MarginOfError

This isn't an either/or proposition though.  You can give Timmy a quality scouting experience and teach him the sanctity of the Sabbath and help him develop a testimony that will sustain him.  One potential solution would be to have all of the young men gather at someone's house at the end of the trip for a Sacrament meeting.  There are a number of ways you could accomplish all of those goals.
 
 
Because I would rather tell the Savior that a broke a rule when I had a firm conviction that it was ill-suited to Timmy's personal development than tell the Savior I steadfastly held a rule at Timmy's expense.  With that preference, I will accept the risk that some of those calls I make may be the wrong call (in either direction), but I'd still rather consider the circumstances of the individual and take my stripes when I get it wrong.

And while I'm here and have you in front of all of the internet...get yourself squared away already.  Eat more ice cream.

Given that the most likely reason you're getting an invitation to add him at all is because your e-mail address is lurking somewhere in his contacts list, I doubt he even knows he sent you the invite.
 
Ignore it.

And while I'm here and have you in front of all of the internet...get yourself squared away already.  Eat more ice cream.

And while I'm here and have you in front of all of the internet...get yourself squared away already.  Eat more ice cream.

Given that the most likely reason you're getting an invitation to add him at all is because your e-mail address is lurking somewhere in his contacts list, I doubt he even knows he sent you the invite.
 
Ignore it.

And while I'm here and have you in front of all of the internet...get yourself squared away already.  Eat more ice cream.

And while I'm here and have you in front of all of the internet...get yourself squared away already.  Eat more ice cream.

The best way to forgive this guy is going to be leaving him.  
 
Make a plan for yourself, put some money in a bank account only you can access, talk to a lawyer, and figure out how to remove yourself and your children from that home without shooting yourself in the foot legally.

The best way to forgive this guy is going to be leaving him.  
 
Make a plan for yourself, put some money in a bank account only you can access, talk to a lawyer, and figure out how to remove yourself and your children from that home without shooting yourself in the foot legally.

I would disagree with most on this issue.  If an individual has a genuine phobia of the water, and forcing them under the water to be baptized would be a traumatic experience, I see no value in forcing this upon them.
 
We fudge over ordinances all of the time in the church.  I've witnessed bishops authorize a misspoken sacrament prayer to avoid humiliating the person saying the prayer (usually after a couple of attempts, or when there are learning/reading disabilities involved).  I've personally followed instruction from a temple president to permit a person to pass through the veil of the temple into the celestial room even if they didn't complete the words of the ordinance correctly.  The principle we were taught was that getting exactness in the ordinance was secondary to helping people feel the Spirit.
 
I would follow that same counsel in cases of extreme phobias that might cause the individual to relive traumas*.  
 
What ultimately matters in any priesthood ordinance is that the presiding authority has authorized that the ordinance be performed.  The presiding authority, acting on behalf of the Lord, can record an incomplete or incorrect ordinance as complete and have that recorded in heaven.  End of story.
 
That being said, good luck finding priesthood leaders that are willing to play that card.  I'm not optimistic that there are many of them out there.
 
 
* Though I would be very careful and sparse in how I applied this.  For instance, I'm with NeuroTypical on trying to work through the phobia first.  But that's easier with a child than it is with an adult.

I would say those feelings of peace when you are reading the Book of Mormon (or whatever) are evidence that what you are reading at the time (or doing or whatever) is being confirmed by the Spirit.  
 
I'm not prone to automatically extrapolate that to "I felt the Spirit while reading Alma 4:21, so the Mormon Church must be true."  But I would take it as additional evidence that something is true.  As those evidences build, you can decide if you believe all of it is true.

I would say those feelings of peace when you are reading the Book of Mormon (or whatever) are evidence that what you are reading at the time (or doing or whatever) is being confirmed by the Spirit.  
 
I'm not prone to automatically extrapolate that to "I felt the Spirit while reading Alma 4:21, so the Mormon Church must be true."  But I would take it as additional evidence that something is true.  As those evidences build, you can decide if you believe all of it is true.

I would say those feelings of peace when you are reading the Book of Mormon (or whatever) are evidence that what you are reading at the time (or doing or whatever) is being confirmed by the Spirit.  
 
I'm not prone to automatically extrapolate that to "I felt the Spirit while reading Alma 4:21, so the Mormon Church must be true."  But I would take it as additional evidence that something is true.  As those evidences build, you can decide if you believe all of it is true.

I would disagree with most on this issue.  If an individual has a genuine phobia of the water, and forcing them under the water to be baptized would be a traumatic experience, I see no value in forcing this upon them.
 
