Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Aiming for the Ideal


            A couple of weeks ago we had the missionaries come over for dinner.  As we were talking, one of elders made the comment that several people don't see us a family oriented church.  I took the opportunity to explain to him why that might be.   Though there is a strong emphasis placed upon the family - even the definition according to the proclamation (see here) seems discriminatory.  We're not all like that.  The average family doesn't fit the mold. The proclamation gives us an ideal that we are supposed to strive for.  

          When I wrote this post, I referred to a couple named Juleen and Al Jackson.  I mentioned how I'd been under the impression that Juleen had believed that the show should have focused more on their story (or families of similar living) rather than explore those that didn't quite fit into the mold of "Mormon living"  - she DID NOT say it that way, rather that is my own interpretation.  In her mind she represented the higher population of what and LDS person is.  In my mind she represented what the "ideal" Mormon "should" be - to a degree anyway.  Probably the family values would fit into the mold of the "ideal" family - not to say they don't have problems.  Everybody has problems. 

          There were times of tension in my mom and dad's house - nothing like the average family.  As Corey and I have both mentioned, our family was not perfect, but by comparison to so many others, it almost seems too good to be true.  Same with my brother, Patrick and his wife.  I know there have been struggles with fitting into the perfect mold - but even so, I think theirs may also be one that many may view as too good to be true.

          I definitely don't fit into the mold - not even close.  Too much tension between me and my middle son - even from this far away.  He says things that set me off.  Even without that added stress, I just don't believe our family (with me as a parent) fit the "ideal" mold.

          Corey and his husband have Christianity and a great love and respect for mankind - but they're certainly not part of the "ideal" family - not according to the proclamation.  They are shunned.  Oh, the Church says "we welcome them" and they may feel it among certain members, but I don't believe the Church as a whole. 

           I remember attending the temple ceremony when my cousin was married to his wife.  She had a large family, and as I recall, by the time Roland and I had entered the room, it was just standing room only.  There was my Uncle Ross and Aunt Fern to support him.  It was the first time I had felt a personalness and connection during the ceremony and not just the routine of going through the motions.  It was special.  It was the most awesome temple marriage ceremony that I have attended. 

          Not all family members are welcomed to the temple.  There have been many invited to wait in the foyer and not be part of the ceremony due to a sacredness.  But when you are on the outside waiting, it is kind of hard seeing that the church is family oriented when all of the family is not together for the great event.  I think that's why all the hoopla with wedding receptions.  ALL of the family members can be included whether they hold temple recommends or not.

          Earlier this year I noticed his wife's name had been removed from a family conversation.  I emailed Corey and asked if he knew the reason.  Apparently the two had divorced the year before.  He forwarded an email that another cousin had sent about the situation.  I read it as though the family was trying to erase the former wife's existence out of their lives.  How would they ever be able to succeed after eleven years of marriage?  She and Michelle's daughter had read the eulogy together at my uncle's funeral. Surely there are good things to remember? I'll admit that I did not get to know her all that well.  It would be easier for me to erase her as part of family, and yet there are things that I will never forget about her.  I will remember the feeling that I had at their ceremony.

          I have another cousin who also got divorced just this year.  Corey did tell me about that one before her name was also removed from the family conversation. I heard his wife just left him.  I don't know what happened. He's now a single parent. I believe his children still lives with him, but I don't know.

          I'm sure Dallin Oaks wasn't implying discrimination, and yet that is what I heard as he gave the statistics of mothers having children out of wedlock.  I thought of another cousin who many have always considered odd.  She brought her fiancé to Tony's missionary farewell.  My boys had thought him even odder.

           I represented the family by going to the luncheon and wedding reception.  They looked happy.  They divorced after she gave birth to their daughter.  I don't know why.  She said having a baby freaked him out - which is weird as he is the eldest of at least four sibs and sounded like a good brother making sacrifices and assisting in their upbringing.  I had assumed he would also make a great father.

          I remember when she announced her decision to have another baby.  She had gone for artificial insemination.  I don't know if there were any that understood or supported her choice - which may have not been hers alone just as my decision to marry Roland.  Roland and I both know God had a hand in getting us together.

        Tina is quite prayful.  She's temple worthy.  The decision made was not made lightly.  It may have been a struggle for her.  I know her finances have been even worse than ours have ever been.  And yet she went through with it and gave birth to a second daughter.

          I am one who questioned her choices then .  I have since commended Tina for her brave decision.  She provided a sibling for her daughter among other things.  I don't know all.  Perhaps she doesn't either.  She's had a lot of challenges and a lot of hardships.  She is a great mother.  But she certainly doesn't fit the "ideal".

