Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
incidentally, moon, a good number of the women that i knew that taught early morning seminary in smaller towns (since we have already established that the city seminaries are different animals--at least i think we agree there), were the morning teachers because, yes, they tend the kids, and when the kids go off to school, they have time to volunteer or work, while the husband is out working himself.
so the issue that i see there is just that people don't agree with the mormon idea that mothers are better off in the home when they can manage it. i can understand the resentment, but i can also point out that there are a good many *rational*, *intelligent*, *capable* women that feel the same (my wife among them: masters in counseling psychology, very independent, very strong; yet a gentle, homemaking mother by her own will and belief)--and some of them are not even right-wing, zombified fanatics.
ok, aaron out.
So the mormon church doesn't call working men to volunteer their time? What about bishops? stake presidents? or their counselors? Nevermind that's off topic.
It doesn't bother me at all if a woman wants to stay home with her children (I myself have chosen to spend the majority of my time with my own children while they are young). I hold no resentments about that. But you don't need to explain to me that women are "rational, intelligent and capable" that's quite obvious. That's a huge turn off of the mormon church btw "women are also important when we men approve of what they do" YUCK!
But even so, to say it does not interfere with the school schedule is untrue since by definition that is exactly what it is doing. But that is what it is intended to do so that kids can go offsite and learn whatever they want. I have no issue if it applied fairly to all students.
Absolutely. Mormons have a hard time seeing that this set up is unfair, because it works in their best interest.
So the mormon church doesn't call working men to volunteer their time? What about bishops? stake presidents? or their counselors? Nevermind that's off topic.
of course men are called as well. but generally you serve when you have time available. my point was only that mormon moms usually have time during the day in which to work, volunteer, conduct corporate espionage, etc. the guys do their service in the lat afternoon. why? because that is when they get off of work, for the majority.
Quote:
It doesn't bother me at all if a woman wants to stay home with her children (I myself have chosen to spend the majority of my time with my own children while they are young). I hold no resentments about that. But you don't need to explain to me that women are "rational, intelligent and capable" that's quite obvious. That's a huge turn off of the mormon church btw "women are also important when we men approve of what they do" YUCK!
the insertion of the qualities of women were not necessarily for you alone. i have no doubt that you consider women to be competent and intelligent. what i am sensing from you is that it is ok if a woman believes that a woman's place is in the home, but it is not ok if a man believes this. am i correct? or that it is not ok if an institution believes this? is that correct. i think i am getting that you believe it to be a personal choice that should be out of the doctrinal/moral beliefs of anyone else? am i off base?
my take on the issue is that it really does come down to the woman's decision. period. however, that doesn't mean that i cannot have my own opinion on the matter. if i believe it to be morally and societally superior for a woman to stay home with the kids as they grow up, that does not (or should not, dependent upon my actions) interfere with other women if they decide that they don't hold the same belief. obviously i could be a judgmental jerk about it, and then it does interfere with that woman's life. but i don't do that. i know plenty of women, even active lds women that work outside of the home--even those with school-age kids--and are still in good standing with the church, hold callings, and have a healthy (as far as anyone else does) social life within the church.
i agree that this is a touchy subject, and that insensitive people can dredge up a lot of stupidity and hard feelings when they go off on their judgmental rampages about it.
but i don't see what is wrong with the belief in and of itself--or with sharing that ideal with others, so long as it is not rammed down their throats. if you agree that mothers have a stronger ability to bond with children, and that they play a role that is more intrinsically and emotionally connected to the children, then would you agree that of the two parents, the mother would be best suited to stick with them? i don't think that we need to make this an issue of 'enslaving' wives to the house or anything, becausei don't see that as a valid argument against the theory. the actions of the stupid *few* (you know who i'm talking about: those weird, inbred kinds that go on jerry springer and talk about how their wife is literally barefoot and in the kitchen, and not allowed to have contact with the outside world, etc) don't have to sully the belief system of the normal people that are perfectly capable of living out their beliefs in an inoffensive way.
granted that there are degrees of stupidity as well, but i am counting even the less offensive of them in the same group as the jerry springer guests. they are still the minority.
