JohnsonJones

See what I said above in regards to what LDS Scouts did. IRONICALLY, there are some out there that actually BLAME the LDS Church regarding the allowance of Homosexuals into Scouting JUST as much as the lawsuits...as the Church was already allowing EVERY boy regardless of homosexuality (and that does not necessarily mean acting upon those feelings but that this was the way they were attracted) or not as a Scout. The Church opened that Pandora's box along with one of their own as a member of the executive board PUSHING this direction. Not that this is a correct assumption, but it can show the MASSIVE hypocrisy that some would point out in regards to some members of the LDS Church. However, this is ONLY the tip of the iceberg. This policy of not allowing Boys who were homosexual into scouts had existed in Boy Scouts previously for many decades. The Church flagrantly ignored this policy. It also flagrantly ignored many other policies of the Boy Scouts regularly along with it's leaders (probably because half the leaders weren't even trained correctly as they would have needed to be if they were NOT with a Church unit) which led to a culture that was not necessarily seen among Scouting units that were NOT run the by the Church (though there were ALSO PLENTY of Church units that DID foster the Scouting spirit and DID follow the regulations). The thing that really ticked me off a bit previously (at least occasionally, but not always) was the way they would call Eagle Scouts lesser Eagles who came from Church units than those who came from other units. However, seeing exactly the dedication members have to the Scouts recently has opened my eyes up. I'd say that there probably is merit and this past year has made me realize that in many instances (but definitely not all) this is merited by the reasons I stated in my above post regarding the spirit of Scouting in and out of Church Scout troops. Finally, the Church scout units had a massively disproportionate amount of lawsuits in relation to it's units. Some see that the Scouts will actually have more money than all the money they were losing from the lawsuits caused by LDS units. Of course, the flaw with this idea is that this only works if the Scouts can redirect these lawsuits against the Church rather than Scouting BSA. Most of the lawsuits right now are in regards to events that happened years ago while the church was still with Scouting. It may help in the future, but I do not feel it helps at all with the current situation. However, there is a feeling I've gathered from Non-LDS units that the lawsuits caused by the Church scouting program costs FAR more than what the LDS church was actually bringing in or contributing to the Scouting organization.