          It's tough being a Mormon.  I can deal with the persecutions outside of the church better than I can with the ones that seem to be coming from our leaders.  In her case, she had the option of not carrying the second child - or even keeping the first for that matter.

          In the case of divorce, you do not have that option to control the decisions of another - and why would you want to?  Things often happen beyond our control that lead us on a path different from that which we planned for ourselves or led us to believe that we were on the right path.  It's bad enough being put in that position.  Single mothers don't need the reminders that they are single.  Sisters who attend church without their spouses don't need reminders that they also don't fit the "ideal" because their partners choose to be inactive. 

          Overall I enjoyed conference.  I really did.  But I had allowed something about this one to set me off.   I suppose it is me not listening to the Spirit rather than how the message was delivered. This is why we have so many speakers often speaking to us about the same topic.  Not everyone resonates with everybody else.  Some talks will touch some people while others allow their minds to wander and as I pointed out before, we don't all receive the same message.  I'm happy that Jenna was able to take away something more positive than I.  I really am grateful for diversity.  All of us need that.   

Saturday, November 7, 2015

“Any Day Now” - Reprise



LDS Church says children of same-sex couples cannot be members


"It feels like they are extending an olive branch and hitting you with it," said Wendy Montgomery, who is Mormon and has a 17-year-old gay son. "It's like this emotional whiplash."

I didn’t realize that “Any Day Now” was R rated when I had reserved it at the library – or I probably wouldn’t have checked it out. But it was in my possession and thus I chose to watch it.  I gave a brief synopsis of the plot in the post found here. 


I thought it to be a spoiler to reveal what happened to Marco towards the end of the show.  Seems symbolically fitting to me that the Church’s latest act of discrimination will end the same.  Keep in mind this post also – for the policies of the Church aren’t representatious of the gospel. 

I think Wendy Montgomery was accurate in her quote from this news story.  

How dare they.  Why must the Church be so discriminatory?  A child who comes from a broken home, abusive parents, alcoholism, parents who commit adultery or are dishonest, parents who are in jail due to some horrific crime – they can be baptized and come to primary and experience fellowship with the youth.  But a child from a gay couple who had to jump hoops to parent the child – who obviously has a tremendous amount of love – cannot be baptized until he or she is no longer living with GLTB  parents.  Please! 

So the church has now placed a condition upon these innocent kids to stay with a same sex couple or be baptized in a Church that discriminates.  Well, that’s a no brainer. Why would said child even want to be baptized?  What is his incentive?  The same eternal promise that the child from a less than perfect home will have?  See this post


It is indeed a sad day for Mormonism.  I find rather ironic that the theme for the church is to "Come Unto Christ" but then they enforce these stipulations. We're told that we have our free agency, and then they tell us how to vote (proclamation 8 for example) I, for one, am ashamed.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Any Day Now - a review


I remember hearing a story about a child visiting grandparents – noticing that “grandma” is much taller than “grandpa”.  One day the child asks why grandma had married when there was such an obvious height difference.  The grandma responds with, “Your grandpa and I fell in love sitting down, and by the time we stood up, it was too late.”

Often there are people look for a partner in which to share a life.  Sometimes they base their interests on appearance or personality.  And then there are others who develop a love without even trying.  And sometimes the situation may seem challenging if acted upon – some may accept the challenges while others choose not to go there due to an orthodox view of race or religion.  Others may accept the challenges that they face and try to make a go at it.  Sometimes the constant battles will make a couple stronger.  Sometimes it ends up tearing them apart.

Recently I watched a movie called “Any Day Now” starring Alan Cumming as Rudy Donatello.  The movie is based upon a real situation that took place in the 70’s between a gay couple trying to win permanent custody of a teenager with down syndrome and a judicial system who seemed to focus more about principle than they cared about the youth – one of many who I’m certain has gotten lost in the system.




Rudy works as a drag queen performing at a bar and barely making ends meet.  He is comfortable in his skin, somewhat smart mouthed, but definitely NOT ashamed.  His love interest is Paul Figer, an attorney who struggles with his identity – not so much ashamed of his attraction to Rudy, but tries to remain “closeted” as he knows acting upon his attractions will jeopardize his career.

Rudy’s neighbor plays music extremely loud, against Rudy’s wishes.  He’s constantly asking her to turn it down.  One time he barges into the apartment to turn it down, he discovers Marco, who seems oblivious to his surroundings.  Rudy has compassion for this youth with down syndrome and takes it upon himself to take care of Marco – though it’s not really his place.  He does develop a love for the youth and really does try to due right by him.