Quote:
But even so, to say it does not interfere with the school schedule is untrue since by definition that is exactly what it is doing. But that is what it is intended to do so that kids can go offsite and learn whatever they want. I have no issue if it applied fairly to all students.
already covered this. already linked to the article that explains how this is not a utah phenomenon, or a mormon phenomenon.
Quote:
Absolutely. Mormons have a hard time seeing that this set up is unfair, because it works in their best interest.
it works in the best interest of any religious person who happens to have a church with a release time system set up, which again, has been shown to be a national system, that mormons utilize effectively. are you (talking to everyone, not just moon) mad at the jews in new york that are operating with the same system? no. why? because they are not so threatening to you. why? i dunno. location. numbers. familiarity. how organized they are in their efforts. how how much they use the release time system. beats me.
so if your resentment stems from the fact that mormons use release time seminary, maybe you should aim that resentment at all of the denominations that don't take advantage of it, or don't take advantage of it nearly as much as we do. that's like getting mad at the church because we sponsor boy scout troops, and more than one or two...
the insertion of the qualities of women were not necessarily for you alone. i have no doubt that you consider women to be competent and intelligent. what i am sensing from you is that it is ok if a woman believes that a woman's place is in the home, but it is not ok if a man believes this. am i correct? or that it is not ok if an institution believes this? is that correct. i think i am getting that you believe it to be a personal choice that should be out of the doctrinal/moral beliefs of anyone else? am i off base? You're absolutely right.
my take on the issue is that it really does come down to the woman's decision. period. however, that doesn't mean that i cannot have my own opinion on the matter. if i believe it to be morally and societally superior for a woman to stay home with the kids as they grow up, that does not (or should not, dependent upon my actions) interfere with other women if they decide that they don't hold the same belief. obviously i could be a judgmental jerk about it, and then it does interfere with that woman's life. but i don't do that. i know plenty of women, even active lds women that work outside of the home--even those with school-age kids--and are still in good standing with the church, hold callings, and have a healthy (as far as anyone else does) social life within the church.
I agree it to be an individual's choice on what they decide to do with their life, and I think you agree, however the mormon church does provide a role for the sexes. Where do you think these "judgmental" individuals come from? The church. You don't see these judgments outside of the mormon church, that should tell you something.
i agree that this is a touchy subject, and that insensitive people can dredge up a lot of stupidity and hard feelings when they go off on their judgmental rampages about it.
The "insensitivity" of others steams from them trying to follow the guidelines of the church and then judging others for not. You have to remember that the mormon church does not promote thinking for yourself, they promote following a prophet. The "stupid" individuals are just following what they have been taught to do.
it works in the best interest of any religious person who happens to have a church with a release time system set up, which again, has been shown to be a national system, that mormons utilize effectively. are you (talking to everyone, not just moon) mad at the jews in new york that are operating with the same system? no. why? because they are not so threatening to you. why? i dunno. location. numbers. familiarity. how organized they are in their efforts. how how much they use the release time system. beats me.
I really don't have a resentment over this, I don't even have kids in high school. I just feel that seminary should not be taught at the public school, teach it early in the morning at church. The kids would get so much more out of it, and it doesn't conflict with students who aren't mormon.
so if your resentment stems from the fact that mormons use release time seminary, maybe you should aim that resentment at all of the denominations that don't take advantage of it, or don't take advantage of it nearly as much as we do. that's like getting mad at the church because we sponsor boy scout troops, and more than one or two...
aaron out.
Again I don't have a resentment, I feel that the mormon church gets away with having seminary in schools because they can. But I do not feel it is right and I will state that I don't feel it's right. It's as simple as that.