We fudge over ordinances all of the time in the church.  I've witnessed bishops authorize a misspoken sacrament prayer to avoid humiliating the person saying the prayer (usually after a couple of attempts, or when there are learning/reading disabilities involved).  I've personally followed instruction from a temple president to permit a person to pass through the veil of the temple into the celestial room even if they didn't complete the words of the ordinance correctly.  The principle we were taught was that getting exactness in the ordinance was secondary to helping people feel the Spirit.
 
I would follow that same counsel in cases of extreme phobias that might cause the individual to relive traumas*.  
 
What ultimately matters in any priesthood ordinance is that the presiding authority has authorized that the ordinance be performed.  The presiding authority, acting on behalf of the Lord, can record an incomplete or incorrect ordinance as complete and have that recorded in heaven.  End of story.
 
That being said, good luck finding priesthood leaders that are willing to play that card.  I'm not optimistic that there are many of them out there.
 
 
* Though I would be very careful and sparse in how I applied this.  For instance, I'm with NeuroTypical on trying to work through the phobia first.  But that's easier with a child than it is with an adult.

God created a world, gave man agency, and stepped away to let us make our own choices.  Man stepped up and created the depravity you see in your field.  Man also stepped up with the most exquisite charity to combat that depravity.
 
Really horrific things happen to some people because some human being suck.  We need more people combating that wickedness and more people helping to heal the scars that come to its victims.  It isn't an easy thing to look at or accept, but it is the reality of life.
 
Yes, you will have to step outside of your religion at times.  This is called empathy.  it is a good trait and it will serve you well both in your profession and in your religion.  You may not be able to teach your clients about the atonement directly, but with your empathy and compassion, you can help them access the balm it offers, even if they do not realize it.  As you learn to do this, you will find that the Atonement comes with so much more than prayer and good feelings.  it comes with self exploration, self expression, healthy relationships, forgiveness, and compassion.  Taking full advantage of the Atonement requires improving one's self and overcoming one's trials.  You may not be able to help them complete their journey to the Savior, but you can set them on that road.  That is no small thing.

I don't think boorish is in the eye of the beholder.  I think our tolerance for boorish is dependent on who is speaking.  We'll tolerate more boorish behavior (and even celebrate it) from a candidate we agree with, but have far less tolerance when we disagree.
 
The fence sitters, generally speaking, will gravitate away from the boorish, regardless of the validity of the arguments presented.

I think more to his point would be something along the lines of the following scenario:
 
A Catholic parent invites you to the baptism of their newborn child and you tell the parent, "I cannot come because infant baptism is an abomination before the Lord."
 
The thing about what we call "gospel truth" is that it isn't as objective as we like to think it is.  When gospel truth requires personal revelation, it cannot be all that objective.  And so if we mean to say "I'm just telling the truth," we really ought to remember that the full and correct phrase would be "I'm just telling the truth as I feel it has been revealed to me."  
 
And so, in many cases, I find that "telling the truth" is wickedly boorish and divisive unless it can be done in a way that opens the door for civil disagreement.

The listening crowd is usually as turned off by boorish behavior as the recipient of the message.

I think more to his point would be something along the lines of the following scenario:
 
A Catholic parent invites you to the baptism of their newborn child and you tell the parent, "I cannot come because infant baptism is an abomination before the Lord."
 
The thing about what we call "gospel truth" is that it isn't as objective as we like to think it is.  When gospel truth requires personal revelation, it cannot be all that objective.  And so if we mean to say "I'm just telling the truth," we really ought to remember that the full and correct phrase would be "I'm just telling the truth as I feel it has been revealed to me."  
 
And so, in many cases, I find that "telling the truth" is wickedly boorish and divisive unless it can be done in a way that opens the door for civil disagreement.

Folk Prophet, I don't intend to pass judgment on what you have said here.  I don't have any objection to you having your opinion (even if I think it is lunacy :) ), but it gives a convenient springboard to describe why liberal mormons can have a hard time remaining in the church.
 
What you have to understand about liberal mormons leaving the church is that, while there may be doctrinal concerns chipping at the testimony, they usually leave because the social cost of staying is too great.  Liberal mormons tend to make their exodus when people start to use opinions like Folk Prophet's as the standard against which worthiness and faithfulness are measured.  This is needless and wrong.  And it takes an enormous amount of commitment and dedication to remain in a church where you feel the members do not welcome or value you.
 
To share some examples of times when I have found my desire to be at church lessened:
When I described on Facebook what I was giving up for Lent and a member of my ward sneered because, "Mormons don't do that." When I advocated for a strong fundraiser for the young women to purchase their own Girls Camp supplies (tents, cooking equipment, etc) and was met with resistance because, "why can't they just borrow everything from members?" When I openly boycotted the Elders' Quorum Thanksgiving Day football game because the invitation said, "If you don't come, perhaps you should consider attending Relief Society on Sunday." Liberal mormons feel the eye rolls and the groans.  I can tell when people in my ward are thinking "there goes MOE again.  Does he ever get off his soapbox?"  It makes church an uncomfortable space when everyone wishes you would just fit in with everyone else (or at least keep quiet).  
 
