Granted that the Mormons are not particularly aggressive at this moment, I would not care to make any bets on their position in twenty years, especially since, as I understand it, they believe in ongoing revelation and are therefore susceptible to charismatic demagogues.
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: You are assuming that because the Book of Mormon is set in America that the religion is based only on the Book of Mormon.
I believe my post did actually mention the Bible, with which I'm way more familiar than the Book of Mormon; I was merely explaining why I didn't think there could be any olive oil in the BofM, even though I haven't actually read it. Rephrased to be less polite but more direct, it might have said "Where are you guys getting olive oil in the Bible? I'm pretty sure there isn't any in the BofM."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't want to speculate as to your motivations. Why don't you tell me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. *grin* I think most organized religion is a huge mistake, although I'm more partial to Mormonism than most of its competitors. And when I'm in a thread about theology or philosophy or the historical context of the Christian church or even something on the nature of faith, I'll go ahead and explain what I believe and why I believe it. Like most of us do, of course.
But I don't go around starting new threads on why religion is a fool's errand. I don't post in threads by earnest seekers of faith trying to convince them to look elsewhere, or not to look at all. And I won't randomly email people or knock on doors or even initiate conversations on my beliefs without first being invited to do so, because I don't consider it my business -- and neither am I particularly concerned with the final decision reached by any particular seeker, because the mere act of seeking is something that I deeply respect, and which I think renders most people immune to the most obvious failings of faith.
I'm politely evangelical, in other words; like I say, half-winkingly, I'm an evangelical agnostic, in that I seek to promote the idea that God may or may not exist. What bugs me, what scares me, what I actively try to challenge where possible, is certainty of all kinds; I don't think it's healthy. There are considerably less polite -- and less open-minded -- evangelicals of all stripes and several faiths on this forum. It's no more charitable and no more accurate to assume or imply that I'm posting a salient, pertinent observation in order to dissuade someone from entering the church than it would be to imply that all the Mormons posting on this thread are doing so because they want to convert somebody.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
As an aside Tom which God is trying to kill you? I must have missed that thread, and it sounds like an interesting one Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The God of Revelations seems to be actively seeking my death, for one. I'm not fond of Him, should He exist.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:if you really give it a moment's fair thought, Katie, you can resolve it on your own without any difficulty, and I shouldn't have to do it for you.
If you have to go to the effort of saying that something is obvious, it probably isn't.
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
No, he's right, it is obvious.
I think.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rico: I think both katharina and Tom were giving sensible advise. I'll just throw this out there, but maybe you can put off the missionary visit until you get back from Christmas break. While you're on the break, you could perhaps mention the fact that you're going to be looking into the faith to your parents. They might not approve, but they should certainly support your decision and if they don't, what's the worst that could happen?
It's best to get that cat out of the bag as soon as possible Andrew. If your parents decide to support your decision, you might actually be able to talk to the missionaries while you're on your break. If they don't, then you'll at least feel better when you come back and it won't feel like you're sneaking behind your parents backs when the missionaries come visit you at Richardson.
The reason I don't mention to my parents now (even just to speak to missionaries or read up on it) is I know it will upset them. Even just research would probably upset them. I don't feel the need to upset them when I'm not even positive it's something that I will go into. I feel there will be a right time (probably if I decide to start attending the church) to tell them.
On a side note, when Amanecer first recommended I talk to missionaries, I did mention it as an aside to my father while talking to him on the phone. This is part of the reason I know his seemingly anti-Mormon feelings. I considered telling him though over Thanksgiving (since we did have a few moments alone together) that I still had thoughts about looking into the church and the reasons why I had these thoughts. I never did though because again I didn't want to upset him unnecessarily.
If you guys think the best bet is to be upfront about it now, then I will be. It just doesn't seem the right course of action in my mind at the moment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's not a truism I've ever believed, Porter. That something's obvious if someone gives it a moment's thought does not mean that it's safe to assume, for example, that people have necessarily given it a moment's thought.
-----
pfresh, based on what you've said here, I wouldn't actually worry about telling him yet; there's no need to upset them unnecessarily, and you haven't committed yourself to anything that would require some degree of skullduggery to conceal. But I'd tell him before the third visit, if things go that far.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have found over and over that things that I cannot imagine others not seeing -- things that are blatantly obvious -- can still be extremely difficult for others to see, even after thinking about it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don't think it's a violation of forum policies to encourage pfresh to contact the missionaries when he's the one who brought it up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>If you guys think the best bet is to be upfront about it now, then I will be.
:shudder:
No, no, no. We don't know you or your parents even though we may like to pretend we do.
The advice we give is biased and slanted-- you can't trust it.
It may not be best at all. . . this is one of those times where you have to make the decision all on your own.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
KoM,
I kinda glossed over the mention of the Bible because it was in reference to baptists (in the bible).
I might clarify that the anointing with oil as mentioned in Lost Boys would not be considered baptism. We still use water for that
Sergeant
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:The reason I don't mention to my parents now (even just to speak to missionaries or read up on it) is I know it will upset them. Even just research would probably upset them. I don't feel the need to upset them when I'm not even positive it's something that I will go into. I feel there will be a right time (probably if I decide to start attending the church) to tell them.
This really sounds like the right course to me.
quote:I might clarify that the anointing with oil as mentioned in Lost Boys would not be considered baptism. We still use water for that
I didn't even realize some people might mistake this blessing in Lost Boys to be an infant baptism. It was a blessing for the purpose of healing the sick.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
The olive oil is symbolic of the Savior's Atonement for us. If I recall correctly, "Gethsemanae" translates roughly as "Place of the Olive Press", and apparently when olives are pressed (with great pressure), the oil comes out looking like blood. I'm not sure if that's exactly right (referring to the specifics of the olive press), but there is the symbolism.
Pfresh, I'd recommend waiting until after Christmas break for the simple fact that investigating the Church takes time if you're serious. If you do decide to join, be prepared for your family to be very upset. It is often a sacrifice to join.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Taalcon didn't tell his parents until about three months after he was baptized. They took it well, despite his dad being a minister for another church. There are a range of experiences.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Taalcon didn't tell his parents until about three months after he was baptized.
While I can sympathize with this, and trust Dave to know what's best for him and his situation, I can't even imagine it. My family would feel staggeringly disrespected in that situation; telling them months after the fact would be far, far worse than the actual decision itself. As Scott observes, any generalization -- even that one -- any of us make has to be taken in the context of our own experiences, and then filtered through pfresh's.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dave knows what he's doing.
I'm not sure what my family would think. I don't know that they really would. My brother had been inactive for almost two years before he finally admitted it, and last time I checked (a while ago), he still wouldn't talk about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think going inactive is a little different than switching, actually. I'm not sure WHY that is, but I think it has something to do with perceived competition. Certainly most of the people I know who simply left a faith waited longer to tell their families than people in otherwise equivalent situations who actually switched faiths.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He did switch - not to a different faith. More to Ayn Rand.
*desperately restrains herself from expressing what she thinks about that particular swap*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* Does he actually think of Objectivism as a religion, though? Most Objectivists don't admit to doing so.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I think going inactive is a little different than switching, actually. I'm not sure WHY that is, ... Certainly most of the people I know who simply left a faith waited longer to tell their families than people in otherwise equivalent situations who actually switched faiths.
If you drift into inactivity you can avoid discussing it with your family, and let them keep hoping you'll come back, if you want. If you actually make a decision to switch, you'll have to admit it pretty soon if you have any close relationship with your family at all - since your activities and beliefs will now revolve around a different church.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The reason it's different is because switching religions is a decision. Going inactive is more apathetic. You're still making a decision, but it's passive rather than active. Lots of time people don't even realize consciously that they're withdrawing from their church -- that's how it was with me.
I got to college, and suddenly my Sundays were mine, and I decided there were places I'd rather be. Other than sporadic holidays to make my parents happy, weddings, and funerals, I haven't been back. And I probably won't until I get married.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
No luck with the number Coccinelle provided me with. I may try the number listed on some of the other sites linked. We'll see how it goes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm not quite clear what the hurry is. If you've only got a few days, why wouldn't you just wait until the next semester starts rather than trying to rush to fit a meeting into the next few days?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I sent an e-mail to the listserv for D11 ward for the missionaries' phone number. I should have something in m inbox soon - I'll send it to you then.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
There is no hurry. I'm just bored at the moment (I have two finals Thursday and that's it) and I thought doing some productive research might be a good way to pass the time. I thought talking to some people about the church and their beliefs might be a good starting point for some pondering of my own over the break. Maybe I'm wrong though. *shrugs*
EDIT: katharina, thanks for doing that. I wasn't quite positive where to look.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I got the number and sent it to the address in your profile. If that doesn't work, there are a few more people I can ask.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
It's not the same number as Coccinelle sent me. I'll wait till tonight to call it though.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I was Baptized while away at college.
I returned to my Pentecostal-Minister-Father's house post-graduation, and lived there for several months afterwards, attending my own Ward the other side of town while my Father's church was right across the street from our house.
My parents didn't approve of my decision, and when I initially told them of my decision, they were initially hurt and confused - but they respected me enough not to hassle me too much about it. There were no major problems. I'm still on wonderful terms with my loving parents.
However - while I see no problem in learning from the missionaries and doing your own research and reading from the LDS Scriptures on your own, I would still highly, highly, highly recommend telling your parents if you ever decided to be baptized into the Church.
I knew why I didn't, but part of me wishes that I had.
quote:While I can sympathize with this, and trust Dave to know what's best for him and his situation, I can't even imagine it. My family would feel staggeringly disrespected in that situation; telling them months after the fact would be far, far worse than the actual decision itself.
That, actually, I believe is what hit my Father the most. And why I would highly, highly recommend talking about it before the actual act of Baptism.
This from one who'se been there, FWIW.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Umm, buddy? Just a suggestion, having lived in your area: stay away from the Garland 3rd ward (misleadingly named, most of it is in Richardson.) My in-laws are in it, but the whole ward has a weird feeling to it. You're better off in the Richardson 2nd (probably closer anyway) or the Garland 4th (further away, but really really wonderful)-- or just stick with another stake altogether (most of the ones in the area are overall lovely. Just the Richardson stake that has a couple really "off" wards.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
While you're talking to the Mormons, I think you should make sure you talk to everyone else, too, and give them the same consideration and time, just to make sure you make the right decision.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Also, FWIW, I took 2 years investigating the Church, going from an Anti-Mormon to a Baptized and Confirmed vigorous ward missionary *grin*.
Don't let anyone (yourself included) let you feel rushed into making any decision until you know for yourself that it is the right one.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning my personal experience - my email addy is in my profile.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I've looked into most other things (Catholicism, other Protestant religions, etc.). I've sat in on a Catholic mass. If you guys recall, I went to a Methodist church for two weeks (and will probably continue to go while I research the Mormon church). I'm giving everyone a fair chance, I'm just trying to explore my options (and trying to figure what is right for me and what I want out of life).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Does the LDS keep records of the conversions from other Christian denominations to theirs? I was just wondering if there's an over/under representation of people going into the LDS from one or another denomination?
Other comments:
katharina, I was sort of bothered by the "booth" analogy you used early on this thread. I guess it makes some sense (I'm picturing competing sects as if they were hawkers at a carnival), but I found it just a little troubling from the POV of someone who actually did seek a new denomination actively not that long ago.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was thinking more of a career fair. Information, no money taken, no barkers, maybe some free candy.
quote:Does the LDS keep records of the conversions from other Christian denominations to theirs? I was just wondering if there's an over/under representation of people going into the LDS from one or another
No. There's no record taken of anything like that, at least for each member.