I'm not sure I agree with all of that, but I WILL agree that many of the rest of Scouting have a LOW opinion of scouts who went through the Program run by the Church. The problem is that, as you say it, while a normal Boy Scout typically joins because that is the type of character and person they wish to grow into, every boy in the Church became a scout. They had no real commitment to the morals or ideals of scouting and so you got many who did not change. They would go play with knives (you don't play with knives as a scout but follow rules to use them safely) and tell dirty jokes. The entire goal was pushing to be an Eagle Scout as quickly as possible. Because they had no commitment to the actual scouts and rules, as soon as many heard the church was leaving scouts, they left scouts themselves and many have tried to malign it. Counter this with those boys that I've seen in scouts that are from the normal community and stick with it in their units that are not with the Church. They tend to be in Scouts for the journey, not necessarily the destination. They tend to be more accepting and open to others. They are not necessarily the popular kids (scouts was not as popular in areas outside of the areas where the Church membership is the majority and has not been for years as those who actually were Boy Scouts in practice were seen as goody goody two shoes and other such things which were not 'cool' to be as young men and young adults), but are kids that genuinely seemed to want to do and be good. You can find these in the Church, but they are not as prevalent as I see in Scouting units that were not with the Church. This created a thought process some have said over the years about Scouts with the Church's program vs. Scouts that are not with the Church's program. I admit I did not really feel this was true in any real sense until just recently. I have 7 grandsons that are still young enough to be in Scouting. Interestingly enough, they seem to be affected directly by this as they wanted to continue scouts. Three of them already are going to a community unit and so aren't that concerned. The others, the parents are trying to figure what to do with their boys. It seems that the units in Utah have diminished greatly from dozens around to almost zero. The dedication to the ideals of scouting seem to not exist there and people have dropped scouts even MORE greatly than elsewhere...at least from what I am hearing. It seems that they WERE NOT dedicated to Scouting to begin with, nor the morals and ideals it espouses. As such, it has jokingly been called or asked of me to join as a scouting leader at my age from a long distance because one difficulty the parents of my grandkids have is that there is no one who wants to be a scouting leader to even start up a unit if they WANT their boys to be in Scouts in Utah next year currently, at least in their area from what I am being told (aka...not enough leaders to run the program, it takes more than just two concerned parents). As I said, MOST of the things people are complaining about with immoral items in scouts today were done in regards to scouting within the CHURCH FOR DECADES prior to the Scouts even having it as an issue. Gay Boy Scouts...check. Gay Boy Scout Leaders...check. Buying lots of camps (which I have abundantly appreciated to be honest, and we have had specific Church run Summer camps through the Church itself rather than the Council on occasion)...Check. Disrespect for National Parks, Nature and the cause of a higher percentage of Lawsuits (including abuse) than any other organizations with scouts...check. So, it sounds in many ways hypocritical for members to say these are the problems with Scouts when the Church itself has been doing almost ALL of these itself for MANY DECADES (not just the past few years) and in fact in most of these instances were NOT actually following the Scouting program itself when implementing some of these items (prior to the allowance of Gay Scouts and/or leaders within Scouts). The biggest thing that changed that the Church was NOT doing...allowing girls to be in Scouts. I do NOT have a problem with this. I have seen community units already have parents bringing their children with them as outside the Church Scouts was focused on the family in many instances already. The problem was that while the boys were earning badges for participating, the girls got nothing, even when they were there as a family. It was more lawsuits and the entire LGBT issue pushing forward against scouts to cause a change, but I see the change to allow girls as beneficial from a FAMILY stand point. This is the biggest difference I see between things the Church has done scouts and will not allow with scouts, and what changed with the organization if being honest. Literally, the only thing then that the Church would have objected to would be...Girls in Scouting??? As I said, I see by it's ACTIONS of what was allowed in the Church with it's scouts in the past what really was done in the Church, and actions generally can speak louder than words currently in this for me. Girls in scouting is really the ONLY thing I see as the differences between what Scouts have been forced to allow (and the Church did have a part of the executive council and actually WAS the deciding vote on some of these issues...though as you say were absent for one of the major ones due to political maneuvering and what I would say was a dishonest approach by the then overall Scout executive...who ironically is a Republican). That said, I ALSO would accept Ballard's reasonings of those who are Gay who are ACTIVELY promoting that lifestyle as another reason that the Scouts now deviate from the Church's policies as an organization. Though there was allowance to let the Church run it's own programs as it desired (and this is also why the Church probably got away with having openly Gay Boys that were scouts in the past, for example during the 70s, 80s, and 90s when I saw my boys going through [and my sons are not Gay as far as I know, but some of the boys in their units were] this could be seen as somewhat a valid reason...the implication is the general changes within the Scouting program itself. Thus, for me it is actually EASIER to accept the original reason given officially that due to changes in the Church they needed a better youth organization for the Church worldwide than the one they currently had (and it was a change from Duty to Go and also the Young Women's program of personal Progress as well as from Scouting) than the excuse that Scouts changed things that the Church had already implemented itself for years (unless we are talking specifically about Girls overall, with the allowance of the very SMALL percentage of those who are now actively homosexual and promoting that lifestyle being as scout leaders also as a reason). This is but a news story and as such I'm not sure how much it actually reflects the official reasons the Church is no longer going to be with Scouts or not. If this is to be the official reason at some time in the future, with my thoughts as you see above...as I said...I'm not sure what to think. With any other organization that said that with the Church's history of doing what it does or did in Scouts I'd have no hesitation to call that organization hypocritical and needing to look inward at it's OWN operations and what it did to push this all on it's own in regards to policy changes before pointing the finger at Scouts. As it is the CHURCH...I'm not so willing to do that...thus my feelings on the issue. I don't feel that I can or want to do that in regards to the Church. Currently though, I can point out that this is merely a news story (from a newspaper that regularly distributes a somewhat anti-Church view at times according to what I've heard) and is not the official stance of the Church. it could be the paper painted the words stated differently than how it was intended to be stated or to come out. It could be a misrepresentation of intent or the ideas that Elder Ballard wanted to state. What I've heard at official Church discussions seem to center on the Church worldwide and the need to develop a program that works for all the youth around the world in whatever situation and circumstance they may be in. It sits much better with me to be honest...and the article sows discord within me in a confliction of feelings when thinking on it.