Of course I bawled through so much of the movie.  I was actually surprised by the way the movie ended.  I can’t say more about it without spoiling the outcome.  Made me hate the judicial system.  Made me love and admire Rudy’s character – and the strength of the couple as they battled a system with prejudices. I felt so bad and sorry for Marco – who did not understand.  It was a bittersweet movie.

It’s rated R for language – and usually that word really does get through to me – but I was more accepting of it just because of the circumstances – and because of Marco – an innocent victim.  He didn’t deserve the abuse.  He deserved Rudy’s love. 

I need to stop writing.  Because now I’m crying again.

Monday, January 26, 2015

If you can’t question your religion, Why Are You In It?


         I don’t know if I had met Kelly prior to the being called to serve on the activities committee.  The first activity I remember being involved with was a “food storage/budgeting made-fun activity” Kelly played Betty Barker and I became the emcee who drew the names of contestants and invited them to “come on down”.

         Even then she was struggling with the Church and her family life – desiring to connect the two but feeling torn with her beliefs.  Her husband showed no sign of ever wanting to be involved with the Church or even anybody who belonged to it.  Perhaps Kelly wasn’t even active when they met but gradually came around with a desire for having God and direction in her life – perhaps not necessarily the “Mormon Church”

         That was five years ago.  And she continues to battle with herself and her maintaining a comfortable relationship and self worth which she is not finding in the Church.  I understand.  Perhaps not completely.  But I do understand why she would leave – although she hasn’t withdrawn completely.

         Her husband still gives her no support as far as showing any interest in church or church members.  I didn’t even know what he looked like until the other night when I glanced at him through the window.  He had heard we were coming and made his “get-away” before we were even out of the car.

         Kelly’s last calling had been a counselor in the primary.  Not where she wanted to be, but accepted the calling believing it would keep her on the path to and at that the Church is where she needed to be – until she was asked to create the program for the 2014 “Families are Forever” theme.  That became the straw that broke the camel’s back.  It wasn’t in her heart to create a program that she herself felt discriminated against.

         Actually, I had wondered how the majority felt as many of the primary children are from broken homes, inactive or part member families, many with barriers that seem to prevent the traditional “families are forever” theme. 

         Elenore sat on the stand near the pulpit, to help the children with the lines they might have forgotten. I wondered if the program had been difficult for her as she and her husband had divorced long before I had even met her. She’d gone back to her maiden name rather than identifying herself with her married name.  She has custody of their two children, but he has visitation rights.

         I hadn’t even paid attention to Kelly’s absence as I watched various children get up and recite lines that just didn’t seem to fit in their current living environment.  How many of them believed in the words that they said?  How many struggled through that program?  I did.

         Kelly’s youngest son and Jenna have often played together.  Kelly had told me about sending her son to a water park all summer.  I had been dragging Jenna to Kearns with me last summer.  Perhaps “drag” is not the correct word as she really did enjoy being with her cousins.  But I know she would have loved spending summer at a water park if given the opportunity. 

         I had asked Kelly if Spencer would be returning to the water park this summer and thought I would look into a pass for Jenna.  I thought we had talked just last month, but then she disappeared.

         I was substitute teaching the last three weeks of December.  I think there were five or six names on the role in Jenna’s class, but it was usually just Elenore’s son and Jenna.  Spencer wasn’t there during the three weeks I had taught.  I sent Kelly a message to inquire if she and her family had been out of town for the holidays.  Turns out she is actually attending another church – one that doesn’t push the “Families are Forever” theme.  One that doesn’t make her feel discriminated against.

         I had the same struggles when I was single for so long – not as long as several sisters in the current ward I belong to.  I was married at 39.  There are several sisters in my ward who are much older that have not had opportunity to marry – or perhaps they have and it just didn’t feel right with choice of partner.  I don’t know.  I know that there are several who feel discriminated against when lessons are given on eternal marriage or husband/wives relationships.  It’s hurtful to hear when that very thing doesn’t seem to exist in the earthly future.

         I recently read that divorce is 50/50 but that a marriage needs to be 100/100.  And there are some couples that each give 100% and then there are other couples in which one does all the giving while the other does all the taking.  I can only control what I give, but I cannot control what another might contribute.  Roland contributes 100% - perhaps more.  But not everybody has that.  Not everybody has the support from family members.  Not everybody gives 100%.