I've been fortunate to have good people in my ward who share some of my views and can support me through the hard times (whether they know they do it or not).  I also have a few shining examples of conservative/orthodox mormons who clearly don't agree with me on many things, but don't care either.  
 
It boils down to this: for most humans, if they don't feel safe and accepted when they go to church, they can't feel the Spirit.  And if they can't feel the Spirit, there is little incentive or benefit to coming.  Which is why we must be better about accepting all of our members, liberal or conservative, and making them feel at home and cared for in our social circles.  When we fail to make someone feel accepted, they will leave.  That's as much a fault of ours as it is of theirs.

God created a world, gave man agency, and stepped away to let us make our own choices.  Man stepped up and created the depravity you see in your field.  Man also stepped up with the most exquisite charity to combat that depravity.
 
Really horrific things happen to some people because some human being suck.  We need more people combating that wickedness and more people helping to heal the scars that come to its victims.  It isn't an easy thing to look at or accept, but it is the reality of life.
 
Yes, you will have to step outside of your religion at times.  This is called empathy.  it is a good trait and it will serve you well both in your profession and in your religion.  You may not be able to teach your clients about the atonement directly, but with your empathy and compassion, you can help them access the balm it offers, even if they do not realize it.  As you learn to do this, you will find that the Atonement comes with so much more than prayer and good feelings.  it comes with self exploration, self expression, healthy relationships, forgiveness, and compassion.  Taking full advantage of the Atonement requires improving one's self and overcoming one's trials.  You may not be able to help them complete their journey to the Savior, but you can set them on that road.  That is no small thing.

Folk Prophet, I don't intend to pass judgment on what you have said here.  I don't have any objection to you having your opinion (even if I think it is lunacy :) ), but it gives a convenient springboard to describe why liberal mormons can have a hard time remaining in the church.
 
What you have to understand about liberal mormons leaving the church is that, while there may be doctrinal concerns chipping at the testimony, they usually leave because the social cost of staying is too great.  Liberal mormons tend to make their exodus when people start to use opinions like Folk Prophet's as the standard against which worthiness and faithfulness are measured.  This is needless and wrong.  And it takes an enormous amount of commitment and dedication to remain in a church where you feel the members do not welcome or value you.
 
To share some examples of times when I have found my desire to be at church lessened:
When I described on Facebook what I was giving up for Lent and a member of my ward sneered because, "Mormons don't do that." When I advocated for a strong fundraiser for the young women to purchase their own Girls Camp supplies (tents, cooking equipment, etc) and was met with resistance because, "why can't they just borrow everything from members?" When I openly boycotted the Elders' Quorum Thanksgiving Day football game because the invitation said, "If you don't come, perhaps you should consider attending Relief Society on Sunday." Liberal mormons feel the eye rolls and the groans.  I can tell when people in my ward are thinking "there goes MOE again.  Does he ever get off his soapbox?"  It makes church an uncomfortable space when everyone wishes you would just fit in with everyone else (or at least keep quiet).  
 
I've been fortunate to have good people in my ward who share some of my views and can support me through the hard times (whether they know they do it or not).  I also have a few shining examples of conservative/orthodox mormons who clearly don't agree with me on many things, but don't care either.  
 
It boils down to this: for most humans, if they don't feel safe and accepted when they go to church, they can't feel the Spirit.  And if they can't feel the Spirit, there is little incentive or benefit to coming.  Which is why we must be better about accepting all of our members, liberal or conservative, and making them feel at home and cared for in our social circles.  When we fail to make someone feel accepted, they will leave.  That's as much a fault of ours as it is of theirs.

I think more to his point would be something along the lines of the following scenario:
 
A Catholic parent invites you to the baptism of their newborn child and you tell the parent, "I cannot come because infant baptism is an abomination before the Lord."
 
The thing about what we call "gospel truth" is that it isn't as objective as we like to think it is.  When gospel truth requires personal revelation, it cannot be all that objective.  And so if we mean to say "I'm just telling the truth," we really ought to remember that the full and correct phrase would be "I'm just telling the truth as I feel it has been revealed to me."  
 
And so, in many cases, I find that "telling the truth" is wickedly boorish and divisive unless it can be done in a way that opens the door for civil disagreement.

The listening crowd is usually as turned off by boorish behavior as the recipient of the message.