It's possible the social statistics department at Church headquarters has conducted some studies, so they might have an idea.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Bob:"Does the LDS keep records of the conversions from other Christian denominations to theirs?"
I don't think so. I've never seen anything like that. There is, as far as I remember, no space for "former religion" or the like in the records that are completed at baptism.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ah the old free candy ploy!
Why not just hit people over the head and wisk them off to a programming session?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:no space for "former religion"
Shouldn't that read "former religion or denomination?"
I'm just sayin'...
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"Does the LDS keep records of the conversions from other Christian denominations to theirs? I was just wondering if there's an over/under representation of people going into the LDS from one or another denomination?"
That's a good question. I'd be inclined to say no. There is certainly no "Change of Religion" form that people have to fill out upon joining the church, at least not that I'm aware of. If the church does collect that kind of information it would have to be based on surveys of church members, and I've never seen anything like that. Personally, I don't think the church puts a lot of stake into that kind of thing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Silent E & afr,
Thanks for the info.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sniff* Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Wow, it threw me off for a second to see myself referred to as Silent E.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You may be silent, but you make the vowel say its name. That's an important job.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Yeah, I can turn a man into a mane. I can turn a can into a cane. But my friend Sam stayed just the same.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*reads, is puzzled*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
kat, it's the power of the "silent E"
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It makes san go in sane
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It makes old Pop into the Pope.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I get a kick out of puzzling kat. And then I turn her into Kate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh* It makes an edit go unrecorded as well.
<-- passed kindergarten
Added: Wow, who are you?
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I'll tell you, but not here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Meet me in the teachers' lounge in ten minutes. (You can sneak in, right? A friend will keep watch.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You're not going to tell her here?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I thought it might be AFR. Unless he acquired an unexpected wrinkle in his psychological profile, I guess it isn't.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
You crazy kids and your tangential randomness. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
We can make her into here!
We can make pi into pie!
We can stare at a star.
We can mar the mare! (although PETA might get made mad)
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I can get back on track.
So, what were we talking about again?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
We can add $10,000 to housing values too, if your development goes from <something> Point to <something> Pointe!
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Dude (<--note the E), I'm even more powerful than I thought.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
...Pat?
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Sorry, I don't pat women who are not my wife.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Try it with me and you'd lose a limb.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Umm, buddy? Just a suggestion, having lived in your area: stay away from the Garland 3rd ward (misleadingly named, most of it is in Richardson.) My in-laws are in it, but the whole ward has a weird feeling to it. You're better off in the Richardson 2nd (probably closer anyway) or the Garland 4th (further away, but really really wonderful)-- or just stick with another stake altogether (most of the ones in the area are overall lovely. Just the Richardson stake that has a couple really "off" wards.)
Personally, I had a really, really bad experience in the Richardson 2nd Ward. Of course, that was eleven years ago, so I'm sure things have changed since then. I would recommend the Dallas 11th Ward because singles wards are so much more fun.
Having said all that, what I find amusing about this whole discussion is that a lot of people are acting as if Pfresh has already made the decision to convert, when mere interest in studying has been expressed. Don't make it more into what it isn't. Wait until Pfresh thinks about baptizing, and then discuss that.
Aside from that, if you're really bored at UTD (gosh, I can't imagine why ;P) then LDS singles wards have a lot of activities.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'm just looking into it first, gathering information. If I like the sound of things and it feels right, then I'll trying going and such. One step at a time and all that.
And I'm glad someone understand my boredom at UTD. All I hear from people is "Oh, you can be social. Join a frat" and that's not me. *shrugs* Oh well. Are LDS singles wards' activities restricted to members or would they welcome non-members like me (of course this all future talk for next semester and what not)?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Personally, I had a really, really bad experience in the Richardson 2nd Ward. Of course, that was eleven years ago, so I'm sure things have changed since then. I would recommend the Dallas 11th Ward because singles wards are so much more fun.
Oh, totally go for the singles wards, but I'm just saying, stay AWAY from G3. R2 has been divided since then into R2 and D4 and boundaries have changed, and most of the really weird people ended up in D4. Not that R2 doesn't still have its share of nutters (although there have also been a lot of move in/outs in both wards.) Like I said, G4 is WONDERFUL. I never visited D11, but I heard that it's a really nice singles ward, and I sang in the stake choir with a few people in it (when we were in R2, we also shared the building with them.) And they all seemed awesome. So totally, I recommend D11. And they would LOVE to have visitors at social events, although it'll be easier on you if you make a friend (or at least acquaintance) who you can be "with" when you go to them.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I was in one of the Garland wards many, many moons ago. I think it was the First, but in fact there may have only been one at the time.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
And how do I go about making this friend/acquaintance?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Show up at church at the D11 ward, and/or find someone who knows someone and get them to introduce you. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Interesting. I'll keep that in mind.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
They're always happy to have visitors at the singles wards. I actually had a nonmember girlfriend that I met at a singles ward activity.
How do you go about making the friend? Er, that's a good one...but it's possible that there are members at UTD (there were four, including myself, when I was there) and if the ward could vector you to one, I'm sure that if you said you were interested in the Church, they'd be willing to help you with the social stuff. That's a lot of ifs, but it's reasonable ifs...
I roomed with guys from all three frats at UTD (the three that were there at the time)...Kappa Sig was the guys who all got drunk and puked. ZBT was the muscle and marijuana frat (my roommate was one of their drug dealers) and Chi Phi was the hardcore drinking frat. Out of the three, I liked Chi Phi the best and hung out with them a lot - but that's because our apartment was the Chi Phi headquarters. From what I saw, frats are pretty much a way to get drunk a lot and have sex with ugly chicks. That's crude...but that's how it was. So if you're looking for something more, the singles ward is a good way to go.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Yeah. One of my roommates last year was Kappa Sig. He got drunk and had sex nightly (I know for a fact unfortunately). I'm not a drinking person though (for various reasons), and I am looking for more than just sex. So yeah, a singles ward might be a good idea.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
pf:"I am looking for more than just sex. So yeah, a singles ward might be a good idea."
That's not quite the way it works.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Wait, what are you saying? I'm trying to figure out if I implied something that I didn't mean to (or if there is something in there to be read into).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: ZBT was the muscle and marijuana frat (my roommate was one of their drug dealers) and Chi Phi was the hardcore drinking frat.
I used to shoot pool with some of the ZBT guys from Tulane, and I went to one of their parties once. They were really nice guys. But from what I understand, they do have a reputation for being the marijuana frat.
/random.
-pH
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
pfresh, I think the concern is that your previous post made it sound like you're looking into the church just to meet girls.
If you know that a particular church fits your beliefs, then it can be a good place to meet people (including dating prospects) who share those beliefs. But it's a bad idea to shape your beliefs based on which church has the best dating prospects.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Oh, that's not what I was really intending to say. I'm sorry if it came off like that. I'm looking at church for beliefs that match my own. The looking for dates and stuff wouldn't come until after I found the right church. Again, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was saying I was looking at the church just to meet girls.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Update: I have a meeting set up with the missionaries for 1PM Wednesday. It shouldn't be too long (I say this because I explained to them I have something going on at 3PM that day, so it can't be terribly long). I'm looking forward to it, even just to get information from them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm glad you got a hold of them.
It should be about an hour. That's how long we planned most of our appointments for.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Be sure to let them know you aren't looking to start dating right away.
(I really am JUST KIDDING!)
I hope it's a good experience for you.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And beware the candy!
I hear they lure you in with candy.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
*ears perk up* Oooh...candy....*drools* Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Be careful, I hear if they get you to take the candy they'll "hit you over the head and whisk you off to a programming session". Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Sometimes, there is candy involved. Really.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well if they offer me candy, I will offer them candy in return. My apartment has candy for guests. It will be a mutual battle of the candy. Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I will offer a little unsolicited advice. All of this is anecdotal. I am a Jew, 26 years old, live on my own.
I was approached by some Mormon missionaries while I was waiting for a friend. I had to stand there anyway, so I figured I might as well talk to them. It was two men, and they were very interesting. We talked about Isiah and a little about how they felt that they were a return to an early Christianity. They seemed sorta like the "Karaite" Christians, I was intrigued, and I agreed to meet with them again the following week. I even read about 15 pages of the Book of Mormon that they requested that I read. I made it extremely clear that I had no intention of converting.
The next week, I met with them. They brought two "sister missionaries" with them so I could have someone come to my home. The women were really sweet, but not very well educated in theology. To the point that it was a little shocking.
I met with the women once more (in public), when a member happened to happen by. The member, a new convert, was much more able to answer my questions. He recommended that I go to something called Institute, a general interest class on Wednesday nights at their church. I haven't, so I can't tell you what it's like, but it might be something that you would be interested in.
After these three meetings, I discovered that the Mormons beliefs were not what I thought. And no matter how many times that I told them that I had no interest in converting (there are even several members of my family that died rather than be baptised).
Anyway, I told the women that I was really not interested, but that I would continue talking to the member if I had any further questions. For about a month later, they would call me twice a week, asking me if I had read more of the Book of Mormon (I had not). I tried to me polite and tell them that I didn't have time now. They finally got to the point where they showed up at my home unannounced and became extremely disrespectful of my beliefs.
I have no idea whether my experience was typical.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, dear, Minerva, I'm sorry. You had some unusually agressive missionaries, sounds like. They're not supposed to do that. (((hugs)))
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, that doesn't sound typical at all. We didn't bother people who said no. Their job is to find those who are seeking.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
My hope is that such a thing wouldn't happen with me, Minerva. I hope that after I research, if I find out it's not the right thing for me, that they will respect my decision and not hound me about it later. Who knows though. We'll see how it goes.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
We had several conversations like this: Them: We see something in your spirit and pray that you join the church in our lifetime. Me: Umm...ok...but, really, I'm not interested. I'll call you if I'm interested.
-or-
Them: You aren't interested because you haven't been reading enough of the Book of Mormon. You need to read it and pray about whether it is true. Me: I did pray. Them: No, not to the G-d of your church. To the Holy Spirit.
They also couldn't tell me whether they believed in one G-d or multiple G-ds. I might have been willing to talk with the male (brother?) missionaries again. However, I was afraid that it would start this cycle over again. Also, the men seemed pretty eager to pass me off to the women, so I wouldn't want to waste their time.
I'm thinking that I might stop by the Institute one Wednesday and see if I can get some of my questions answered. It's my impression that the members have fewer restrictions on what they are able to discuss than the missionaries.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I really don't think that is going to happen - I've never heard of it happening, and it is very different from most people's experiences with the missionaries. I'm sorry it happened to you.
quote:Them: You aren't interested because you haven't been reading enough of the Book of Mormon. You need to read it and pray about whether it is true. Me: I did pray. Them: No, not to the G-d of your church. To the Holy Spirit.
This is horrifying. It's just weird. I'm thinking there was some miscommunication going around.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Yeah, that was, of course, our last conversation.
They simply weren't able to answer my questions (and thought Jews went to Church).
The male missionaries were excellent. As was the member that I met. I just want to reiterate that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw, I feel kind of bad for everyone in that conversation. Depending on where they were from, they may have never encountered a Jew before their missions. I'm sure they were flustered.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Them: You aren't interested because you haven't been reading enough of the Book of Mormon. You need to read it and pray about whether it is true. Me: I did pray. Them: No, not to the G-d of your church. To the Holy Spirit.
I got something similar myself. When I mentioned that I had prayed on the issue and had not received the same message, they were quite certain that I must not have prayed correctly. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Wonder what they would say if you told them you weren't interested in praying about it, cause you just aren't interested in changing religions (or the lack thereof)?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What Minerva describes is consistent with several firsthand accounts I've heard from people who've sat with missionaries.