I agree it to be an individual's choice on what they decide to do with their life, and I think you agree, however the mormon church does provide a role for the sexes. Where do you think these "judgmental" individuals come from? The church. You don't see these judgments outside of the mormon church, that should tell you something.
but that is wrong. you are on this religious forum as often as i (ok, honestly, that is debatable; i don't know how often you are here); you see the same things i do. my earlier example of jerry springer was not something i just fabricated out of my imagination. it was actually one of the three or four 3-second vomit sessions of jerry springer that i have seen. it lowered my iq--i feel less intelligent after listening to people like that.
what's my point? that i have heard all of one or two church members talking like that, and one of them was told to get off the stand by the bishop--gotta love testimony meeting in a ward made up of a large amount of in-and-out transients that are chemically dependent upon all the wrong things.
Quote:
The "insensitivity" of others steams from them trying to follow the guidelines of the church and then judging others for not. You have to remember that the mormon church does not promote thinking for yourself, they promote following a prophet. The "stupid" individuals are just following what they have been taught to do.
the church has set the standard. people can live it or not. it's not even a temple recommend question. the last primary general president wasn't even a married woman. how'd she get there if she's not towing the line?
yeah, i bet that there are judgmental mormons who thought she should have never been called to the position. but that just goes to show that they will never get the calling.
the church also preaches that service is exalted. i've seen people get on their high horses about others not serving enough. so, by the logic i am seeing, because some people are judgmental about it, we shouldn't serve others any more?
i am never going to (obviously by my own perspective) justify the judgmental nature of others. i am never going to pat them on the back for pointing out ever sliver in everyone else's eye. but neither am i going to deny the doctrinal and what i as sociological reasons for my beliefs merely because someone else sullied them. they'll get theirs, i promise.
and they have not been taught to be judgmental. i know you're not about to do it, but i'd suggest you take a listen to the past conference. find out what we're being taught. i bet you'll remember it; it stays the same. if anything, we are harped on over and over for being judgmental and haughty. especially by richard g scott. that guy puts the fear of God into me when i think about my pride and my arrogance.
as far as the church not teaching you to think for yourself, i honestly haven't figured out how to explain the dichotomy, but i am pretty sure that it is possible to learn to follow and lead at the same time. the church does teach us to follow the prophet, but at the same time, the church preaches that you need to find out for yourself why you should follow the prophet, and that if you never do, if you never think about it, never question it, then you never get far enough for your faith to actually mean what it should.
doesn't mean that i need to become a rebellious emo teenager before i find my true faith. it just means that, yes, i do need to think. to critically analyze what i profess to believe. can you look at the leaders, guys like neil a maxwell and james a talmage, and say they don't exceptionally espouse the quality of critical analysis within doctrinal domains. whether you agree with them or not, they have seriously investigated the scriptures, the sciences, the history books, and anything else that could have led to the increase of their understanding.
again, there are those that never reach that level, but that shouldn't be used to invalidate the institution; else we would have to dismiss the entire human race, every civilization, every cultural breakthrough, every scientific discovery, because of the lowest common denominator.
Quote:
I really don't have a resentment over this, I don't even have kids in high school. I just feel that seminary should not be taught at the public school, teach it early in the morning at church. The kids would get so much more out of it, and it doesn't conflict with students who aren't mormon.
'I just feel that seminary should not be taught at the public school'
but it isn't. it's taught next door. i ask again, how do you feel about other types of release time then? what of other religions with release time programs?
Quote:
Again I don't have a resentment, I feel that the mormon church gets away with having seminary in schools because they can. But I do not feel it is right and I will state that I don't feel it's right. It's as simple as that.
again though, it's not in schools. it is just during traditional school time. that is the only connection left that my narrow mind can see. if you are seeing any others that i've missed, clue me in. during school time, though, is not that big of a deal when taken in the context of a *national* program that the mormons have zealously adopted, and that can be just as zealously adopted by the wiccans, the buddhists, the zoroastrians, and the methodists should they so desire.
the rest of that last paragraph though, i understand. it is your belief, and i don't expect you to just jump to my logic. to be perfectly honest, i hope you will (i feel like i am staring at a yellow sun and talking to someone that is calling me a loon and swearing that it is green. darn those photoreceptors), but i'm not living in a fantasy land as far as that chance is concerned, i am pretty confident.
your opinion is as valid as mine as far as religious beliefs in society are concerned, and i do hope that you realize that i am not arguing for the sake of arguing. i'm just... i guess i'm just asking for the benefit of the doubt. that seems like a recurring theme with me. i hate it when people/ideas/etc are overlooked merely because of preconceived or what i see as unfair judgments about them.
as far as seminary, those questions reiterated:
how do you feel about other types of release time then? what of other religions with release time programs?
