Good point.

This seems to indicate a pattern of control and that Mormons have something to hide.

The "Book of Mormon" is fictional and not historical as the church claims. Any serious objective research exposes this.

Mormon missionaries also exist within a very controlled environment. This seems like an example of what can be seen as "brainwashing."

I often receive complaints about the Mormon Church. Many are from families that have minor children tht were recruited by Mormons and then suddenly baptized once they reached the age of 18. In these situations Mormons worked with minor children without parental notification or consent.

Very bad conduct for a church that claims to have "family values."

Mormons don't seem to respect the parental rights of families when it comes to proselytizing.

Quote
rrmoderator
Good point.

This seems to indicate a pattern of control and that Mormons have something to hide.

The "Book of Mormon" is fictional and not historical as the church claims. Any serious objective research exposes this.

Mormon missionaries also exist within a very controlled environment. This seems like an example of what can be seen as "brainwashing."

I often receive complaints about the Mormon Church. Many are from families that have minor children tht were recruited by Mormons and then suddenly baptized once they reached the age of 18. In these situations Mormons worked with minor children without parental notification or consent.

Very bad conduct for a church that claims to have "family values."

Mormons don't seem to respect the parental rights of families when it comes to proselytizing.

I understand this. But given the belief system of the Mormon Church (or any other church), is teaching minors neccessarily wrong, when these groups believe they have a moral imperative to teach the truth to people regardless of what others think? The issue then is who defines right and wrong: the State, some Supreme Being, the individual, etc.? I would have to have more concrete evidence to dismiss Mormonism on these grounds, although I do agree with much of what you said above regarding their treatment of their missionary force and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Sincerely,
Derek

We live within a free society, but there are some rules and ethical considerations.

Going behind a legal guardian/parent's back to recruit their child without either their knowledge or consent into a religion is wrong.

It is also illegal, and could culminate in a court action.

Parental rights trump church rights in any situation with a minor child.

Only the legal guardian/parent has the right to determine what religion their minor child is taught.

Once the child reaches 18 that changes.

If a religious group wants to teach kids they should first notify the legal guardian/parent and then receive their consent before beginning.

If the legal guardian says "no," then they should stop, cease any religious teaching or program with that minor child.

Quote
rrmoderator
We live within a free society, but there are some rules and ethical considerations.

Going behind a legal guardian/parent's back to recruit their child without either their knowledge or consent into a religion is wrong.

It is also illegal, and could culminate in a court action.

Parental rights trump church rights in any situation with a minor child.

Only the legal guardian/parent has the right to determine what religion their minor child is taught.

Once the child reaches 18 that changes.

If a religious group wants to teach kids they should first notify the legal guardian/parent and then receive their consent before beginning.

If the legal guardian says "no," then they should stop, cease any religious teaching or program with that minor child.

I understand this from a legal perspective, but should we dismiss groups who do this as being "cults"? What classifies a cultic group and what classifies a non-cultic group, aside from the collective beliefs of society or the individual beliefs of the one doing the "classification."

Is this your beliefs regarding this, Mr. Ross, or are you just stating the legalities of this all?

My "bias" is Biblical Christianity. Anything that disagrees with my belief system obviously would be "cultic" or "not true." I am just interested as to your beliefs and where you are coming from in order to make the statements you do. You seem to make absolutely moral statements in your post such as "should", "wrong", et al.

Out of all due respect,
Derek

drumpler:

My working definition of a "cult" is based upon behavior and not belief.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And it doesn't matter what someone believes they must legally, and should ethically, respect parents and their right to teach or not teach their minor children whatever they wish within the law.

Missionaries from whatever relgion don't have the legal or moral right to trample parental rights regarding minor children.

Hving said that we have drifted off topic.

The topic of this thread is Mormonism.

Quote
rrmoderator
drumpler:

My working definition of a "cult" is based upon behavior and not belief.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And it doesn't matter what someone believes they must legally, and should ethically, respect parents and their right to teach or not teach their minor children whatever they wish within the law.

Missionaries from whatever relgion don't have the legal or moral right to trample parental rights regarding minor children.