I think it's more the norm than most LDS would like to believe.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Every time I tried to tell them that I had no desire to switch religions, they would get uncomfortable and change the subject.
I really don't want to pick on these poor young women. It seemed like they just expected everyone to pray, get an answer that their scripture was true, and then missionaries would fill in the details. When that didn't happen, they were at a loss. They obviously had abundant faith, they were just seriously lacking in education. They were unable to answer questions like, "Why do you think Jesus Christ was the messiah?" so we were obviously not a good match as teachers/student.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw, poor missionaries. Yeah, it doesn't sound like it was a good match.
The upside of all the horror stories is that it is radically lowering expectations. If pfresh's can get a complete sentence out and manage to not stalk him afterwards, they'll look like stars.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Minerva,
I can explain why they Elders (male missionaries) passed you off to the Sisters (female missionaries). At least in our mission the Elders were not allowed to teach women unless their husband or parents were present. edit: (unless the women was over 60 years of age) It was a rule to keep the Elders out of trouble with girls.
As for the Sister missionaries' knowledge base, it may be that these particular missionaries had not planned on serving a mission and therefor not prepared as well as the Elders, who likely had planned on serving on a mission since they were little. (I know this is a generalization and I'm likely to be attacked by some wonderful former Sister missionaries.)
As for their aggressivness, there was nothing more uncomfortable for me than when my companion would not let it go and pressed people farther than they wanted to go. I always figured that if someone said no they ment it and it was better to accept it and maybe have a chance talking to the person in the future rather than alienate them and make them not like us.
Sergeant
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Question again. When I was on the phone last night, the man I spoke with said they had a sort of lesson they wanted to talk to me about (they also recommended a section of the Book of Mormon to read, which I did). I said I was okay with that. What I'm wondering is though is will I be able to ask them some questions while they are here? Just from my basic research, some of the reading of the Book of Mormon I've done, and from some of the things I've heard from Mormons and former Mormons I know I've got a few questions I'd like to get answered (or at least get some sort of explanation for them). Will they be willing to go into a sort Q&A thing or will they just want to talk about their lesson the whole time? I just have no real clue what to expect.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They can answer questions - I'd tell them that you have some at the beginning and let them know how many/what kind, just in case they have an appointment after and they can plan the time better.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Okay. I think I'll write out some of my questions ahead of time just so I don't forget. It's not like I have a long list, but one or two of them might require lengthier explanations.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Most missionaries will be ok with some Q&A. I would let them know at the beginning that you have some questions that you would like to ask, but be willing to ask them at the end of their lesson. Usually works out best if you save your questions for the end unless they relate to the lesson. But that is just me.
Sergeant
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Okay. I think I'll write out some of my questions ahead of time just so I don't forget. It's not like I have a long list, but one or two of them might require lengthier explanations.<<
My goodness. I think I would have walked around Italy barefoot for two years for the chance to meet someone like you.
Prepared questions? I'd have probably had a heart attack from the sheer joy of meeting someone who AT LEAST wanted to engage in a discussion.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I'm a very organized and planned out sort of guy. If I'm trying to research something, I do it all the way and for things like gathering information from people I try and be really prepared to get what I want to know from the conversation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm going to give you the opposite advice from Sergeant-- tell 'em up front that you've heard some things about Mormonism and you have questions.
The lesson can wait.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
So you're saying the discussion of questions and stuff is more important than the lesson?
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Scott may be right. I think it may depend on the missionaries and their teaching style.
Good luck with your appointment tommorrow.
Sergeant
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>So you're saying the discussion of questions and stuff is more important than the lesson?
I'm saying that your questions are more important to YOU at this point than the missionaries' lesson.
What I'd be hoping, as a missionary meeting you for the first time, is that we could discuss the gospel, and that you'd feel the confirmation of the Spirit that what we're discussing is from God. Depending on your responses, I might try to talk about the Plan of Salvation and Joseph Smith; or not. If the Spirit was present, and YOU agreed that you felt it too, I'd invite you to investigate the Church further. I might invite you to make a commitment to baptism (again, depending on circumstances).
Mostly, I'd just be hoping you were home when you said you would be.
I don't want to knock the lessons-- although, I'm more inclined to call them 'directed discussions.' They're important so that investigators get a basic understanding of our beliefs. But someone who has actually prepared questions-- I'd look on those as being much more important.
Within reason, anyway.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Wow, what sort of circumstances would make an immediate leap to commitment to baptism (if you don't mind me asking)?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Oh, I totally agree with Scott that your own questions are highest priority. The lessons can come afterwards, as time allows. When I go on team ups with the sister missionaries, we always love it if the person investigating the church has questions of their own. They will likely spend hours finding just the right scriptures to answer you, or pray to receive revelation of how to answer you. I would totally ask your own questions first. The lesson can be adapted to address whatever you want to know about.
In the south, I think some of the over persistance of missionaries can come from cultural differences between here and other parts of the country. Apparently in the North, if someone isn't interested in talking to you further, they phrase it something like "Don't call me again, I'm not interested in talking to you anymore." In the south that would be phrased much more softly, something like "I find I don't have much time lately" or even just by using the 3 strikes rule (the rule that if you call and invite someone 3 times in a row and they're busy or can't come, then you should quit calling). I've had to explain this to some very sweet girls from Utah and Idaho who didn't realize what was going on.
It's just a different cultural norm. People in the south are politer. The baldfaced "don't call me again" sounds extremely rude to our ears. More like a personal affront intended to cause pain or offense. I think missionaries from other parts of the country may tend to interpret "I'm busy" as "please come back later when I'm not busy".
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: People in the south are politer.
No, people in the south consider different things polite. Southern cultural norms would be considered just as rude in the midwest as midwestern cultural norms would be in the south.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Wow, what sort of circumstances would make an immediate leap to commitment to baptism (if you don't mind me asking)?<<
Well-- a strong sense of the presence of the Spirit, and a recognition by the investigator that it was from God.
That's what it took for me to make the invitation. The commitment by the investigator to actually go through with the baptism always took a bit more than that, not suprisingly.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Unless things have changed greatly, this is the chapter that they'll want you to read: Third Nephi 11
The missionaries don't do the discussions the same way that they used to - they used to have to stick to each discussion, but now they're allowed to go pretty much wherever they feel inspired. So ask away.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
pfresh-
If, after the first lesson, an investigator told me s/he believed Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon was true and inspired by God, I would extend the commitment to join the church. Theoretically (since it never happened to me).
A more likely conclusion to a first discussion is an invitation to church and/or some church-sponsored activity, a request to read and pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon, and an attempt to set another appointment (probably sometime in the next week, if possible).
What type of questions do you have? There may be some subjects missionaries might not feel comfortable covering during a first discussion, just because the subjects require a thorough establishment of basic principles before any explanation would make sense.
And I agree somewhat with Tatiana. An "I'm busy" sounds a lot like "Come back later" to someone who's trying to get someone, anyone, to listen to their message. Although I must say the missionaries in Minerva's case sounded over-the-top pushy.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: People in the south are politer.
No, people in the south consider different things polite. Southern cultural norms would be considered just as rude in the midwest as midwestern cultural norms would be in the south.
For instance, many people in the midwest would never make a comment like yours quoted here, Tatiana, because they would consider it remarkably rude to say an entire region of other people is not polite. Particularly in public, in a social setting that contained many people from the region in question.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Southern cultural norms would be considered just as rude in the midwest as midwestern cultural norms would be in the south.
Example?
ElJay, she said Southern people are politer, not that people everywhere else are rude.
It's commonly held wisdom, and in my experience it's neither totally accurate nor totally inaccurate. I agree with dkw's first sentence completely, but I'd like to hear some examples.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
tern, he did recommend Third Nephi 11, which is what I read last night. As for SenojRetep, I have a good variety of questions. I could post them here and you guys could go over and tell me which ones you think might be good to ask about and which ones wouldn't be good to ask about.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I dunno-- it depends on what is considered polite.
I've lived in the midwest (Wisconsin) and in the South (Texas and Virginia)-- I have to agree with dkw.
Saying your ma'ams and sirs doesn't make you polite; neither does passive aggressiveness.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay, JT, how about:
quote:Apparently in the North, if someone isn't interested in talking to you further, they phrase it something like "Don't call me again, I'm not interested in talking to you anymore."
The baldfaced "don't call me again" sounds extremely rude to our ears.
If she's saying that people in the north do X and "we" consider X "extremely rude," then can I say she's calling people in the north rude?
Incidentally, I would also consider that phrasing rather rude. If I felt the need to be that blunt, I would at least say "Please do not call me again, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in converting."
(I'll let Dana give examples, since it was her point, originally.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
JT, a prime example would be saying "I find I just don't have much time now," when what you mean is "I'm not interested." Or saying that you have something else to do three times and expecting the other person to take that as a "hint" and stop calling. Rude. Around here, if you say, "I'd really like to but I'm busy this weekend," that means you'd really like to but you're busy this weekend.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
pfresh85-- you post your questions here, and we're likely to answer them before the missionaries get the opportunity to take a swing.
MOST questions are okay to ask. I mean, I wouldn't ask the Elders if they'll be willing to. . . um. . . sniff your shoes, or bear your first child. That would be kind of inappropriate. But they've probably (crossing fingers) heard most of the questions you're going to ask.
If you've got specific questions about certain sacred things-- like the temple, for example-- you need to be prepared to be answered with, "Those things are very sacred to us, and we don't talk of them outside of the temple." General questions-- like, what gets done there and why are okay.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Personally, I consider all these lingual games rude. I wish everyone would just be blunt and up front about it. I mean I'm from the South, and I really do wish people would say what they mean truthfully rather than trying to spare feelings. Maybe that's just me though.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I have to admit up until they showed up at my house unannounced and told me that "my G-d" wasn't capable of answering me, I used the, "I'm really busy." approach.
I also asked the member to whom I was talking to talk to the sister missionaries. I really tried to be as polite as possible, even face of behavior I considered very rude (like showing up at someone's house unannounced).
I've lived in New England my whole life. So I'm not sure about the northerners/southerners theory...
I'm curious about whether there are questions that missionaries are discouraged from answering. It seemed that when I tried to ask a specific questions, they would break out into "Let's read the intro from the Book of Mormon." I didn't get that behavior at all from the member.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well would a question like "Why aren't non-Mormons allowed into temple for weddings or what not? Why is this restriction in place (particularly on such a happy event)?" too specific of a sacred question? I mean that's one of the few questions that I have that has to do with sacred stuff, most of it is either a) historical stuff, b) stuff about the modern church's views (in regards to gender roles, relationships, etc.), or c) questions raised by my reading of Third Nephi 11.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Saying your ma'ams and sirs doesn't make you polite; neither does passive aggressiveness.
I agree with that.
quote:JT, a prime example would be saying "I find I just don't have much time now," when what you mean is "I'm not interested." Or saying that you have something else to do three times and expecting the other person to take that as a "hint" and stop calling. Rude.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't see anything wrong with sparing someone's feeling in an example like that, and I've seen it happen a lot outside the south. I'm not gonna argue with you about how things work in Oklahoma, cause I don't live there. But if a couple that you know you'll see again (say, a church couple) asks you to do something you really don't want to do do you actually say to them, "I'm not interested."
That seems a little callous to me.
But maybe that's more person-to-person than a regional thing. The thing about the south being more polite is misguided, I think. It's based on people being more outwardly polite, like sir and ma'am, holding doors, and saying "God Bless you" when someone sneezes. People in the north don't do these things with anything near the regularity of their southern counterparts, but it's not because they're less polite. It's just different cultural expectations.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Yes, ask away.
So, why are non-Mormons not allowed into the temple for weddings?
