Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Question #58687.

I think Gim is right that we have to be cautious that there isn't something perfectly fine going on first, but the rest of the writers are on target. Personal story time.

My dad's first contact with our church: Meeting a guy he liked in the Navy with him, and enjoying that they could go on biking tours of the cities together while everyone else got drunk and picked up a girl for the night, because my dad hated that.

My dad's second contact with our church: When he came home from that tour of duty and was greeted by divorce papers because his wife said she was running away with an LDS missionary. They'd fallen in love while my dad was gone, and since he was almost done with his mission she was going to SLC to live with him.

Where that companion was, I'll never know.

Anyway, if there was any way that someone could have caught that before it escalated, I think my dad would have appreciated that.

(I'm not saying that this guy is in the adultry category or anything. Gimmy might be right still. I'm just saying . . . it bears looking into. For all people involved.)

I'm going to take a risk here and admit that I was the one who asked the question. Obviously none of you know the whole situation (and I don't either), and the pictures aren't necessarily terrible and fit into the Gimgimno category. But what concerns me is that their relationship began on March 23, when he was in the area he's in now (he was transferred away then back). He was never my actual companion -- I just said it in the question to simplify our relationship chain -- but I know him very well. I don't know his girlfriend at all (yes, I FB stalked her but her privacy settings cramped my style a little). From what I did see, she's not a good girl.

As for the kid's character, I'll just say that I've suspected he's had run-ins with the fairer sex in the past but never had any sort of hard evidence that would make it worth turning him in previously. Even a FB status could be a joke! He's not stupid and she could just be flirty. You know how that goes. But in his wall feed the relationship listing came first, then being in a relationship with her came second, so he might have initiated it. I'm a FB addict, not an expert so I don't know.

I guess my question to you the semi-anonymous people out there is this: do I have enough information to send an e-mail to the MP? I'm on the fence. I want to save him from harm, but I don't want to make an unfounded accusation.

I still say you should contact him directly first. An anonymous tip-off seems in bad character to me in this situation, since you know him well and consider him a friend. Give him a chance to explain himself and come clean, if needed. If he's belligerent, tell him that you're turning his sorry behind in and he'll get transferred and never see her again.

Yes, I think an anonymous tip off would be bad. It was just a whim and I don't have any anonymous e-mail accounts, anyway. I'm working on the text of an e-mail to him and will send it on Monday unless I change my mind. (Go figure, I'm going to do something unless I change my mind, lawl)

Gimgimno wrote:I still say you should contact him directly first. An anonymous tip-off seems in bad character to me in this situation, since you know him well and consider him a friend. Give him a chance to explain himself and come clean, if needed. If he's belligerent, tell him that you're turning his sorry behind in and he'll get transferred and never see her again.

Heh, that or else the president already knows about it, and nothing will change. I know one of my mission presidents would have DLs or ZLs talk with an elder who appears to be disregarding rules, or make the call himself, but beyond that, he'd pretty much let things work themselves out. (As far as my experience goes. He may well have been more pro-active if an elder's transgressions were really beyond the pale.)

Nonetheless, I don't think a letter along the lines of 'whoa, buddy, what's the deal here?' would be out of line. And if he doesn't have much of a solid backing, I'd say forward the whole kit-n-kaboodle to the president and let him act according to his inspiration.

I think you should make sure to talk to him before you decide whether to contact the mission president. If he was the one who went on facebook and put himself in a relationship with this girl, then that is inappropriate and he needs some help before he gets himself into serious trouble. But it's possible that someone back home is updating his facebook and did this is a joke, and that he is completely unaware of it. I've known people whose church lives have been destroyed based on accusations that came from misunderstandings, so I think you need to be really careful to get as much of the real story as you can before you decide whether to talk to the mission president.

So I know that you're all super curious, but there's a semi-happy resolution to the problem! On vacation this week, my family randomly ended up in the home ward of one of my mission buddies, whose parents I sought out after seeing his plaque on the wall. In the conversation they mentioned that he just got a new companion who was emergency transferred from another area. Suspicious, I asked who it was, and lo and behold, it was Elder Idiot! I don't know the details, I'm just grateful I didn't have to be involved.

Problem solved.

I was gonna gloat here about how I was right and Gimgimno was wrong, but Waldorf told me to be nice.

I had quite a large crush on a British missionary in the MTC. He was an adorable redhead with freckles and a bad French accent (where he was bound) and would look at me all meaningfully talking about the pillar of light appearing exactly over his head. I was a good person, of course, and had no intention of derailing him from his proselyting work, but I certainly did enjoy volunteering at the TRC! I think if men or women are going to make the commitment to go on a mission, they should adopt the attitude of married people . . . "just because I'm married doesn't mean I'm dead," sort of thing. Put absolute boundaries (I'll follow the rules, not flirt/kiss/run away with TAI42's mom), but don't pretend that the temptation isn't going to be there. Nineteen-year-old boys have a very large disconnect between their principles and their undeveloped frontal lobes, though, so it's hardly shocking to me that they're on Facebook and whatever these durn young whippersnappers do. It just seems like an issue of integrity to me . . . if you want to just go chase European or South American tail, there's a little thing called Study Abroad. I'm sure you can get a janitorial job and save up. I might not agree with the whole notion of missionary work at all (I don't, really), but I really, really admire and respect those who take it seriously and don't dink around and don't waste their parents' money and their religion's reputation.