But Mr. Ross, this last bit is an absolute statement. Where do you get it from? And whose to say their morals are "absolutely" wrong while your's is "absolutely" right?

Ethics come from somewhere. Where do your's come from? Atheism, Secular Humanism, Judaism, Hindusim, etc? Or are they your own?

If someone is going to criticize someone else's beliefs, I believe they must state precisely where it is they come from and what their belief system is. I am judging from your responses that you are a Secular Humanist who believes in the supremacy of U.S. Law, although I do not know this neccessarily. Likewise, before we insist on destroying other's values, we must likewise find something to replace it. Why should I reject my beliefs and values for your own?

You state you judge by behaviours. Behaviour is largely based upon what people believe. Before we can judge what is neccessarily "bad" or "wrong", there must be a universal consensus as to what is right or wrong. Since I believe only a Supreme Being can determine that, I find your reasoning to be particularly faulty. However, you are acting on what you believe, inspite of the abuses of your own belief system. Can we dismiss your belief system for its abuses? Are your own beliefs open to scrutiny? Are you willing to be "deprogrammed" from your own belief system if found to be wrong? What does being "deprogrammed" entail?

The more I see these posts, the more I see definition and re-definition of words. This seems to me just as much "cultic" as the groups you oppose. While I definently have my own criteria as to what defines an abusive and non-abusive group, I likewise believe people have the freedom to worship or believe whatever they want so long as there is no threat to life and people are free to come and leave as they so choose. This is one of the few compromises I have made with our religious pluralistic society.

Likewise, regarding proselytising children . . . what does one do if the children are abused by their parents in these situations? Maybe the parents send the "deprogrammers" in order to cover up their own abuses? What of the religious group or church which shows genuine concern and tries to expose these abuses? Are they then cultic? Is the psychology of the parents ever considered? What of households where sexual abuse is prominant? Maybe those that are doing the sexual abuse are trying to "deprogram" their children so that they will not have the opportunity to expose it to these so-called "dangerous groups." While I do admit there are dangerous groups, they are (I believe) in the minority.

These are questions for your own consideration. Looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Derek

drumpler:

Let me get this straight.

Do you believe that parents don't have the right to determine the religious education and/or involvement of their own minor children?

So for example, you dpm't have any objection to Mormon missionaries recruiting your minor child without your knowledge or consent?

Quote

But Mr. Ross, this last bit is an absolute statement. Where do you get it from? And whose to say their morals are "absolutely" wrong while your's is "absolutely" right?

The law.

We live in country that has laws. It is illegal to abrogate parental authority with a minor.

It is illegal to give children beer or whiskey.

It is illegal to abuse children and if you know of abuse situations and you are a doctor or helping professional suchas a licensed counselor, it is illegal not to report known abuse.

In court the right to proselytize does not include minor children. Parental rights over the minor would trump relgious rights in such a situation.

This is the way our laws and judicial system works.

Is your point that the laws somehow don't or should not apply to certain people and/or that people should be able to pick and choose which laws apply to them?

Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, Mormons, Hindus, atheists, secular humanists and whatever cults exist, all live under the same laws and regulations in communities, states and in this country.

Are you saying that some people should be above the law because of their religious beliefs?

rrmoderator,

Perhaps you are unaware that the LDS church policy strictly states that if the child is a minor, missionaries must have permission of all legal gaurdians to procede with teaching/baptism etc.

LDS Missionaries have free agency like anyone else. If some decide to not follow this, it is not because the LDS church condones this.

This may be LDS stated policy, but in practice they do work with minors without parental notification or consent.

I have received specific complaints and have dealt with specific situations.

Not only was it done through missionaries, it was done with the knowledge of stake leaders.

I have had complaints from California, Arizona, Florida and Texas.

It appears to be widespread.

Minor children were also coached not to tell their parents and then immediately baptized when they turned 18.

Free Agency. enough said. Stake Presidents, missionaries. They all are just people with free agency. If this is happening, it is contrary to the policy and does not mean that the general body of missionaries do or are taught to do this as a printed curriculum of anykind.