         Hannah moved into the ward about a year after we did.  For the longest time I believed that she was a single parent as I never saw her with a spouse.  She was diligent about coming to meetings and activities though it was challenging at times.  It wasn’t known to all that there were struggles, for Hannah wore a smile on her face and pressed on.  One day she announced that there were struggles and coming to church wasn’t easy. Her husband didn’t wish to attend church with her.

         When Asher (her son) got closer to turning eight, he begged his dad to please come back to Church so that he could baptize him.  Thus after eight or nine years of attending Church on her own, Hannah’s husband finally came around.  He is the one who baptized Asher.  Endurance.

         So where is Kelly’s reward when she has seemingly had to endure even longer?  Why are there some whose trials seem to outlast their faith while others seem to be rewarded in just a matter of minutes?  How many of us feel that we have been or are being dealt with unfairly?  For how long must we endure?

         One of my biggest hang-ups in this “pushing family” church is the discrimination that seemingly takes place at the temple.  The sealing ceremony in which only the worthy temple recommends holders can participate.  All loved ones who are not temple recommend holders are allowed to wait in the lobby but cannot witness the special event because they don’t have recommends.  They have been labeled “unworthy” How do you explain that? 

         I was married civilly over three years before I was sealed.  The civil marriage was a lot more personable.  I enjoyed having guests at my wedding that otherwise couldn’t come to see Roland and I exchange vows.  I don’t like to feel excluded because I don’t have a recommend (or didn’t; not when Patrick married.  Not when my cousin married her first husband) and I don’t wish for others to feel that way.

         What does a “Forever Family” mean in my case?  That the boys will go with Roland and their mom?  That Jenna will go with Roland and me?  And what’s to become of Roland’s oldest two girls?  They were born under the covenant?  But do they sense that now?  Do they even know what that means?

         The boys are adults with spouses (soon families) of their own.   How does that work?  Are they always going to reside with us in the hereafter or will they go with their wives’ families?  I don’t think our concept of “Families are forever” will be the same as what we may build up in our minds.  We are required to have faith that it will all work out.  God’s kind and men’s kind are very often not the same.

            Denise shared her testimony after her forty plus years of struggles – though not with the Church.  She had been baptized when she was 19.  The ward bishop had called her into his office to call her as a primary teacher.  But there was a condition that came with accepting the call.  She would have to stop dating her boyfriend.  It wasn’t because even because he wasn’t a member, but apparently the bishop objected to his race.  I don’t know if she saw that as discrimination coming from the Church or just that particular leader.  It wasn’t right that he had told her that.  She left the Church and did not return until over forty years later.

            The elder missionaries showed up on her doorstep shortly after she lost her dad.  She was in a state of depression.  She had answered the door in her pajamas and commented that one elder in particular was dead set about helping her.  She said she needed her dishes done but didn’t have any soap.  The elders dismissed themselves but said they would return.

            When the elders returned, they brought back some dish soap along with a missionary couple.  While the elders did dishes, Denise sat in the other room with the elderly couple and asked about her father.  It was a very good visit and an indication for her to return to the Church in which she had been baptized a member over four decades earlier.

            We all have our trials.  We all have our disappointments.  Endurance is not an easy thing.  For many, it is hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel.  For many there is no life.  They have given up home.  Some hang on by a thread searching for a glimmer of hope.  May each of us find the strength needed to endure than we may find peace?  That is my hope. 


Saturday, March 8, 2014

I Love to See the Temple . . . at least from a distance


I don’t know why I feel compelled to post my thoughts on the temple.  I certainly don’t want my opinions to seem like desecration to what many value so dear and sacred.  But I don’t have that sacred spiritualness.  For the most part entering the temple (to me) seems discriminatory and overall (more than any other emotion) I have felt lonely being there.  And I know I’m not alone with how I feel towards attending the temple.  I have at least two other family members who have also gone out of obligation but have walked away with less than satisfactory desire to return.

Recently I filled out this survey for LDS woman to get opinions mostly on plural marriage – which I actually don’t have a problem with in the hereafter.  The survey also asked for feedback  with the sealing process made in the temple.  I would have answered the survey questions a lot differently just two years ago than I did this week when I took this survey.  I do have a hang-up with so much that takes place in the temple – sealings being high on the list.