EDIT: moon, i forgot the 'resentment' thing. remember that i was talking to the others here as much as i was to you. still, resentment might be the wrong word; it just seemed to represent best what i understand that some people are feeling.
but that is wrong. You are on this religious forum as often as i (ok, honestly, that is debatable; i don't know how often you are here); you see the same things i do. My earlier example of jerry springer was not something i just fabricated out of my imagination. It was actually one of the three or four 3-second vomit sessions of jerry springer that i have seen. It lowered my iq--i feel less intelligent after listening to people like that.
I could be wrong, biogtry is one thing, I'm not generalizing that mormons are bigots, actually most mormons i know are respectable individuals. However, and that's a big however the men do view women as less than... The priesthood may ring a bell here. Hence the father is suppose to preside over the family. What the hell happened to partnership between a husband and wife? Presiding over the family equates to an imbalance of "powers" in my opinion.
the church has set the standard. People can live it or not. It's not even a temple recommend question. The last primary general president wasn't even a married woman. How'd she get there if she's not towing the line?
The standard is set, it's set that men preside over women. Why is it that all my women mormon friends (and there are many) are depressed, angry or medicated to a stepford wife mentality? *gasp* the general primary president isn't married? She's probably an old maid, God forbid she's divorced. (i like that smiley)
yeah, i bet that there are judgmental mormons who thought she should have never been called to the position. But that just goes to show that they will never get the calling.
Well the primary president murdered my grandmother, don't tell me that "unworthy" people don't get called to certain positions.
the church also preaches that service is exalted. I've seen people get on their high horses about others not serving enough. So, by the logic i am seeing, because some people are judgmental about it, we shouldn't serve others any more? There's two sides to that, it's my opinion that some in the "church" serve too much, they don't know when to say no and if they say no (especially to callings) it is looked down upon. Oh nevermind, I just got your point, we're on the same page here, I think.
i am never going to (obviously by my own perspective) justify the judgmental nature of others. I am never going to pat them on the back for pointing out ever sliver in everyone else's eye. But neither am i going to deny the doctrinal and what i as sociological reasons for my beliefs merely because someone else sullied them. They'll get theirs, i promise. ok
and they have not been taught to be judgmental. I know you're not about to do it, but i'd suggest you take a listen to the past conference. Find out what we're being taught. I bet you'll remember it; it stays the same. If anything, we are harped on over and over for being judgmental and haughty. Especially by richard g scott. That guy puts the fear of god into me when i think about my pride and my arrogance. This is precisely why I won't watch it. I have no desire to listen to someone who is "called of god" talk to me about how guilty i should be feeling for my arrogance or worse tell me how I should worship. Thanks but no thanks, I've been there before and yes, unfortunately it does stay the same
as far as the church not teaching you to think for yourself, i honestly haven't figured out how to explain the dichotomy, but i am pretty sure that it is possible to learn to follow and lead at the same time. The church does teach us to follow the prophet, but at the same time, the church preaches that you need to find out for yourself why you should follow the prophet, and that if you never do, if you never think about it, never question it, then you never get far enough for your faith to actually mean what it should. In other words, pray until you agree with the prophet.
doesn't mean that i need to become a rebellious emo teenager before i find my true faith. It just means that, yes, i do need to think. To critically analyze what i profess to believe. Can you look at the leaders, guys like neil a maxwell and james a talmage, and say they don't exceptionally espouse the quality of critical analysis within doctrinal domains. Whether you agree with them or not, they have seriously investigated the scriptures, the sciences, the history books, and anything else that could have led to the increase of their understanding. Well you have to wonder why they never heard about the other translations of the pearl of great price, or the many different versions of the first vision, or the other brass plates that joseph translated, not to mention other church fallacy's
'i just feel that seminary should not be taught at the public school'
but it isn't. It's taught next door. I ask again, how do you feel about other types of release time then? What of other religions with release time programs?