Technically, non-Mormons (as well as Mormons without temple recommends) are not allowed into the temple at all, regardless of the occasion. The simplest reason is that it's sacred. We want to make sure that those entering understand the importance of the temple and the ordinances therein. We understand that this imposes some difficulties, and some people won't like it - but that's the tradeoff that has to be made.
Feel free to ask about historical stuff, modern church views, and doctrinal questions (such as those from 3 Ne 11). We love to answer questions. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What does Oklahoma have to do with anything?
[ November 29, 2005, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nope, those questions are fine. Really, pfresh, ALL your questions will probably be fine, as in, it's not inappropriate to ask them. It may be inappropriate for the missionaries to answer, though-- just be prepared for that response.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Psh, the South is way more polite and friendly than Chicago. I've been contemplating starting a thread on the subject.
Southern bums are also much less scary.
-pH
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'm originally from Oklahoma, so maybe that's what it has to do with anything.
As for the wedding question, well if I did convert, then it might have to be a 2 ceremony type thing. I don't want to disclude my whole family from what would probably be the most important day in my life.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I like the "making others feel most comfortable (when appropriate)" definitions of courtesy. In my mind, a remarkably courteous person would be one who had studied enough about the different cultures that he or she might be exposed to in order to interact comfortably with just about anyone in any circumstance.
This takes a certain detachment, though, balanced with a different sort of caring.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Psh, the South is way more polite and friendly than Chicago. I've been contemplating starting a thread on the subject.
Southern bums are also much less scary.
-pH
Have you seen the bums in Austin? Man, some of those are pretty darn scary.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It was just a random state that's not quite south, not quite midwest, that doesn't fit any politeness stereotype.
I guess I should have phrased that better.
EDIT: Thinking back, maybe this explains some of the miscommunications on this and other boards. Maybe my impressions have been colored by what I thought was rudeness when it was actually perfectly neutral speech. Hmm.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
So, JT, if you're calling and asking a girl out on a date, would you rather she tell you she was "busy" three times or tell you she wasn't interested?
If a friend from church asked me to do something I didn't want to do, I would answer that that wasn't really my thing but suggest something else. If I didn't want to do it because I actively didn't like them I would say I was sorry but I just didn't have the time to add anything else to my social calendar. That pretty much shuts down any type of activity.
I use sir and ma'am frequently in more formal situations, or with people I don't know. But when I was in Texas, it only went one way. Older people were expected to be called sir, but they called younger men "Boy" if they were trying to get their attention and didn't know their name. Blew my mind.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I'm curious about whether there are questions that missionaries are discouraged from answering.<<
Boy, you had some doozies, didn't you. My condolences.
Missionaries, at least the ones in my mission, were not discouraged from answering any questions. Like I said, I would have given up vital organs to have someone engage me in sincere discussion.
That being said, if an investigator asked me, "Why do you believe Jesus is the Messiah?" part of my response would be to bring out the Book of Mormon and talk about how it is a testament to Christ's messianic mission. The Book of Mormon is a large part of what we believe-- critisizing its use as a teaching tool is a bit like asking a Jew to explain their beliefs without referencing the Torah.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
As I think we've discussed, when she says she's busy twice I know she's saying she's not interested. The nice part is that it's message sent and received without me beating myself up. I know she's not interested but I don't have to hear the words.
People in Montana call their friends' parents, their professors, and everyone under the age of seventy by their first names. Freaked me out.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:But if a couple that you know you'll see again (say, a church couple) asks you to do something you really don't want to do do you actually say to them, "I'm not interested."
If it's something I don't want to do, and have no intention of doing, then yes, I say I'm not interested. Or I might say, "Well, 'x' isn't really my thing," or something similar.
quote:Thinking back, maybe this explains some of the miscommunications on this and other boards. Maybe my impressions have been colored by what I thought was rudeness when it was actually perfectly neutral speech. Hmm.
I don't doubt it. I have noticed that many times misunderstandings of intent on this board fall out along regional lines.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: But when I was in Texas, it only went one way. Older people were expected to be called sir, but they called younger men "Boy" if they were trying to get their attention and didn't know their name. Blew my mind.
Really? I mean I understand calling older people sir, but the "boy"thing is totally new to me (and I've lived in Texas over 10 years). The only time I've heard/used the "boy" thing was joking between my brother or my friends. I've never heard it used as an older person talking down to a young man.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:when she says she's busy twice I know she's saying she's not interested.
Unless she's a northern girl. In which case she's saying she's busy. Although I suppose it still might mean, "not interested enough to cancel plans I've already made to jump at the chance."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wow. I lived in South Carolina for a year and found it very unfriendly. As a matter of fact the only people who actually made me feel welcome (other than my boyfriend's family) were other Northerners. And this was when I was younger and nicer than I am now. The constant snubbing from people who didn't know me at all was rather hurtful. One example: On Christmas Eve I went to church for the first time there (I had moved just a few weeks earlier). The hymns were listed in the bulletin so I sang. Not loudly. Other people in the congregation were singing - not like it was a choir solo. I am a trained singer and I have been singing in churches for most of my life, so I don't think I was singing badly. The woman in front of me turned around to say, "we would rather you didn't sing down here."
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
We did two ceremonies - the wedding, and then a ring ceremony, because my wife's family were not temple-worthy members. The only thing is that you can't treat the ring ceremony as another wedding.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well what's a ring ceremony? Sorry, my terminology may be behind.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Have you seen the bums in Austin? Man, some of those are pretty darn scary.
The only time I was in Austin, I spent the entire time in a hotel room watching a hurricane trash some part of the Gulf Coast that wasn't New Orleans.
Also, Texas is not the South. It is Texas.
Oh, and I also will generally hang out with anyone who invites me to go do something, as I see no harm in seeing a movie with someone or having dinner or whatever. But I avoid physical contact, thus avoiding the "I'm not interested" discussion.
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Um. . . wrong. Texas is the only TRUE Southern state.
The rest is Yankee-bait.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that I didn't want them to quote out of the Book of Mormon. I would definitely expect scripture to be quoted in a situation where someone asked you about your beliefs. But I would expect some kind of targeted direction. Something along the lines of, "Let's look at A 13:3, B 2:26, and all of C and D." All I got was "Read more."
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Scott R's got it right. Woo Texas! Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Minerva: Yeah, I would expect that too.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You people are far too into being Texan to be Southern.
Also, your state has weird highways.
-pH
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Depends on where you are. Most of the highways I go on around here are pretty straight forward (except for the occasional clover leaf in Dallas, which I blame entirely on Dallas being weird).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not weird. Charming. Eclectic.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I hope I didn't cause any anxiety about the appropriateness of any questions. I do think any question you have is appropriate to ask. I just remember being uncomfortable as a missionary when people asked me very involved questions before I'd had a chance to talk about the atonement, resurrection, apostasy and restoration, because I felt most questions couldn't be answered sufficiently without a good grounding in those core doctrines.
As for your short list, I think they'll be most ready for questions raised from your reading (I would have loved for an investigator to raise those sorts of questions). They may be less prepared to answer historical or social questions. Your temple question is entirely appropriate, but their response will probably be very similar to what tern said.
A ring ceremony is not a second marriage ceremony, since you can only be married once. It looks like a marriage ceremony, and is a way for non-temple attendees to participate.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
"Psh, we don't need sensible highways! We're Texas! Let's make some unnecessary one-way streets on either side of our interstates so that no one can find where they're trying to get to without driving back and fourth nine times over the same stretch of highway!"
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Oh, and I also will generally hang out with anyone who invites me to go do something, as I see no harm in seeing a movie with someone or having dinner or whatever. But I avoid physical contact, thus avoiding the "I'm not interested" discussion.
My sister! This is also my M.O.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Wow, you actually got confused about feeder/frontage roads? *shakes head* That's a real pity. Particularly with the idiot turns on almost all of them as well.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: As I think we've discussed, when she says she's busy twice I know she's saying she's not interested. The nice part is that it's message sent and received without me beating myself up. I know she's not interested but I don't have to hear the words.
Right, but in the case we discussed she really was just not getting your messages, and you were somewhat frustrated because you didn't know if she was getting your messages and not interested or not getting your messages. If you were in a culture where people told you clearly when they weren't interested, that wouldn't have been a problem.
Regardless, I am not trying to argue that the northern way is better than the southern way. I am arguing that they are different, and neither should be considered more polite than the other. I am also stating that I found Tatiana's original comment to be implying that she found northern manners more rude -- or less polite, which is the exact same thing -- than southern, and that I considered that generalization rude. You never addressed my second response to that, by the way, about if she was calling people rude or not.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Ask them whatever you want, Pfresh. Questions are great. Just be aware that the answers to some questions may be "I don't know, I'll have to look that one up," or, "You don't have quite enough information to understand the answer to that one yet." As has been said before, they don't want to withhold answers, but trying to answer things before you have the proper context will make things more confusing rather than less.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I can understand the "I don't know, I'll have to look that one up" thing. Makes sense. The "You don't have quite enough information to understand the answer yet" doesn't seem right though. I mean I could understand them saying that, but I'd expect them to follow up with more information so that I could understand the answer.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Unless she's a northern girl. In which case she's saying she's busy. Although I suppose it still might mean, "not interested enough to cancel plans I've already made to jump at the chance."
Yeah, but I still subscribe to the three strike rule (sometimes two strikes, depending on the vibe I get). If the person wants to hang out but actually can't, they'll suggest an alternate time/event.
ElJay, That situation had extenuating circumstances, you're right, but I still told you guys my general policies (3 strikes, etc.). I agree that if everyone would get on board the saying-what-you-mean wagon life would be simpler, but it seems unlikely for now. And knowing that people (at least in the south) often couch their language you have to be prepared to deal with that.
I also agree that no one region is ruder/politer than any other region, as evidenced by my post on the last page stating as much. I agree that less polite/more rude are the same statement, but I was saying that more rude != rude. It's relative vs. absolute. Maybe the north seems rude, even though I don't personally think that's the case. But I can see how a Southerner would draw that conclusion. So no, I don't think she was saying North = Rude.
I think this exchange proves Dana's point about regional misunderstandings. I didn't know we were disagreeing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Wow, you actually got confused about feeder/frontage roads? *shakes head* That's a real pity. Particularly with the idiot turns on almost all of them as well.
Psh. In civilized states, the interstate service roads are TWO-WAY streets.
-pH
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Quite a few of the ones in Texas are two-way, which always seemed odd to me. One-way seems to make more sense (since they are on each side). Of course my experience only extends to a small number of states.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ah, see I took this line:
"ElJay, she said Southern people are politer, not that people everywhere else are rude."
as disagreeing with me saying that Tatiana's statement was rude, and so I gave another example of why I thought that was the case. Because in the second example she didn't say "more rude" she said a particular behavior was "extremely rude." It certainly felt to me that that equated her saying she considered North = Rude. That was the part I wanted (want) to hear your thoughts on.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: The "You don't have quite enough information to understand the answer yet" doesn't seem right though. I mean I could understand them saying that, but I'd expect them to follow up with more information so that I could understand the answer.
Which is exactly what they should do, it just might extend beyond a single discussion because the foundation is large. I often found myself saying things like, "That's a great question, and I can give you a short answer right now, but we'll have to have a couple more discussions before I can really explain it well."
For instance, if you ask about the church's views on gender roles, there's probably a quick answer. But the quick answer will be unsatisfying unless you understand the significance of temple marriage and eternal families to church members, which is, in turn, difficult to understand without discussing beliefs about atonment and redemption, which requires discussion of the life and mission of Christ. All of which should probably take more than just one hour to discuss.