Interesting comments on the Church's decision to leave the Boy Scouts... We Didn't leave the Boy Scouts, they left us So, what is going on here? In my experience, the Church allowed Gay Boy Scouts and Gay Boy Scout leaders LOOOOONG before they were actually legalized in Boy Scouts. I've had Boy Scout leaders over my boys many years ago who were Homosexual and had a CC that actually was bringing her girlfriend to church (note, I did NOT select these leaders as I was not in the Bishopric at the time or anywhere close to being in it or influential in it). The church allowed ANY boy, gay or not, to be in Boy Scouts. Is it really that the Boy Scouts simply allowed girls to be Boy Scouts as well...or is it something deeper. I find it IRONIC that so many complain about Boy Scouts allowing Boys who are homosexual or leaders that are homosexual into them when the Church has allowed or done this (at least in my area) blatantly at times over the past few decades before these were even items long before the Boy Scouts even had them as issues to consider. Luckily, there is a clarification specifically on what Elder Ballard is referring to... Which is interesting. I'm not sure what I think about it. They presented the reason they were leaving originally to be to make a program that catered to all the youth in the world...which I can see the benefits of. Scouting is not able to really be a program for a world wide church...however, this article (and admittedly it is from the SL Tribune which I have not heard great things about) indicates it was over something different. As scouting allowed the charter organization, and specifically the Church to make decisions on who to allow as members of troops as well as leaders, this should not have affected the Church in how they ran their program. They just come out with something saying that their troops will not participate in official programs such as the Boy Scout Camps offered by Councils and will instead run their own camps and programs and they could have kept going with Scouts just fine if this was truly the reason. I'm hoping the decision was still as they originally stated, in that it was the need for a world-wide program for all the members of the church. The program they have I feel IS inspired, or at least I felt it was inspired when learning about the basics of it (more this Sunday I believe for everyone out there), so I could readily accept that reason as the WHY they did it. This article leave me more wondering about it though. Not sure what I think about the article after reading it.

I saw a similar thing with the same picture earlier today, except the women were the F-35 pilots and the cat was an A-10 pilot with the words Brrrrrrrrt.

I agree, but once it has become written into law as practiced in the US (though in the UK I believe they still practice some items in reference to common law ideas) formally, rather than informally, is it not then become a formal law which is being infracted rather than simply an attempt with an incomplete crime. They have punishments written in accordance specifically with the crime of attempt, rather than the incomplete crime they were attempting to accomplish.

What reason did Garret give for doing this? There must have been some cause for why he attacked the other teams quarterback. Before knowing whether this was good or bad I would like to know what spurred this reaction from him. His team was already winning, so what occurred to promote this violence in him. If he was sucker punched or some other act right before this or during a play I might still think what he did was unacceptable, but was more justified than what appears to be that he did it...just because.

Just to be the one that throws the monkey wrench into the salad...for the proverbial theoretical nonsense exercise of what should we consider inchoate or not in the reality of what is written in the law... Attempting to do something can be a crime in and of itself, which is why it is punishable under the Law. For example, Attempted Murder under Georgia Law would be defined as Which is a crime and as such can be convicted of such. Thus, it is NOT an Incomplete crime specifically as it fulfills the note of law for a completed crime (though, obviously this is just an exercise, in reality one would still see it as an incomplete crime as the perpetrator did not accomplish/complete the actual crime they had in mind). In Utah...we also see similar codes Which brings to mind as though they are determined as incomplete crimes, as the actual offense is now listed under the criminal code and one can be specifically convicted of that attempt as a crime itself, is the crime the attempted crime, or is the crime the actual law they are being convicted of? Just a silly mental exercise to be the anti-authority argument here.