But "next door" is a very gray door. As for the others, I can't answer how i feel about other religions with released time because I have no experience with them. *sigh* utah really should be it's own country. God save the king.
again though, it's not in schools. It is just during traditional school time. That is the only connection left that my narrow mind can see. If you are seeing any others that i've missed, clue me in. During school time, though, is not that big of a deal when taken in the context of a *national* program that the mormons have zealously adopted, and that can be just as zealously adopted by the wiccans, the buddhists, the zoroastrians, and the methodists should they so desire. But for whatever reason other religions don't want to adopt it or haven't been able to successfully. Mormons are the only one's that do it, or get away with doing it at or ok next to the public school. Worship away to your heart's content, I don't care, just do it on your own time not during school.
(i feel like i am staring at a yellow sun and talking to someone that is calling me a loon and swearing that it is green. Darn those photoreceptors) I know the feeling...
your opinion is as valid as mine as far as religious beliefs in society are concerned, and i do hope that you realize that i am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm just... I guess i'm just asking for the benefit of the doubt. That seems like a recurring theme with me. I hate it when people/ideas/etc are overlooked merely because of preconceived or what i see as unfair judgments about them.
Yes i see your point, the seminary building is technically not on school owned land. But it might as well be, come on it's right next to the art building.
as far as seminary, those questions reiterated:
how do you feel about other types of release time then? What of other religions with release time programs? Give me examples, I am unfamiliar with other religions with released time programs. If they have buildings that are pretty much on school property but technically not with released time hours during school and a dense population of "one specific" religion, my opinion would be the same. I will most often stand up for the minority as opposed to going with the flow of the dominant group.
edit: Moon, i forgot the 'resentment' thing. Remember that i was talking to the others here as much as i was to you. Still, resentment might be the wrong word; it just seemed to represent best what i understand that some people are feeling.
but that is wrong. You are on this religious forum as often as i (ok, honestly, that is debatable; i don't know how often you are here); you see the same things i do. My earlier example of jerry springer was not something i just fabricated out of my imagination. It was actually one of the three or four 3-second vomit sessions of jerry springer that i have seen. It lowered my iq--i feel less intelligent after listening to people like that.
I could be wrong, biogtry is one thing, I'm not generalizing that mormons are bigots, actually most mormons i know are respectable individuals. However, and that's a big however the men do view women as less than... The priesthood may ring a bell here. Hence the father is suppose to preside over the family. What the hell happened to partnership between a husband and wife? Presiding over the family equates to an imbalance of "powers" in my opinion.
the church has set the standard. People can live it or not. It's not even a temple recommend question. The last primary general president wasn't even a married woman. How'd she get there if she's not towing the line?
The standard is set, it's set that men preside over women. Why is it that all my women mormon friends (and there are many) are depressed, angry or medicated to a stepford wife mentality? *gasp* the general primary president isn't married? She's probably an old maid, God forbid she's divorced. (i like that smiley)
yeah, i bet that there are judgmental mormons who thought she should have never been called to the position. But that just goes to show that they will never get the calling.
Well the primary president murdered my grandmother, don't tell me that "unworthy" people don't get called to certain positions.
the church also preaches that service is exalted. I've seen people get on their high horses about others not serving enough. So, by the logic i am seeing, because some people are judgmental about it, we shouldn't serve others any more? There's two sides to that, it's my opinion that some in the "church" serve too much, they don't know when to say no and if they say no (especially to callings) it is looked down upon. Oh nevermind, I just got your point, we're on the same page here, I think.