I'm making this sound like a big huge thing, which its not. It's just that the LDS religion (like all religions) is a complex set of beliefs and trying to talk about any one belief in isolation can be confusing. And some beliefs can only be adequately explained in the context of other beliefs.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
She said...wait, lemme get it right
quote:The baldfaced "don't call me again" sounds extremely rude to our ears.
Which to me says not that the statement in itself is implicitly rude, just that under a certain interpretation it comes off that way. That interpretation being a Southern one (which I'm not sure I agree with). But all the same, I just don't make the jump from rude statement to rude culture. I think it reveals as much about how people in the south take things as how people in the north say them.
I guess I disagree with any absolute saying about who's nice and who's not, because it's not gonna be true. Less nice, more rude, fatter, lazier, more hardworking, bigger drinkers, I may disagree with but I don't fault someone for thinking that because it's subjective, by and large.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*shrug* Fair enough. I still can't imagine anyone I know making a similar statement, to either of them. ("People X are more polite than people Y" or "People X say Statement Z, which sounds extremely rude to People Y.") They both sound extremely rude to my ears. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
SenojRetep, I can understand that. A lot of times you do have to understand one thing (or multiple things) to understand a particular subject or issue. I would just hope that if I bring up an issue they'd at least offer some information, or maybe a direction in which I could look.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I thought that was common travel talk, like:
"Man, it smells funny here."
"This place is full of ugly people."
"Food here is much better than back home."
"The next person who lets a door slam in my face is getting stabbed in the neck with a ballpoint pen."
These all (except the last one) are variations on the rude/polite statement. They're generalizations, and sometimes they're right but sometimes not.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yeah, and I would not dream of saying any of them, no matter how hard I though them. They are all rude. I would particularly not say them where a native of that area could hear me, such as on a message board with members from a wide variety of places.
And honestly, I've never heard other people saying them, either, although I've heard people from other countries complaining about Americans saying things like that. I've always been flabbergasted that it happens, and that it happens often enough that we have a reputation for it.
Added: Sorry, all except the "food is better here" statement, I misread that one. It's still a generalization, but since it's complimentary it's not necessarily a rude generalization.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Oh, I see. Your problem is not that she said it, it's that she said it where people who might be offended could hear it.
I see your point. I wouldn't say any of the above statements where a local could hear me, only to my travelling companions.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmm, almost. I think it's rude to say it at all, honestly. But I know we all think uncomplimentary things from time to time. So if you feel you must say it, then yeah, I think you should at least saying it to someone who won't be offended. And I'd rather it be presented as an opinion than a statement of fact.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh and from my first post on the subject:
"Particularly in public, in a social setting that contained many people from the region in question."
So I'm a bit surprised that it took you this long to get that part of my problem was that she said it where people who might be offended could hear it. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Having been to west Texas, I do not consider Texas to be a Southern state. There's just too much, or too little, of a lot of stuff in Texas that isn't in any other Southern state to really call it a Southern state. Like, say, trees and sagebrush. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Ring ceremonies are where you exchange the wedding rings. That's about it. Our Stake President presided, said a few words, we swapped rings, kissed, that was it.
Sometimes when we say that you don't have enough information, it is because there is a lot of supporting information that we can't just easily provide. And sometimes it is because you don't have the spiritual foundation to fully understand it. A lot of doctrine can only be fully understood by living it. And then there are the deep (and usually, unimportant) things of doctrine. But we'll try to identify those when/if they come up.
If anyone says that you shouldn't join the Church until you know everything about it, they're being unrealistic. It's like saying you shouldn't go to college until you know enough to graduate. We're all still learning.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Having lived in Texas for four years, and living here again, it's definitely the South. Especially in race relations.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think it's always an opinion, but it's also honestly pretty normal conversation when I'm travelling.
The tone changes though. If it's a family vacation it's all positive "look how pretty that is" stuff.
But if it's a group of guys they typically always want to bash something about wherever we are. When you're not home, your hometown is an extension of you. Since you choose to live there it says something about you. So saying, "my place is better than this" is really just saying "I'm better than you". It's not a nice thing to do, though. Hmm, I'm gonna keep an eye on that.
EDIT: Yeah, I'm slow today. Multitasking's a female dog.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I agree with you that it's always an opinion, but it's rarely phrased as an opinion, and I think that makes a big difference. I think it's much less offensive to say "I don't like the food here" than to say "The food here is bad." Obviously the second one is just your opinion, too, but it comes across much more as a value judgement, and someone overhearing is much more likely to take it personally (hearing that "I'm better than you" you mentioned) and be offended.
My personal goal is to only ever be rude/offensive on purpose. There are times when I feel it is warrented. But I try very hard not to give unintentional offense. I know I don't always succeed, but you can only do your best, ya know?
And for the moment, I feel that we have probably been hijacking pfresh's thread enough. We've pretty much come to understand each other here, haven't we?
Edit: Two "ya knows?" Bugged me.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: Having lived in Texas for four years, and living here again, it's definitely the South. Especially in race relations.
Having lived in Texas almost 11 years now, I will agree. We are more similar to the South than dissimilar. We are very much unique among the South though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Having lived in Texas for four years, and living here again, it's definitely the South. Especially in race relations.
Like, the rest of the country has less of a race problem than in the South and Texas is part of that racist culture, or the opposite?
There is just so much different about Texas than the rest of the South, it's weird that anyone could even say that is part of 'the South'. Deserts. Mountains. Cactuseses. Cowboy hats. The fact that you share a border with Mexico and Oklahoma. Y'all don't even say 'hey' when you say hello. You say 'howdy'. WTF is that crazy crap? Finally, your bbq sucks in comparison to the rest of the South.
You guys should've stayed independent just to avoid confusion.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think we've beaten our collective point(s) into each other's skulls, along with anybody else's in shouting distance.
Maybe my second New Years resolution will be to not be as dense as granite.
So, pfresh, might I ask what happened recently to draw you to Mormonism? Or is it just up next on your religious smorgasboard?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Wow, I don't know where to start with the stereotypes there. *shakes head*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Y'all don't even say 'hey' when you say hello. You say 'howdy'.
I have never heard anyone say 'howdy' unironically.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, the women aren't as good looking and your belt buckles are much smaller.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I didn't mean it offensively, I just knew you were trying out several churches trying to find the right fit.
My question was sincere, and if it's insulting to you I'll change it.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Something about it drew me in during the summer. I think part of it was just some of the stuff I read on here and some of the things I had heard about Mormonism. I got a copy of the Book of Mormon shortly after that. I stopped looking into it for a while (when I was first getting put on medications for my anxiety/depression). Then I came back. So yeah. There you go.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh. Hello, Kat. *whistles innocently*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I have! In South Dakota.
Added: This was supposed to be after kat's comment.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry. I thought the thread was done. Pardon.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
El JT de Spang, don't worry about insulting me. It'd take a lot to do that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I guess the long and short of it was what effect hatrack had on your looking at it.
I was just curious, because I never had any interaction with active LDS before hatrack, and my impressions have changed a lot.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I knew two guys who are LDS in high school (they were twins), and so I had some interaction, but it was all minor (and mostly joking stuff). It wasn't until Hatrack that I got more interaction.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have never heard anyone say 'howdy' unironically.
I'm pretty sure I said it to you when you came and visited us. It is my standard greeting, and it isn't ironic.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I know a few people who say howdy. I also know a few who say, "howsyamommanthem?"
Among others.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nice try, Stormy. I know I'm beautiful.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You know, I find the real problem with the early stages of exploring a possible switch to a different denomination or religion is that you often don't get the full story on all the various tenets, dogma, and nitty-gritty until you are full member. I don't know how one gets around that, but it does make it sort of difficult to answer fully the question of whether one or the other place is a good fit for ones own pre-existing beliefs.
I don't mean this specifically for people thinking of joining the LDS. There are weird little "things" about every denomination and often they are of such a minute or intricate nature that it'd be impossible to research them all or get a verbal explanation of them prior to joining.
And that doesn't even address the things that are part of each church's most closely held "mysteries" that they just aren't going to spread around outside of their own strong members.
I'm just sayin'. It's almost like people are asked to take faith, um...on faith.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: Having lived in Texas for four years, and living here again, it's definitely the South. Especially in race relations.
At least in the urban areas of the south that I'm familiar with, I find race relations to be much better in general than where I am now (note the lack of generalization to a whole region). It might just be familiarity; this part of the country (Indiana) seems not to have the level of racial diversity that I grew up with.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
My willingness to talk to the missionaries was based on the people on Hatrack.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Bob, there are those concerns about it. You never get to hear it all until you are in there. I guess I just want to learn as much as I can, and then if it feels right, I'll make a move towards it. That's the best I can do.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
On prejudice in the South vs. North:
One of my gay friends had to go up to New York for the semester, and for the first time in his life (he's always lived in Florida or Louisiana), someone spat on him.
-pH
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
***
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
*heads asplodes*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. Based on my personal experience of New York, I'd say it's more likely they knew he was from Florida and didn't know he was gay. But YMMV.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Dallas was scary, race-relations wise. And I grew up in L.A.
I'd almost prefer violence and open hatred to thinly-veiled contempt. (Not that most people, especially of my generation, had any racial feelings whatsoever. It was the born-and-raised people of my parents' generation who scared me.)
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Agreed kq. My parents' generation has a thinly-veiled contempt thing going on (and I even see it in my parents). It's sort of scary at times.
EDIT: Back on the Mormon note, I went from feeling really good to really bad. I'm not positive my motives are the best ones. I'll share if people want to know more.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: EDIT: Back on the Mormon note, I went from feeling really good to really bad. I'm not positive my motives are the best ones. I'll share if people want to know more.
I want to know. But you can im it to me if you want.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I'm sorry to say my (LDS) mother-in-law has some issues. And had real problems with her daughter marrying a black man. *sigh*
It was just so different every time they came over than it was this Thanksgiving at my cousin's house, with my sister and her black boyfriend. It's just... so different. I can't even explain how wonderful it was to see even my grandmother not noticing his race-- I'd never have noticed that before, but after having a different experience, I noticed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I didn't see real racism until I moved to Wisconsin.
:shrug:
There are idiots everywhere.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
pH, I'm fine sharing it here. I'll post it out and if you want more details, you know how to get to me.
So most of you know I've been complaining a lot about a sort of lack of belonging that I feel. I felt it somewhat in high school, but I've felt it a lot more since college began. I've tried things to correct it (before anyone tries to jump on me). I went to a few clubs and all of the social activities for incoming freshmen. I never found my group though, my little niche. I felt isolated and alone.
This year has been more of the same. Psychologist and psychiatrist alike blamed my isolation as a result of anxiety in social situations (which is partly true and partly not true). Since being put on medication, I've been trying stuff again. I still haven't found my group. I started going to church again 3 weeks ago (like many of you know), which was a super surprising step for everyone who knew me.
Yet even going to church, I found myself not among my sort of people. Everything was so casual, too casual for my tastes. I felt like I didn't belong.
I started talking to my Christian friends (mostly Protestant, but a few Catholics as well). Then I started learning I'm seemingly an outcast from them as well now.
My group of friends in high school was sort of the goody good group. We basically all agreed we weren't going to smoke, weren't going to drink, and weren't really going to go after sex until after marriage. Now it's coming out that everyone I know (yes, it's an everyone now) does at least one if not all of those things. One of my guy friends I felt I could relate the most to I now feel a large divide with now that I know that he drinks and smokes cigars. I know people change, and I accept that that's how these people are and that it's their decision. I just feel now like I'm totally alone, that there isn't anyone in my life that gets me or shares any of my views.