Religious Communism IS a form of communism. Marxism is also Communism. However Religious Communism is NOT necessarily Marxist nor Marxism. The problem most have when labeling Religious Communism and recognizing it as having been a part of the Church in the past (and one that theoretically is still on the books) is that they cannot separate the idea that Marxism or Marxist Communism is not ALL types of Communism. It is a form of communism and/or socialism practiced by many governments. The main difference that some use to differentiate the two definitions from what I see is that communism (first definition) is a more common term utilized in things such as Religious Communism (where a capital C is used only because it is part of the term, otherwise it would be communism with the little C) while Marxist Communism is normally Communism with the Capital C (as it is a proper noun). [Edit: I will note though, that today, MOST of the practiced forms of Communism on a greater scale within governments are based upon the principles of Marxism, whether it be from Stalin's ideas, to Mao's, they all stem from Marxist principles. Thus, why most will automatically assume this form of communism when seeing the word Communism. It has bad connotations due to this to many individuals and why they reject the notion of such a thing as Religious Communism). Many of those in English speaking nations is that due to the Cold War and it's effects afterwards, they automatically associate the word Communism, big or little C with Marxism. They cannot separate the two. The irony is that the two can also be seen as complete opposites. While Marxist principles of Communism reject religion and promote atheism, Religious Communism promotes religion and is the basis upon which the idea is built, while rejecting atheism. Of course, there are those who may not lump the Church in the 1800s into this arena of Religious Communism, but apply it more as the idea of Religious Socialism (of which Marxist Communism is an extension of, though with religious communism it can sometimes be questionable in how some of the groups utilized the idea in relation to the utopian ideals of the 19th century). One CANNOT equate the Law of Consecration or the United Order as a Capitalistic or even a Democratic system (at least in how it was run). The question that one needs to answer then, is what system is it. Saying it is it's own thing is NOT an answer and is avoiding the question. It needs to be a REAL world categorization (which is why we have it, and we can actually categorize these types of systems). What would you categorize it, socialism, communism or what system? We already know it is a theocracy (how it was run) but that can cover a great number of other various ideas (dictatorship, different economic systems), etc. The category I see it fall into is the religious communism though at the time it would have fallen under the idea of the religious utopian ideal which was prevalent in some parts of society during that time period. PS: Back to the original topic... Ironically, I will note, Marxism ideas can be applied to Religious communism (despite the idea that Marxism automatically denies religion in favor of atheism, which is one reason many would state that Marxism and Religious communism are opposite ideas of the same economic principles). In that line of thinking, though I have disagreed with the idea that the Kurds would have actually become a Communist type government with our continued presence as it had been undisturbed, I could see with the right allies, the right power behind them, the right influence, and the right influencers a Muslim group such as the Kurds could both have a communistic government alongside their Religion and culture. We already know that socialist governments can thrive under a dictatorial group or ruler in the Middle East, thus it is not too much of a stretch to think the same could occur with Communism to a degree. Also, if one wants to label it more as Religious Socialism or even Religious Socialism under the banner of the Utopian societies of the time, that's an area I could also agree upon and see it equally as that idea. I admit one reason I favor Religious Communism as the term is merely because I use it to point out the hypocrisy of many who try to present the Law of consecration as a capitalistic or other ridiculous notion when it was clearly NOT that in any way, or that was some democratic ideal. In fact, under Brigham Young it could be ruthlessly enforced upon individuals to a degree that is only seen in dictatorships and Communist nations today. Much of it was done out of necessity for the survival of the group that was making the colony/settlement, but it was far less than a voluntary choice except whether that individual choose to go to do that action and/or follow Brigham Young and be a member of the Church. So, yes, I do it simply to make people think more about what the Law of Consecration entails rather than shove their own modern democratic and capitalistic notions into it. Thus I am actually open to other terminology and ideas on what system it falls under. I do NOT accept the answer of "it was it's own thing" though. That's avoiding the question.

Joseph Smith would be the first Latterday prophet to do so. However, the idea of the Lord being the Firstborn is actually found in the Bible (for example Colossians 1:15), and so obviously though this idea is brought up by Joseph Smith, he was absolutely not the first person (though perhaps the first Latterday Prophet as we understand them to be) to bring up this idea. It has been around for a very long time that Jesus Christ was the only begotten of the Father AND the first born. This is particularly interesting when we consider St. Luke 3:38. In this, the scripture infers that the Lord may not have physically been the only son, but he was still the FIRST BORN son. I suppose it depends on what one defines as being qualified as the Son of God (does a son which is created out of the dust of the Earth qualify? I would say some may say so, but as such we all are as such, or can become, the Sons of God in that sense, though we are also not the only begotten nor the born in the same way the Lord was born into a mortal body directly as the physical son of his Father). I think one would find many Christians from the time of the Lord's mortal ministry to this day that would testify that Jesus Christ is the only Begotten son of his Father, that he is literally the SON of his father in the flesh as well as the spirit, and that he is also the First born of all creation, not just in creation, but also the first born of his Father as well on this Earth.