i am never going to (obviously by my own perspective) justify the judgmental nature of others. I am never going to pat them on the back for pointing out ever sliver in everyone else's eye. But neither am i going to deny the doctrinal and what i as sociological reasons for my beliefs merely because someone else sullied them. They'll get theirs, i promise. ok
and they have not been taught to be judgmental. I know you're not about to do it, but i'd suggest you take a listen to the past conference. Find out what we're being taught. I bet you'll remember it; it stays the same. If anything, we are harped on over and over for being judgmental and haughty. Especially by richard g scott. That guy puts the fear of god into me when i think about my pride and my arrogance. This is precisely why I won't watch it. I have no desire to listen to someone who is "called of god" talk to me about how guilty i should be feeling for my arrogance or worse tell me how I should worship. Thanks but no thanks, I've been there before and yes, unfortunately it does stay the same
as far as the church not teaching you to think for yourself, i honestly haven't figured out how to explain the dichotomy, but i am pretty sure that it is possible to learn to follow and lead at the same time. The church does teach us to follow the prophet, but at the same time, the church preaches that you need to find out for yourself why you should follow the prophet, and that if you never do, if you never think about it, never question it, then you never get far enough for your faith to actually mean what it should. In other words, pray until you agree with the prophet.
doesn't mean that i need to become a rebellious emo teenager before i find my true faith. It just means that, yes, i do need to think. To critically analyze what i profess to believe. Can you look at the leaders, guys like neil a maxwell and james a talmage, and say they don't exceptionally espouse the quality of critical analysis within doctrinal domains. Whether you agree with them or not, they have seriously investigated the scriptures, the sciences, the history books, and anything else that could have led to the increase of their understanding. Well you have to wonder why they never heard about the other translations of the pearl of great price, or the many different versions of the first vision, or the kinderhook plates that joseph translated, not to mention other church fallacy's
'i just feel that seminary should not be taught at the public school'
but it isn't. It's taught next door. I ask again, how do you feel about other types of release time then? What of other religions with release time programs?
But "next door" is a very gray door. As for the others, I can't answer how i feel about other religions with released time because I have no experience with them. *sigh* utah really should be it's own country. God save the king.
again though, it's not in schools. It is just during traditional school time. That is the only connection left that my narrow mind can see. If you are seeing any others that i've missed, clue me in. During school time, though, is not that big of a deal when taken in the context of a *national* program that the mormons have zealously adopted, and that can be just as zealously adopted by the wiccans, the buddhists, the zoroastrians, and the methodists should they so desire. But for whatever reason other religions don't want to adopt it or haven't been able to successfully. Mormons are the only one's that do it, or get away with doing it at or ok next to the public school. Worship away to your heart's content, I don't care, just do it on your own time not during school.
(i feel like i am staring at a yellow sun and talking to someone that is calling me a loon and swearing that it is green. Darn those photoreceptors) I know the feeling...
your opinion is as valid as mine as far as religious beliefs in society are concerned, and i do hope that you realize that i am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm just... I guess i'm just asking for the benefit of the doubt. That seems like a recurring theme with me. I hate it when people/ideas/etc are overlooked merely because of preconceived or what i see as unfair judgments about them.
Yes i see your point, the seminary building is technically not on school owned land. But it might as well be, come on it's right next to the art building.
as far as seminary, those questions reiterated:
how do you feel about other types of release time then? What of other religions with release time programs? Give me examples, I am unfamiliar with other religions with released time programs. If they have buildings that are pretty much on school property but technically not with released time hours during school and a dense population of "one specific" religion, my opinion would be the same. I will most often stand up for the minority as opposed to going with the flow of the dominant group.
edit: Moon, i forgot the 'resentment' thing. Remember that i was talking to the others here as much as i was to you. Still, resentment might be the wrong word; it just seemed to represent best what i understand that some people are feeling.
Aaron I've really enjoyed our conversation, it's been free of attacks and that doesn't happen often. I respect your religious belief's, but I do feel that when they spill over into the public schools they are out of line so to speak. I'd feel the same way if I were still a practicing mormon.