The last time I started feeling like this was the first time I checked out the Mormon church. I only had vague (and at times untrue) statements about the church to go on, but I looked into it. I heard they were seriously against drinking and smoking. I heard they were serious about deep relationships (between friends, between family, and dating), and that they were also a lot more serious about the no sex before marriage thing. I felt somewhat like the church fit with my own views. At the same time, I still had my own bias against the church at the time (again built off of some preconceived and mostly untrue things). Still, I requested a copy of the Book of Mormon be sent to my apartment so that I could look into it further.
A month or so ago (maybe longer), I was talking with Amanecer online (she's one of the people I go to to talk about really serious stuff) about possibly going to church again and asking sort of if she had any ideas about churches and what might fit me. She said something along the lines of "Well if you could actually believe and feel strongly about their faith, I think you would fit in well with the Mormons." I didn't ask her why at the time. It sort of coincided with my own thoughts though. On the phone with my father that night (since I talk to him nightly), I mentioned that I was considering testing out other churches. I mentioned that Amanecer had said something about the Mormon church, and his response was something along the lines of "Stay away from that bunch. You don't want anything to do with that." That killed my interests, because I felt like I couldn't go behind my parents backs.
Those old isolated feelings have come back and are much worse now. I don't feel like I fit in there, that my views don't click. I feel like an oddity. A large part of me just wants to belong, and I think I could belong with the Mormon church. It's just I'm not positive.
As I said, maybe my motives aren't the best ones. I just know I'm trying to find my place in this life. Even on my medications, I'm unhappy a good deal of the time, and I think it's because I spend so much time in isolation because I feel a lack of belonging everywhere here. That's about all I can say really.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Sometimes it takes a while to find your niche, your group. It takes me years, sometimes (after a move). It's always hard. But you're doing everything right by keeping it up. Keep trying new things until you find people who share your interests and morals.
I personally never had a problem with people who do things I don't. My best friend doesn't drink or go out to the bars at all. Since I do that every weekend and work in a different city you wouldn't think we'd hang out a lot. You'd be wrong though. He doesn't lecture me about my partying, and I don't lecture him about not having his undergrad degree even though he started college in '96 (he's never taken a semester off).
Maybe you can still hang out with your friend who drinks and smokes cigars, provided there's something you can do together that doesn't involve those things.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yeah, I agree that drinking/smoking/sex matters a lot less as you get older (in terms of who you hang out with). Mostly, I think, because people get less peer-pressurey.
The only time it becomes an issue is with the militant "straight edge" people.
-pH
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Maybe you can still hang out with your friend who drinks and smokes cigars, provided there's something you can do together that doesn't involve those things.
Well that's not a problem as we go to different schools. I still talk to him online like I did; it's not like I told him we can't be friends because of this or lectured him about it. It's just that my connection to him is a lot less than it was. We had more common ground before.
As I think I said, this is an all me problem. It's not that other people are ostracizing me. It's just that I don't feel like I belong. I know that people who drink don't drink all the time and they do other activities. Even at those other activities though, I'm the odd ball out. Case in point, I watched the UT/A&M game at a friend's house who does drink and smoke a lot. There was no drinking or smoking or anything during the game. But there was a lot of talk of it and "typical college life" and all. I felt like I wasn't a part of it. It's always me on the outside looking in. I hate that feeling. I want to belong.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I didn't mean that Northerners are rude. I'm very sorry if I gave that impression. I meant that the cultural differences between the North and South are such that things considered polite up north are considered very rude here. A person who didn't understand these differences could make a mistake and would appear quite rude to a southerner, when that was not their intention nor their real meaning.
dkw and others very justly point out that it's also true that what is considered simple good manners in the South can come off as passive aggressive to people in other parts of the country.
I just read a book about Arab culture and it seems that Arabs are like super-Southerners. They would never say "no" to a request. That would be considered very rude. They would say "oh I will do my very best to see that it happens, but you understand that I can't guarantee it will be possible". I remember now the Arab builder who assured my mother and father numerous times "oh yes, rest assured, by tomorrow it will be done" and it never was. I think cultural differences like this cause a lot of misunderstandings.
Though they feel to everyone like natural laws, these things are really just different customs and they are simply different from one place to another. Everyone is acting politely, but they are misinterpreted as being rude by people with different cultural norms.
I try to go by the rules in whatever place I am at the moment. Though I do find it hard to be more blunt than feels tactful and nice to me. I think I would love to learn the Arab way, and go even more in that direction rather than the other. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It's always me on the outside looking in. I hate that feeling. I want to belong.
I would work on belonging before you start messing with things that could hypothetically affect your immortal soul. But then that kind of philosophy has definitely delayed my acceptance of any given religion, so YMMV.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: It's just a different cultural norm. People in the south are politer.
That sounded pretty blunt to me.
I guess I'm firmly in the camp of bluntness. If someone (in America) refuses to tell someone or some group that they aren't interested, and just keep repeating that they are too busy or have a headache or whatever, I would call that lying and I have no respect for that whatsoever.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would work on belonging before you start messing with things that could hypothetically affect your immortal soul.
Well see I'm trying. It's just part of the problem is I haven't found a group to belong to.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I know how you feel about not belonging. The best friends I had when I was younger all had the same ideals I had - the same ones you mentioned, particularly the one about not having sex before marriage. As we all got older I was dismayed to see how quickly and completely my friends abandoned those ideals. I was suddenly different, and I wasn't the one who changed.
I think whenever people are hurting they seek for something to make them happier ... and they often turn to religion because it can fill that need. In my biased opinion, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking out religion because you're hurting and the religion fills your specific need - that's the point of religion, to help you find answers that lead you to happiness.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'm sorry that I can't offer a good reply to your comments JennaDean (as I probably have some good ideas to comment). I'm having an emotioanlly draining argument over IM with pH though. So I apologize for my lack of good reply now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IMO, not having sex before marriage, not drinking, not smoking ... none of these things, to me, are ideals.
They are activities (or the avoidance of activities) based on ideals, but those IDEALS are actually closer to: "sex is sacred," "doing things to impair your health or relax your inhibitions is dangerous and/or foolish," etc.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I'd just say, talk with the missionaries, take the lessons, and see what happens from there. Everyone's experience is unique, and their own.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well pH and I are arguing over using ideals as a means of defining who you are. It's complicated and deep stuff. Frustrating too.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm going to agree with Tom on this one.
I think it's much more important to get along personality-wise and with who someone is as a PERSON than to agree on views on sex, drugs, and alcohol.
And to me, things like being drink-, drug-, and sex-free are not personality traits.
-pH
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I think the ideals behind these things though have to at least somewhat line up for a really deep friendship to be built though. At least in my opinion.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
pfresh,
If I knew you better, I could venture an opinion that might mean something to you, but as it is, I think all we have to go on is the image you have presented here online, and it is not complete, nor could or should it be.
Realize then, that I have lots of questions and these are not meant to challenge you or come across as if I don't believe what you say, but I would like more data, pure and simple.
First, do you equate being different from others with being alone? I believe you do, but I can't be sure, so rather than ask "why" you believe that, I would rather start with DO YOU believe that.
Second, what do you think would be "good" or "correct" reasons for joining ANY particular group (church or non-church related doesn't matter).
Or... Third, does it matter to you whether you feel you BELONG to a church-related group. Is there a connectional aspect to your spiritual quest that you feel is lacking?
Fourth, and this is it for now, what do think are truly "wrong" reasons for joining a particular group (especially a church-reated group)?
I hope you don't mind answering, but if you do not want to, or simply can't, please don't feel badly about it. At this point, I'm just being nosy. I am not on AIM and I don't visit Hatrack during the day, so I'm not really going to be much use in a conversation or dialog.
But I do hope I (and others) can help by offering suggestions and the benefit of our experience with similar groups or with the same sorts of feelings.
I venture to say that all intelligent people go through periods of alienation and isolation, and it is certainly not uncommon to do so while away at school. We might have ideas that could help.
But if you notice a difference with the meds, that is also a sign of needing more than just friendly advice. My first friendly advice, then, is to keep taking the meds and going to see a therapist you trust.
- Bob
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
"First, do you equate being different from others with being alone? I believe you do, but I can't be sure, so rather than ask "why" you believe that, I would rather start with DO YOU believe that."
I don't equate being alone with being different. I think you can be different and still be in a group.
"Second, what do you think would be "good" or "correct" reasons for joining ANY particular group (church or non-church related doesn't matter)."
Shared interest would be one. If there's a shared interest, there's a reason to join up with the group. There's probably more but they aren't coming immediately to my head.
"Or... Third, does it matter to you whether you feel you BELONG to a church-related group. Is there a connectional aspect to your spiritual quest that you feel is lacking?"
I want to belong to a church-related group. I've sort of returned to my spiritual roots in the last year or so, and so I sort of want to belong in a group there.
"Fourth, and this is it for now, what do think are truly "wrong" reasons for joining a particular group (especially a church-related group)?"
The only reason I can think of that would be wrong for joining a certain group would be if you could take advantage of something. A person shouldn't join a group merely to take advantage of some certain aspect of it. A person should join for the whole group (good and bad).
"But if you notice a difference with the meds, that is also a sign of needing more than just friendly advice. My first friendly advice, then, is to keep taking the meds and going to see a therapist you trust."
Well I see my psychiatrist again Thursday after my 2 finals to discuss the effects of the current new meds I'm on. Then on Saturday, I go back to see my psychiatrist to discuss some issues (in particular my self-loathing and holding myself to an impossible standard).
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
TomDavidson,
quote:IMO, not having sex before marriage, not drinking, not smoking ... none of these things, to me, are ideals.
You're right, I should have used the word standards. As in standards of behavior.
pH said,
quote:... to me, things like being drink-, drug-, and sex-free are not personality traits.
I would agree, if one was drink-, drug-, or sex-free by accident or by lack of opportunity. But if that behavior is a choice, the reasons you stick to those standards even while the rest of society seemingly behaves opposite to you definitely make up an important part of who you are.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
pfresh, it doesn't have to be behind your parents' backs if you want to check out the Church-- you just have to be willing to do something they may not (immediately, or possibly even ever) approve of. My mom was very against the Church-- but now that she sees me going there and happy and involved, she is much more happy about it, because I've dispelled a lot of her false notions and fears.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I know my father and mother are against (as well as my brother, my sister not so much), but I think they are against it mainly a) due to false spread stuff about the church and b) missionaries constantly coming by our house. I think if I get further into checking it out (and considering actually attending), then I will talk to my parents. I'm not trying to hide it really; I just don't want to provoke upset or argument unnecessarily.
Posted by D. James Larkin (Member # 8865) on :
quote: I'm not sure why it's been interpreted to mean olive oil, but that is the oil we have been instructed to use
Olive oil is used because its the purest of the oils... thats the only reason.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I would agree, if one was drink-, drug-, or sex-free by accident or by lack of opportunity. But if that behavior is a choice, the reasons you stick to those standards even while the rest of society seemingly behaves opposite to you definitely make up an important part of who you are. [/QB]
As I said to pfresh, I don't think it's healthy to make "non-drinker," "non-smoker," etc. an essential part of your personal identity. The reasons behind them, fine. But to me, who you are should be much more solid than something that can be undermined by a single drag off a cigarette.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But sometimes the reasons and the fact are rather inseparable.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I disagree.
Also, people who start websites like this are far too into no sex/drugs/alcohol. It makes me sad.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I didn't really look at that website, but can you explain to me? (I didn't "get it".)
And I think we're allowed to disagree. I still like you. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I understand that people who don't hold the same standards think they aren't really important. It doesn't require much thought or effort to decide to do what feels good, or what your friends are doing.
But to those who do hold those standards, they are important. Just keeping those standards when the rest of the world seems to be going in the opposite direction requires a certain amount of perserverance and integrity. To make a decision where you consciously choose to do the opposite of what most of your friends do will have a bigger impact on how you view yourself than a decision to just do what everyone else does. So the effect of keeping those standards does actually impact who you are.