True. There are those that will still speculate...of course. If we feel Brigham Young had an understanding of the Law (meaning the Laws of Heaven) then we would accept his idea of what some may term as Blood atonement. What this entails is if one shed the blood of another, he can only be redeemed if his own blood is shed on the ground. This was one of the reasons Utah supported the Death Penalty for many years from what I understand, and the preferred method normally was one that allowed the murderer's blood to touch the ground in death. It can also be seen as one of several reasons why someone who has murdered another before they even learn about the Church and find out about the gospel may not be eligible for baptism (and needs approval from a higher authority normally than the Missionary District or Zone leader interview). If we even accept this idea, we then would also have to accept the idea that this is a Law that has been around from the beginning. It is one of the many things restored. IF, once we accept that, it would be seen that this law may be known to Adam and his descendants at the time. They would know that the ONLY way that Cain could be redeemed from first degree murder would be is if he died himself and his blood fell to the ground. This mark, then, would be a protection to Cain against any killing him, even later as a vagabond upon the earth. In addition, it could also be seen as a mark to let others who were part of the Lord's domain that they should not mix their seed, or intermarry with Cain (and possibly, Cain's seed). It was to show a difference between he who had rebelled and those who remained faithful. He was marked as a servant of another, who wholly subsumed their heart to the adversary rather than the Lord and as such was an enemy to all the Lord represented and those who followed him. Cain did not just kill Abel, he killed Abel in an attempt to thwart the Plan of Salvation. He knew that the Lord was seen to come through Abel's line of genealogy (if Abel continued), and thus by Killing Abel was attempting to stop the Lord from ever being born. It was a calculated action of physical and spiritual warfare of the most dire evil. The Lord provides a way (and backups even I imagine, if the story of Seth is any indication) and thus the plan could not be thwarted so easily, but the intent and desire was there and the heart to try to destroy this law and win the war for the adversary ruled over Cain...thus why his punishment was so dire. He COULD have repented still most likely, but as a Son of Perdition, he had no desire. He had chosen his side at that point and I feel that he was fully committed to it. However, this is the time for men to prepare to meet their maker, and as such, the mark could give him more time to repent if he should ever choose to, even though most likely he would never choose that path with how hard his heart had become and how consumed by his master the adversary he was.

A little bit more on Communism from Merriam-Webster... Which is where the problems come in. Rather than understand communism as a system where all goods are held in common, it is seen more as the political system put forth by Karl Marx, ESPECIALLY among English Speakers (and particularly in the US and the UK, though still held strongly in Canada...not quite as strong there). Other nations in many instances tend to see things slightly differently... That said The question then, which is completely unassociated with the actual topic of the thread, is whether the Church's system was socialistic, or otherwise, and if otherwise, WHAT worldly definition of government or economic system does it actually fall under (and anyone who says Capitalism does not understand capitalism and how it varies GREATLY from the Law of Consecration or the United Order). If not Religious Communism, does it fall under Religious Socialism... In particularly, Christian Socialism... Which may seem to some as more acceptable then the form of Religious or Christian Communism which is seen as... Thanks to Wikipedia which supplied many of these quotes. Once again, of course, defining WHAT is communism, WHAT is religious communism, and what is or is not socialism and religion probably VARY greatly from what this thread was about. Much of it comes down to what people term as socialism or communism and what they understand it to be. I tend to use the term Religious Communism in reference to the way things operated back then in the Church during part of Joseph Smith's years and Brigham Young's partial usage of it, but I actually understand the various reasons people may disagree with it or that idea.