Roland and I were not allowed to marry in the temple at the time we were married civilly.  Though he and wife #2 had been divorced, they were still sealed to one another in “the eyes of the Lord”.  In order for Roland and I to get sealed in the temple, we needed a clearance from wife #2 – which she saw as leverage to control us – well, Roland in particular.  I don’t know why she continues with membership in the Church – or why she hasn’t been called to a disciplinary counsel.  She may not admit desire for following in Satan’s footsteps – and yet she does.  Almost as though she idolizes him.  And so it was as if our fate to be sealed in the temple was dependant on Satan herself.  That doesn’t seem fair.

Our civil marriage was thrown together after months of postponing and changing the date and hoping to be sealed.  It was what I’d been taught all of my life.  It’s what I was told to strive for.  And I was content with my civil marriage but somehow wouldn’t allow myself to feel complete.

Roland and I were able to do sealings for the dead.  I would cry each time we did them.  It didn’t seem fair that I could be sealed for others but not for myself.

In this earlier post I gave three reasons why I had given Jenna my maiden name, but I left one out.  When I was pregnant with her and Roland and I were still not sealed to one another, he was told by the bishop that Jenna was automatically sealed to him – and his first wife.  Oh, I get to carry the child for nine months but she can’t be sealed to me?  And yet Deborah (Roland’s first wife) was taken from earth while the boys were all young.  6, 4 and 3.  Plus the unborn twin boys that were taken when she was. 

One of the reasons I agreed to marry Roland is because he was already sealed to Deborah and so he could obtain Celestial glory with her while I may be destined to obtain “angelhood”  in another kingdom.

Roland and Deborah were sealed in the temple a week before she passed.  I raised boys – well from the time they were 11, 12 and 14 – so it seemed okay that she would get to raise my girl in the hereafter.  But she would still have my family name - at least while on earth.

How does that work anyway?  The entire sealing thing?  I mean, won’t the majority of us be adults in the hereafter?  It’s not as if we will be “raised” in the same way which we are on earth, does it?

Our knowledge of the hereafter is actually quite limited.  We don’t know how we’re going to feel or how it’s all going to “work out” or what we will be.  Based on my earth knowledge, the Celestial kingdom just doesn’t seem inviting to me personally.  Oh, I strive for a Celestial life because it’s been conditioned into me that that is what I want – but it really isn’t.  The very idea of creating worlds and living in spiritual and perfect glory honestly doesn’t appeal to me.  Too out of my comfort zone to maintain living in white clothing while playing harps (so to speak).  Although that’s just how heaven in perceived by some, doesn’t mean that is how we will spend all eternity.  At least I hope not.  But I certainly don’t want to be cast into hell either.

Growing up I had always heard:  “Any kingdom below Celestial Glory might as well be hell, because you’ll be all alone and you will always regret your decisions thinking ‘I could have made it’” Okay, I’m paraphrasing – and I had never actually heard that from leaders but rather cocky youth who’s minds worked like mine did because that's how we were conditioned to believe.  
 I don’t mean for it to sound like I resent the Church or Temple attendance.  I still have love and respect – but I also have hang-ups.  And though I had agreed with the un-Celestial/hell thing, I don’t anymore.

Jeanie and Biff have decided that they will be married civilly before they are sealed.  They were planning on being sealed.  They had set up a time and place from what I understand.  But guess what?  Jeanie’s first husband has a say.  They are still sealed.  The clearance presents all this red tape that is every bit as frustrating (perhaps even more so than) as it is with the government.   
I think that’s what bothers me the most – all of the politics that have crept into the Church – leading me to believe that the church and the temple are both run by the leadership of imperfect men and not always by inspiration.

My attitude now is a lot different than just a couple of years ago.  If Jeanie and Biff never get married in the temple, so be it.  It’s not as though they hadn’t tried.  And I expect their civil marriage will be far more beautiful than anything I’ve ever seen in the temple.  They are currently at the temple right now – just not as husband and wife.

I know that by the time Roland and I were finally sealed, it just seemed somewhat rushed and very impersonal.  And I was not alone in feeling that way – though there were several in attendance who thought it was the greatest thing ever.  Truthfully, I have only attended one sealing in which the officiator really seemed to know the couple – and provided a sense of comfort that I had not seen at any other.  The ceremony was very well attended.  For some it was standing room only.  Thus in that aspect it really wasn’t comfortable physically. 

There are some sealings I haven’t attended because of the high population of family being smooshed into even the largest of sealing rooms.  And there are many I was unable to attend before I was of age to have my own recommend.   
There is a waiting room for those who cannot go through the session with their loved ones.  Big whoop.  “Here’s a place to sit and wait for your loved one who is getting married which you can’t participate in witnessing because you are not worthy”

I don’t actually know if that’s how the lot of them feel, but that is sometimes how I felt.