I don't mean to imply that others have no integrity; just that it wasn't gained from making this particular decision to uphold these standards. Therefore, this particular decision may seem unimportant to those who do smoke, drink, have sex, etc., but it can be defining for someone who chooses not to.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I agree that the spirit in which these things are avoided is what's important. Still, I believe certain activities should be avoided even when understanding of the consequences isn't fully mature. Not taking drugs---if you are taught that you shouldn't get into drugs from the time you are young, you can avoid a harmful, debilitating addiction even as your understanding of the consequences matures.
Our identity is based partly on the things we will and will not do. Although we won't always be perfect in doing what we should and avoiding what we should not, the concept of repentance is very real to us. We make mistakes, but there is a way to overcome those mistakes and move on while preserving our strong sense of identity.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by D. James Larkin:
quote: I'm not sure why it's been interpreted to mean olive oil, but that is the oil we have been instructed to use
Olive oil is used because its the purest of the oils... thats the only reason.
There's more to it than that - so many things are symbolic in the Church.
KQ - it appears to be hardcore non-drinking, non-other stuff (I presume smoking and drugs) organisation that call themselves "edge". As in, "I don't drink, I'm edge"
They have, among other things a list of "edge-breakers" - people who have started drinking. So you can keep track and, it is insinuated, either avoid those people or teach them a lesson.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:A person should join for the whole group (good and bad).
So why can't you take this approach with friends, too?
It sounds like you expect to much out of people. They're not perfect, and no matter how much they claim they'll never drink/smoke/have sex, most people try all three at some point in their life. If you have a friend who isn't gonna have sex, then they have sex it doesn't make them a fundamentally different person. Maybe it was a lapse in judgement, or maybe they changed their mind about how important it was to them. Who knows?
As for feeling like you're on the outside, that's more to do with you than your friends (like in your example of watching the game). I'd be shocked if any of them were thinking, "Man, what's pfresh doing here; he's not part of this group."
If you aren't talking, people assume you're quiet, or shy. Not that you're terrified you don't belong.
So I guess my advice is to persevere with your group searching, lighten up about who you allow to be your friend, and go with whichever church feels right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you aren't talking, people assume you're quiet, or shy. Not that you're terrified you don't belong.
Actually, I have a personal tendency to assume that quiet, shy people are also terrified. It's a failing of mine, even.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
pH-
I don't think pfresh is talking about "something that can be undermined by a single drag on a cigarette." He's saying that his friends attitudes, beliefs and personalities are changing in ways that make him feel less a part of their group. An indication of those personality changes is that they no longer hold to the standards they once did.
What changes in your friends, pH, would make you feel less comfortable being around them?
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Pfresh, you're getting a lot of information and it's made me think a lot about you and your situation. I hope you know that you are cared about and that you are not alone. I agree with Spang, go with what feels right and trust yourself a little bit.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
pfresh85, I've been avoiding responding to this thread for several reasons. Mainly most people have already expressed good opinions, and partly as a former Mormon, I'm wary of being too biased in my opinion. I'd never tell you not to check out the church. In fact, based on what you've written here, I think you might very well find the Mormon church a place where you feel like you belong.
However, I think you should be careful to keep your priorities in mind when investigating the church. What's most important in the long run is that you actually believe all that they are teaching you. If not, and you still choose to become part of the church because of some other social factor you are going to find the experience ultimately less than satisfying. As a missionary, and working with missionaries in my own hometown, I have met literally hundreds of people who (seem to have) joined the church because it filled a social need only to leave it ultimately because they questioned certain aspects of the doctrine, or simply because the social aspect no longer had the holding power it did at first.
Basically what I'm saying is that the social aspect and sense of belonging are all fringe benefits if you join the church because you believe it to be true. If you join for the social belonging but without the spiritual conviction, you are setting yourself up for troubles down the road. It's not easy being Mormon. Your family's reaction is a small indication of that.
The fact that there are Mormons on this thread warning you to avoid certain other groups of Mormons is indication that the social experience isn't homogenous. Investigate the church by all means, and seek to know what you believe is true. But don't make commitments to the church out of social needs alone. Your family will always be a part of your life. The Church only so much as your faith makes it so. While the social aspects can bolster your faith, they are fickle and cannot create faith in and of themselves.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
AMEN!! Couldn't have said it better.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Interesting Karl, why exactly did you leave the Church. I myself am under 18 and go to church on sundays with my friend whose family is Mormon. I'd recommend this for you pfresh: Don't get baptised until you're sure you believe everything they teach. And you still get the social outlet. Like just about all churches, they welcome outsiders to go to ward meetings and get involved in church social events.
For me, it wasn't easy though. I broke down after a time, for more reasons than just my parents not wanting me to go earlier in the year. I talked to them evntually and now I go this often, as well as just simply being more happy and social. You sound like you're in a similiar position as I was, or else getting close. I really recommend that talking to your parents is your only real choice. The sacrifice of doing so is worth the rewards, trust me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It sounds like you expect to much out of people. They're not perfect, and no matter how much they claim they'll never drink/smoke/have sex, most people try all three at some point in their life. If you have a friend who isn't gonna have sex, then they have sex it doesn't make them a fundamentally different person. Maybe it was a lapse in judgement, or maybe they changed their mind about how important it was to them. Who knows?
Exactly.
Also, Senoj, while a decision to start drinking, smoking, or having sex COULD indicate a personality change, I don't think it's fair to write off all people who make that kind of decision.
The sorts of things that have generally made me uncomfortable about people I was formerly friends with were blatant changes in personality, and as I said, I don't think that abstaining from things is a personality trait. I also don't think all changes in personality are for the worse; people change, and people grow up. I'm sure I'm not the same as I was when I was sixteen.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pfresh,
I second (third? fourth?) what Karl said.
Also remember that it might take time to understand enough about a religion to know if you really believe its tenets.
Just as an example, for those converting to Catholicism (at least in our parish), candidates meet for a two hour "class" once a week from October to Easter. It takes some time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with all of the above - this is too important to do without knowing you are doing it with all your heart and that it is the right thing.
If you are looking for a social outlet in the meantime, there is a definite social scene in Richardson with the D11 ward. I promise no one will turn a water polo game into a surreptitious baptism. It's the ward I went to when I first moved to Dallas, and it was very welcoming and comforting for me.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I agree with cheiros de ender. I think you should take the missionary discussions but take things slow. Do NOT get baptized unless you believe the things you are being taught wholeheartedly. The thing about being Mormon is you kind of have to jump in all the way--it takes a lot of time and effort to be a good Mormon, not just the three-hour meetings on Sundays. Baptism is a big committment in any religion, and you shouldn't decide to do it unless you're willing to accept what comes after.
But at the same time, I think it would be a good idea to start attending a single adult ward, as well as their social activities. You say you are isolated and depressed, and I think the sort of people you meet in such a group could become the friends you're looking for. You don't have to join to enjoy people's company. I would say that you could continue being friends with Mormons indefinitely without joining the church, though you'd have to put up with missionaries pestering you all the time.
I think that once you are feeling less depressed and anxious and more secure, you would be more capable of making doctrinal decisions anyway.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Interesting Karl, why exactly did you leave the Church.
My experience with the Church is complex. My short answer is that I never received what I believe to be a witness of the truth of anything in relation to the existence of God or existence of "His" church on Earth. I was born a Mormon and my social integration in the Church was thorough enough to carry me through a mission and shortly beyond that. But when push came to shove I found what faith I had to be an illusion.
I'm also gay. I only mention this because others might consider that a pertinent fact for a third party to evaluate my opinion of the church. Personally, I think that acted as a catalyst rather than a cause in my leaving the church. I've talked about that elsewhere (I think in one of my landmark posts), if you're really interested. Or you can email me privately.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
pH-
How can you tell if someone's had a blatant personality change? All we know about others is by observing their actions. I believe your argument is that the actions pfresh pointed out are less indicative of a person's personality than other actions, and I'm wondering what you think those other actions are?
For instance, if a friend was previously heterosexual and then became homosexual would that indicate a blatant personality change? If a person was an atheist and then became a theist? Started telling racist jokes? Changed jobs?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It sounds like you expect to much out of people. They're not perfect, and no matter how much they claim they'll never drink/smoke/have sex, most people try all three at some point in their life. If you have a friend who isn't gonna have sex, then they have sex it doesn't make them a fundamentally different person. Maybe it was a lapse in judgement, or maybe they changed their mind about how important it was to them. Who knows?
The difference is if it was a lapse in judgment or something, then they would go back. Most of the time once they start they don't go back. I understand that some people change their minds about how important certain things are to them. I'm not denying people the right to change their minds by any means. I'm just saying I feel like a lot of our common ground was dropped out with that change. I'm still friends with all these people (the ones who smoke, the ones who drink, the ones who have sex), but I just don't feel like I fit in with their groups as well as I did before.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Oh okay, that's fair enough. I myself have actually received what I believe to be a witness of the truth. I don't know if that's meant to happen for non-members but whatever. It's the other teachings, recent revelations and such that I'm not as sure about still. So I feel a powerful feeling inside the ward and when reading the Book of Mormon, but for me it's a personal thing. I don't mind if I never get baptised. I'm certainly not going to without another witness, and that won't be until I'm over 18, if at all, anyway.
I'm sorry that the church has such a stance on homosexuality.I know from growing up a catholicfor a time that what the Pope preached the Priests didn't always pass on, eg regarding birth control and homosexuality. I guess Latter-day Saints are a bit more tight-knit in the respect that what's said higher up is more important that lower down. A shame really, but I'm optomistic that the little peeves I have about to the church will die down a little in my lifetime.
I don't have time to talk privately, sorry, but I'd be grateful for a link to that landmark thread of yours.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And as long as you're not doing something with them that involves drinking, smoking, or sex I guess I don't see why.
You had other things in common beyond your views on those topics, right? Focus on those things.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: And as long as you're not doing something with them that involves drinking, smoking, or sex I guess I don't see why.
You had other things in common beyond your views on those topics, right? Focus on those things.
Well the problem there is even those other things in common are fading away over time. Most of my friends were made in school in gifted/honors classes. So on top of shared beliefs, we had sort of a shared experience of these classes (most of which we made fun of). Since we all go to different schools now though, the shared stuff is all in the past. Most of my conversations with friends are brief, seeing what the other is up to and how they are enjoying school. It's a shame, I know, but that's sort of how it goes.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, that is sad. A lot of my friends and I have drifted apart, but that's normal.
And drifting is regrettable, but a lot less so than boycotting people because they changed their mind about some things. That's all I want to point out.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I never said I was boycotting them. We've all drifted away (as you said) and the change in those issue just sort of made the drift more significant (sort of like a speed boat vs a canoe).
I know that the argument could be made though that "Well you should have made more friends at UTD by now," but I really am believing more and more each day that UTD is an extension (for the most part) of local high schools in this area (with the addition of frats and sororities thrown into the mix). If I was the only person who held this view about my school, I could admit I was wrong if things were pointed out differently. I've met a few other people around here though that share the same view. So yeah, that's all I really have to say about that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree about UTD - most of the students live at home and are from Dallas. That works great for those who live at home and are from Dallas, but it is harder to make friends that way.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, I know. Boycotting is the impression I got, the one that I was arguing against. You hadn't mentioned the drifting thing before.
Most colleges are extensions of high school, though. It makes it tough for an outsider to find his niche, but it can still be done. The guys I hung out with in college had been friends since grade school. It took me a while to break in, until I'd had a bunch of classes with them, but it was worth it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
On the college tangent, I think that's part of why I loved mine so much. It was in a small college town an hour away from the city, so 95% of the students were not local. It made it much easier to make friends.