Portia wrote: It just seems like an issue of integrity to me . . . if you want to just go chase European or South American tail, there's a little thing called Study Abroad. I'm sure you can get a janitorial job and save up. I might not agree with the whole notion of missionary work at all (I don't, really), but I really, really admire and respect those who take it seriously and don't dink around and don't waste their parents' money and their religion's reputation.

Heh, I think going without their parent's money would curb plenty of the dinking.

With regard to the question that posted today about having a crush on a missionary, I would just like to say that I have a former roommate who is married to a guy that served in the same mission as her at the same time. They saw each other a lot. And they hated each other. Then they both ended up back at BYU and started dating and the rest was history.

Portia wrote: I might not agree with the whole notion of missionary work at all (I don't, really).

Have you ever thought about why we do missionary work? It's salvation -- not gold, glory, and country. Salvation. Eternal life. This is the TRUE church, not just a good one. We have the truth. Nobody else has it in its fulness, even if they have parts of the truth and cause people to live good lives, NOBODY else has the authority necessary to perform saving ordinances. These are points that cannot be argued by a believing Latter-day Saint.

Without missionary work, without going and asking people to yes, go against and maybe even "corrupt" their cultures, and yes, change their lives completely, and, yes, abandon centuries of false religion, they cannot be saved. Ever. Not now, not in the spirit world, not ever. Because when you really think about it, every single other religion is not only false, it's incapable of bringing people eternal life and eternal happiness. EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER!!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it breaks my heart that you can't see that.

Craig Jessop wrote: Without missionary work, without going and asking people to yes, go against and maybe even "corrupt" their cultures, and yes, change their lives completely, and, yes, abandon centuries of false religion, they cannot be saved. Ever. Not now, not in the spirit world, not ever. Because when you really think about it, every single other religion is not only false, it's incapable of bringing people eternal life and eternal happiness. EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER!!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it breaks my heart that you can't see that.

I fully support the idea of missionary work, but I have two problems with this part of your statement. First of all, it's my understanding that people can be saved in the spirit world even if they never meet an LDS missionary. Unless you're including the idea of missionary work in the spirit world in this statement, in which case I'm with you. My second issue is that there is a big difference between saying someone's religion is missing the necessary priesthood ordinances for exhalation and saying that their religion is false. I think it's actually really offensive when Mormons go around saying other religions are false. I've seen a lot of interfaith conversations turn pretty horrible because of statements that kind of discourse. I think a better way to characterize other religions is the way James E. Faust did when he quoted a 1978 statement by the first presidency:

President Faust wrote:We believe that the fulness of the gospel of Christ has been restored, but this is no reason for anyone to feel superior in any way toward others of God’s children. Rather, it requires a greater obligation to invoke the essence of the gospel of Christ in our lives—to love, serve, and bless others. Indeed, as the First Presidency stated in 1978, we believe that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” Thus, we have respect for the sincere religious beliefs of others and appreciate others extending the same courtesy and respect for the tenets we hold dear.

reference

So while other religions may not have the ordinances that we have, I think they do more than cause people to live good lives, and I think they can certainly put people on the path towards eternal life. I think that because there is so much truth in other religions, members of other faiths learn in their worship to recognize truth when they see it and to feel the influence of the Holy Ghost, which are vitally important things to be able to do. I do think missionary work is important, and I also have a lot of respect for missionaries of other faiths who go out of their comfort zone to share with me what they believe to be true and important. But I don't think that all hope is lost for people who aren't baptized into the church in this life. I know this is getting away from your point a bit (or a lot) and I'm certainly not accusing you of disrespecting other religions or anything like that, but I just feel very strongly about this.

Okay, I just read my post and it sounds super strong. It's not meant to be that way, I swear! I have the highest respect for other religions and the people who practice them. I just feel very strongly -- you could even say I know -- that ours is the only church that can ultimately lead people to the highest level of glory, and that's the reason we do missionary work. And if it happens to get in the way of an established culture, then, yes, it's sad, but in the eternal perspective conversion is the only thing that matters.

Where would any of us be if our ancestors didn't give it all up? I know where I would be: moonshining in Oklahoma, just like my great-grandpa. I thank the Lord that my grandma gave it up, converted her husband, and caused her dead father to roll in his grave. I'm so grateful that my mom went to seminary with her friend to her dad's dismay. Missionary work blesses not just the convert, but their posterity, through all generations of time -- and eternity.

Your fervor is well noted, Craig, but I think it a bit misplaced. This is honestly coming off a bit as an attack on Portia, and I appreciate you backing off of your aggressive post from earlier, but perhaps you ought to learn a bit more about why she feels the way she does before preaching at her?