I do understand the sacredness of not allowing those that would be spectators with limited understanding who may desecrate the sacredness whether intentional or not.  But still – excluding family seems a huge sacrifice that one may later regret in the future. And yet there are several couples whose sacrifice have made their marriage more complete and have provided a sense of peace and closeness.

And for every story of resentment there are just as many (if not more) experiences of the positive nature.  One example comes from my friends who had made arrangements to be sealed on a specific day.  He had cancer and was strongly advised by the doctor to schedule his surgery as soon as possible.  First available date happened to be the same date of the sealing.   

The surgery was put on the back burner against the doctor’s advice.  My friends said they return to the doctor’s the day after they were sealed.  When the returned, the doctor could not find any signs of cancer.  And so I know there is a greater power behind the temple experience.  I also know that there has been heartache involved in others.  Apparently I’m one of those “others”. 

There is the joke about St. Peter showing a Protestant couple around the kingdom of heaven.  As they pass a large door St. Peter motions for them to keep quiet.  After they pass the door (while wearing puzzled expressions) one of them asks what is behind the door. 
Peter replies that the room houses all the Mormon folk who believe they’re the only ones there. 

How sad it is that so many have been conditioned to believe that very thing, for there are many outside of the LDS faith who live wholesome and Christian lives better than many who are in the Church - as though the Mormons own the title "Church" to be spelled with a capital "C"

I once had a religion instructor explain kingdoms and the individuals’ capacity.  He compared these to vessels of water.  A Dixie cup can never hold the same amount of water as the Pacific ocean, and yet a Dixie cup is capable of being full.  I can be full to my own capacity and live happily in the kingdom in which many will share the same thoughts as I. 

  I will not be happy living in man’s idea of the Celestial “mold”  As I mentioned in this post, there were more of us who ended up in the Terrestrial kingdom than the other two combined.  Overall, those are the people I would like to hang out with for all eternity.

And as Corey and I may not be able to visit my dad (according to Mormon Doctrine – as we believe he will be obtaining the greatest of Heavenly rewards) we are hoping that dad will make the time to come and visit us according to where we are (or might be)  I would like to obtain meekness to be more like my dad.  I just don’t seem to have it in me right now – though I would like to obtain that quality.  Perhaps by becoming "meek" I would have a different perspective than what I have for myself right now.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

No One Can Make You Feel Inferior Without Your Concent and yet . . .


fund raisers seem necessary
for raising money for
different causes
charities 
one may go from door to door
seeking collections
usually with product that
no one wants or
can afford  or
doesnt like     

parties at both ends
feel emotion   
the recipient fells bad that
he cant contribute     
or feels anger towards
the very idea of
having walked across
the room to open
the door to something he
may not even believe in         
or resentment because he
has purchased the product
when he knows it could
have been used more wisely              

the seller (or cause promoter)
either gives up because
she is discouraged that
no one wants to buy  
or else she continues
but with an attitude full
of regret and resentment and
eventually cries because
not being able to raise funds
has made her feel like a failure
Fund Raisers Should Not Stir
Up Emotion in Such a Negative Way

missionary work seems necessary
for the benefit of
saving souls 
one may go from
door to door preaching
the gospel and
sharing a message that
others may not know 

those individuals on
each side of the door
feel emotions  
the one inside
of the house
feels anger towards
the very idea of
having waked across
the room to open
the door to something he or
she may not believe in
or resentment because she
doesnt feel the need to
change and feels that she is
being told to
change her ways         

the missionary often feels
like giving up because
he is discouraged that
no one seems to want
to hear the gospel or
else the missionary may
continue with diligence and
prayer sometimes feeling
regret and may eventually
come to resent the church
Sacrifice and Service
Should Not Stir Such
Negative Emotion

we are told that
we must be sealed
in the temple and
we are taught that
families are forever and
we are taught to live a
certain way so that
we may enter into
the temple but sometimes
there are those who
enter by themselves
because the family members
dont always lead the same values
or maybe they do but
there is one part that
doesnt seem in
harmony with the gospel

Our loved ones stand
outside feeling emotions
of anger
or respect
or admiration
or exclusion
wondering why a church
that promotes families
dont allow the family members
see their loved ones get married

and those inside
wish that their
loved ones could share
in their happy moment
and may one day
resent having excluded
certain family members and
may one day be
outside the walls
themselves
We Should Never Feel
Discrimination.  God
Doesnt Discriminate.
Man Does.