I realize that might be tacky to say in a thread where the opposite is being lamented. It didn't prepare me for non-college life, though, when I moved to a place where the sociality wasn't nearly as easy to aquire. It takes a lot more work to make friends in a place where people have ties already. I think everyone has to learn how to do it - I just didn't have to until I was 25.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well see, I'm trying that to some extent. Amanecer and Rico are in a group of sorts (and I believe it extends from high school), and I try and get involved with them. I still feel totally like the outsider though. I try though, I really do. I don't want to give the impression that I'm just sitting here complaining and not doing anything. I am trying to find social niches to fit into, but I'm just not having much success.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe you. I'm sorry - that wasn't meant as a lecture at all. More like a musing. I'm proud of you for taking action. Actually, Hatrack helped me then tremendously. It's part of why I love this board. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I wasn't speaking specifically to you katharina. It was more of a general thing.
Case in point though of me trying, since I'm a history major, I've applied to the History Honor Society (which I believe is also a Greek group of some kind). So far though, I've received no response either way.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Pfresh,
I forgot to mention before: I'm surprised the best place you can find people with these views is a Church. It's not really the case that the majority of Mormons havn't tried drugs or broken a major rule at some point. We learn as we live. No-one's perfect and, IMO, you're not likely to actually find a large group of people who share your beliefs in ANY demographic.
One suggestion I have is to find a physically demanding activity you might be interested in (eg. dancing, matial arts, gymnastics, cadets, etc). I do four different types of dancing (Samba, Capoeira, Tap and Acro), Capoeira as a martial art and navy cadets. They all seem to discourage disrespecting the body, especially in regard to drug use and drinking, and not for a spiritual reason, but simply to keep in shape. And they're all great social outlets. But that's just from my experience. I don't know if it's somehow different where you live?
So I have to wonder, is your interest in the church more a physical, mental, emotional or spiritual issue for you. If spiritual, then you definitely shoulldn't let your parents stand in your way, but if it's one of the others there are plenty of alternatives.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I find your surprise surprising. Maybe I just have a naive view. I expect people in church (and in particular in a chuch I view as more serious) to be a little more serious about these things. I understand that everyone makes mistakes and that no one is perfect (in fact I deal with an issue of being too harsh on myself and holding myself to too high a standard). I guess, I don't know, I just expect the odds to be better in a church group than in some other group (and if you want to know why I speak in terms of odds, it's because my mind totally works on mathematics so I can't help but think of probabilities and odds and what not).
As for your question, I'd say it's some connection of mental, emotional, and spiritual.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: pH-
How can you tell if someone's had a blatant personality change? All we know about others is by observing their actions. I believe your argument is that the actions pfresh pointed out are less indicative of a person's personality than other actions, and I'm wondering what you think those other actions are?
For instance, if a friend was previously heterosexual and then became homosexual would that indicate a blatant personality change? If a person was an atheist and then became a theist? Started telling racist jokes? Changed jobs?
Let's see. I'm not quite sure how to express this in words. Well, to use a personal example, a group of the girls from my floor freshman year were into casual sex. I, on the other hand, was totally not into sex at all. However, I still went out with these girls on a regular basis and considered them my friends.
When they started having casual UNPROTECTED sex and regularly having to rush to find a morning after pill because they'd slept with men they didn't even like as PEOPLE, then I decided it was time to cut back on how friendly I was with them. There were a number of other factors involved, but that was one of them.
-pH
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks pH. I agree it's hard to put into words.
Do you think that, in the case of this example, the girls would have agreed that their personality had changed. Or would they have said, "I haven't changed who I am; I'm just acting a little differently and it's no big deal."
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:It's not really the case that the majority of Mormons havn't tried drugs or broken a major rule at some point.
Of course we all break the rules. The difference is that at least active church members acknowledge and try to live by the same rules as Pfresh. They're more likely to realize they made a mistake and try to go back to their standards, rather than ignore those standards and make the "mistakes" a way of life.
Not all of them, of course, but the "odds" are better. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Yeah, that was what I was trying to say JennaDean. It seems to be the odds are better there. Although I can't be positive as I've never been in that church before. Someone who is Mormon would have to speak up about that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People do all things everywhere, but it is much harder to find someone at church who does drink than the opposite.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Yeah but that's like stereotyping in a way, which is really annoying. It's not like mormons hang out with more fellow mormons than non-mormons (unless they live i Utah I guess <grin>).
My point is, if we're talking about a moral foundation, you can get that other places as well. I'm not saying don't go to church, I'm just commenting that I was surprised you felt this was so and I could only assume your cmplete reason for wanting to go to church needs a little more elaboration than what I've read so far.
I wouldn't recommend going to church because it's morally a better, or a lot better than somewhere else.
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on the matter since I'm starting to ramble.
By the way Karl, thanks for the link. That was, I can easily say, the most amazing autobiographical story I've ever read. I only hope I one day might be so courageous as to post a thread here as personally open as that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It's not like mormons hang out with more fellow mormons than non-mormons (unless they live i Utah I guess <grin>).
Well, actually... a lot of Mormons do.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am going to kill KarlEd so I can steal his brain and write things that I want to say the way he can.
I struggled a while last night trying to get what you said into a post, Karl, and couldn't get it right. Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Actually, talking to the missionaries, I didn't even bring up the drinking/smoking/sex stuff. I instead discussed mostly spiritual and historical stuff. Interesting time I say. They did try and wrangle my roommate in at the end (I'm not sure if he was offended or not).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Interesting time I say.
Can you expound on that at all? Or not, I'm just being curious as to your overall impression.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wow, pfresh85, I totally agree with you that one of the greatest blessings of the church is the privilege of membership in a community of people who hold to very high ideals.
Maybe the experience is different for people who've grown up in the church vs. converts. One reason for that might be that people who've grown up with this wonderful blessing take it somewhat for granted, and don't quite realize what life outside the church can be like. The contrast for me is very sharp.
For instance, at the swimming pool of the apartment where I lived a few years back, the children had a tendency to flock around me. Sometimes I have this pied piper thing that gets going, I'm not sure why. But more than once, the parents of children who had particularly taken to me would call them over, speak to them in whispers, and then the child, sad and ashamed, would stay away from me thereafter, though still casting longing glances at the group around me.
In contrast, in the church a sister I barely knew asked me to watch her 3 year old son one Saturday while she worked. He was a sweet boy and we had a fun day. His mom was grateful and kind. Children in the church tend to freely approach church members and interact with them.
I could cite many more examples of similar blessings.
Certainly I'm not trying to say that LDS aren't ordinary humans with human failings. Just that the blessings of fellowship with the faithful are indeed great, and one of the things I'm most grateful for is the opportunity to be a member of a community of people who mostly don't have base or self-serving motives for the things they do, and who don't make the automatic assumption that you do either.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Thanks pH. I agree it's hard to put into words.
Do you think that, in the case of this example, the girls would have agreed that their personality had changed. Or would they have said, "I haven't changed who I am; I'm just acting a little differently and it's no big deal."
I really don't know, as I don't speak to them so much anymore. But to me, not having sex vs. having sex doesn't necessarily constitute a personality change. But I also put a huge emphasis on how much respect I perceive that people have for those around them, and I think that one can drink/smoke/do drugs, etc. while still having a high regard for his/her peers.
It's one thing to smoke pot. I think marijuana is pretty stupid, but even if I'm offered a hit, I'm not offended, and I don't feel pressured. To me, those people are offering me something the same way I'd offer a friend a drink if I was mixing one or some food if I was cooking. I'd prefer they didn't do it while I was around because I don't like the smell, but if they do, it's not really a deal-breaker, friendship-wise, for me.
Smoking pot in my CAR, however, is an easy way to be taken off my friends list. To me, that's a blatant disregard for my wishes and my well-being.
Examples are easier to explain. Sorry.
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*facepalm*
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Can you expound on that at all? Or not, I'm just being curious as to your overall impression.
Can and will. Here's a detail description of what went down with the missionaries. First they call me and say they may be late as they are somewhat lost. So I give them directions and say it's fine that they'll be late. The missionaries arrive at roughly 1:05.
I take the missionaries back to my room, as my roommate is playing video games in the living room and I know for a fact he's a devout member of the Church of Christ (so I wasn't sure he'd feel about having Mormon missionaries talking nearby).
I told them up front that I had a few questions and stuff, based partly on stuff I had found while researching and partly on what they asked me to read. First they wanted us to pray though, so we did. Then they listened to my questions, at times giving answers and at other times being really vague (almost like the real answer was some kind of secret).
A lot of my questions (but in particular the question about "How do you hear God? It always seems like silence to me") were sort of written off to some extent. It was almost like they said I wasn't praying in the right manner or wasn't asking God the right questions. I didn't take any offense to this or anything; it just seemed to an easy way to sort of side step the question.
They never did get to their first lesson, although they recommended I call them in the future so that we can go through all four (I think they said four) lessons. In the end, they were out of here by 2PM. They did try and talk to my roommate and gave him the same Joseph Smith pamphlet they gave me.
As I said, it was interesting. They answered some of the questions I had, but left me feeling fairly vague about others. So yeah, there you go. My experience with the missionaries. If there are any questions about it, I'll gladly answer them (assuming I have access to my computer at the time).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Do you think you'll see them again, freshy?
-pH
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Not sure. I think I need to get my head together and on straight in other regards before I start looking any further. I'd hate to make a big decision for the wrong reason.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:How do you hear God? It always seems like silence to me
Couple scriptures that might help. Generally, when the Holy Ghost speaks to you, it is very quiet. You know, you're probably not going to get a manifestation of God the Father and the Son. For me at least, it's a very peaceful feeling, which I can identify because I rarely feel that way. Often, this peaceful feeling can be mistaken for silence. With practice, it becomes easier to identify.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
To me the silence isn't like a peaceful one. It feels more like being ignored. *shrugs* Could just be me though.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Or with practice you become more and more able to induce a peaceful state.
For a God who supposedly wants His children to follow a very narrow path, he's come up with a horribly ambiguous way for them to know what path that is. It all seems so very John Edwards to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe that's the leap of faith part. I don't understand everything, but if you feel that he's there and that he's in charge, then you can trust in that and that the rest of wisdom comes later, in pieces. I don't know why it works that way, but I do know that it works. I trust the Lord knows what he's doing.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
pfresh, when you get back to school I would highly suggest you find out about Institute; it is a place where LDS single adults get together and learn about scriptures, have dances and other get togethers, and other stuff. I believe you will probrably find it more fun than just meeting with missionaries. I also think that having friends that are members will give you more straight up answers to questions than missionaries will (having been a missionary myself, I know how limited missionaries' experiences can be, many have a hard time relating to others' lack of spiritual experiences since for them it is often a given and they have had such experiences since childhood).
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well as I said, I think I need to get my head on straight before I do anything. Maybe when that's all worked out, I'll try something like that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Good luck with everything. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Pfresh, did you ever get my my last email?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The one with your responses to my responses/questions? Yeah, I got that one. If it's another one, I guess not.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Alright I just didn't get a response to the latest email, and wanted to make sure you'd gotten it.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Sorry, Taalcon. Apparently I have a problem with responding back to e-mails or something (as seen by the fact that my appointment with my psychologist got moved back an hour because I didn't e-mail him back confirming what he had said). *shrugs* Oh well.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This was a conscious decision, designed to hopefully reduce the number of people in the world who are willing to worship a God who intends to kill me.![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
I will now take my leave of this thread without depositing any actually useful information. Thank you for your attention.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Why don't you tell me.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)