BTW when the mormon church accepts homosexuality as a genetic disposition rather than a sin and allows women to hold the priesthood including being called to the 70 and the 12, THEN I might watch a general conference, (even though I still don't buy the Joseph Smith/book or mormon thing.) Yes I know that was an extremely long runon sentence.
hey, i run on, and on, and on, and.... you've seen it a few times at least in this thread.
well, the church is never going to say that *practicing* homosexuality is ok. as far as i'm concerned, the trait is a genetic one for the most part (i've met some that i'm not quite so sure about, but whatever). that still doesn't make its effects any better. all i can chalk it up to is that life is not fair.
women and the priesthood: i obviously don't know what the plan is as far as who gets what when. but think of it this way: the priesthood started out as a chosen few, and over the millenia--with various temporal hiccups (if you believe in the apostasy anyway)--it has been gradually broadened as far as who can use it and when. then there is the wording of some of the scriptures that we read that refer to priests and priestesses, etc...
some of us actually like that the general conference messages are the same. for one, God is the same, and i would expect that some sort of consistency exists. obviously He has worked in stages before, so i can't expect things to stay static from my mortal viewpoint. but at least doctrinal truths (faith, atonement, etc) should stay where they are. then there is the idea that if things start changing pretty quick, it is because the world is changing, times are changing, and i'm gonna have to move to missouri. and i don't know what i'm going to do without my red rock and utah powder...
but anyway, back to the seminary stuff. as far as i know, all release time religious classes, mormon and otherwise, work on the same system. what you are still telling me is that you suppose it would be ok if they weren't doing it during school hours. why? what is so sacred about school hours that non-curriculum education should be restricted to those that are on track for graduation? does that mean that the kids that are so advanced that they are taking college courses should also be restricted? what about lunch, again? should we legislate so that the students can't leave campus for meals? field trips? class projects?
also, you mention that you will always fight for the underdog. what if the catholic church started setting up release time seminary classes in utah? sure, they're a minority here, but utah is a tiny speck on the globe compared to the rest of the ground that the billions of catholics cover? what about buddhists in utah? what would you do were you living in jersey, and the mormons started release time seminary there? they would by far be in the minority there? we're still in the minority worldwide anyway; utah is the only place where we can claim any sort of majority, though idaho comes close, and there are a lot of us in cali, wyoming, arizona, etc.
also, moon is doing a good job answering my questions. where'd the rest of you go? taboo was making all sorts of superior comments. where'd his/her objections go? i sincerely doubt that we cleared them all up this fast...
but anyway, back to the seminary stuff. as far as i know, all release time religious classes, mormon and otherwise, work on the same system. what you are still telling me is that you suppose it would be ok if they weren't doing it during school hours. why?
I think seminary should be held at the church, not the school. Why? because it discriminates those who are not of a certain faith.
what is so sacred about school hours that non-curriculum education should be restricted to those that are on track for graduation? does that mean that the kids that are so advanced that they are taking college courses should also be restricted? what about lunch, again? should we legislate so that the students can't leave campus for meals? field trips? class projects?
Off campus activities during school hours should be allowed for all students, not just those of a certain faith so no I don't have a problem with the set up
also, you mention that you will always fight for the underdog. what if the catholic church started setting up release time seminary classes in utah?
No I wouldn't agree with that either because again, it is a segregation of one faith. What about those who aren't catholic? Of course it would be absolutely fine it they held it at the catholic church before or after school.
sure, they're a minority here, but utah is a tiny speck on the globe compared to the rest of the ground that the billions of catholics cover? what about buddhists in utah? what would you do were you living in jersey, and the mormons started release time seminary there? they would by far be in the minority there? we're still in the minority worldwide anyway; utah is the only place where we can claim any sort of majority, though idaho comes close, and there are a lot of us in cali, wyoming, arizona, etc.
Seminary takes place all over the country, the areas where mormonism is less populated hold it at the church (which is better I think)
also, moon is doing a good job answering my questions. where'd the rest of you go? taboo was making all sorts of superior comments. where'd his/her objections go? i sincerely doubt that we cleared them all up this fast...
Thanks and I think I've answered all your questions. I'm going to move on now. Take care. aaron out.
Good night
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(i like that smiley)