The Definition is from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism You are going off the COMMUNISM as in the Marxist system. However, Communism, or communalism existed prior to Marx and was utilized in what many previously termed as Utopia or Utopian society. These were some of the inspirations behind Marx's theories, but he changed many of the concepts to the governmental system we have today. Religious Communism is DIFFERENT than COMMUNISM (something which people cannot understand apparently, as they simply see the word communism and decide it must be Marxist). Saying Religious communism and COMMUNISM are the same thing is like saying a rowboat and a Three Mast 50 cannon Sailboat are the same thing. There are similarities (they both float on water) but beyond the basic similarities, they are completely different things. Religious Communism in part is based on the New Testament and the way that Peter and the Apostles supposedly ran the economy of the Church. One story in particular shows how 'voluntary' it was when the Lord smote a few individuals dead who had hidden some of their assets from Peter in the hopes of keeping them while deceiving him. They failed. Most Religious Communism though was NOT involuntary as it appeared in the New Testament. Instead, it was voluntary, and in many cases, voluntary to those who wanted to practice such a thing in their religion. Most of the time they donated their property to the common membership which was controlled by whoever the leader was. They owned no private property of their own, it was all owned by the religion. It was given out as they needed it. At the time it was more under the idea of a Utopian ideal, rather than being considered communism as we would phrase it, but how it was handled falls completely under the communal system as per the FIRST (and normally definition 1 is the most commonly used definition) definition in the Dictionary as opposed to the second one quoted. The way the Church did it was unique in it's own way, but solidly falls under the idea that is now utilized as Religious Communism. The basic tenets are that it is based upon the same communalistic system Peter utilized in the New Testament (and the Church indeed claims it's a restoration of that system, so in particular the Church would be EVEN MORE in line to have it labeled as Religious Communism than ANY OTHER RELIGION....unless of course you deny Peter, the New Testament, and the teachings of property being consecrated to the Lord and the Church in general, in which case I'd wonder what your understanding of the Law of Consecration actually is). Second, that those who enter into this system donate ALL their property to the Church or religion and keep NONE of it for themselves as their own personal property. It is owned and controlled wholly by the Church or it's membership. Third, that this property is owned in common and is thus given out to each individual as per their needs to satisfy what they require for life, work, and the pursuit of their religious ideals. So, what is the difference today between COMMUNISM and communism as it was practiced prior to Marx...mostly that those who call themselves Communist today (religious communism is rarely called communist or communism instead having whatever name the particular religion has labeled it as instead) follow the Marxist ideas rather than other ideas. As Brittanica says... In this, we could say that though Religious communism is more of a socialistic idea, COMMUNISM today relies more on the socialism of Karl Marx rather than the idealistic ideas put forth by Peter. The main difference I see between those that accept the term Religious Communism and those that reject it is that those who accept it do NOT see Marxism as the same as Communism, nor that it envelopes the entirety of the idea of communism. On the otherhand those that reject this idea are those that can only see Communism in connection with Marxism. Thus, the disagreement could simply go down to a difference of opinion on labels rather than how the ideas actually are implemented. Interestingly enough, I don't see this really laying into the idea of Whether the Kurds want Communist governments or not, though I highly suspect that I may be one of the few that have had some interaction with the Kurds on occasion (though not regularly by any means), but at this point figure my thoughts on what they would actually implement and desire is basically not going to be considered by some on these boards. The BIG thing I think that it boiled down to when the discussion began was as long as the US had influence over them, I HIGHLY doubt the Kurds would have ever fully instituted a Communist government, though after the US withdrawal and betrayal of them (though this is expected to a degree as Kurds have always had this happen to them from various 'allies' over the years), I could see it as a slight possibility now. It depends on who gives them money, how much influence that group has on them, and how much control they have on the hearts and minds of the Kurdish people.

This is a narrow path to navigate and could be difficult to make the right choices. Temple Recommend questions have this...though recently changed... and These used to deal with groups that promoted things that were not in line with the church as well. My thoughts would be if you were supporting a Baptist Church or a Baptist Mission simply out of your own volition, that would not be in line with being a Faithful Saint. HOWEVER...as it is your daughter...I still would not feel you would be in line to simply support a Baptist Mission. ONCE AGAIN...HOWEVER...IT IS YOUR DAUGHTER and as such you have obligations to support them. This is not just financial obligations, but also with love and as a parent. Because it is your daughter, I would say you are obligated to help her in financial situations if you can help her (normally if one needs help in our church we also advise them to see if they have family that can help them prior to looking at other alternatives). If this means she has food and housing wherever she is going in the world, even if that happens to be a Mission with another church, at least you are helping to keep her fed and housed. This can also mean supporting them emotionally as a parent to a child. Many times our children do not choose what we choose, but we still love them (or hopefully we do). As we love them we may not support their choices they make, but we can still support them with love. I think it would be up to you to discuss it with her about how far and what you feel right about supporting her in life and with her choices. I think you could absolutely support her in regards to a mission financially when it comes to being able to have food and other necessities similar to what one may pay for when supporting an LDS missionary. This does not mean that you should support her buying personal tracts or other such items that promote their religion, but many mission expenses are not paying that. They are paying the necessities of life such as food, shelter, and other items. IN this, it probably depends on the church they attend and what it or they spend their resources on for the most part. Most mission funds spent are for the necessities of life or to help others in need that are on those missions. As it is YOUR CHILD, I would expect that you should help them if they are in need. This is the way I think that you can justify supporting them on their mission, not because you are supporting their mission for another church specifically, but because you are supporting your child and their needs in life. Every parent should support their child if needed, and in this I would think there should be no exception. However, make sure that you are doing it out of love and support for your child, not to support another church specifically, and I think you should be okay in the choice to support your child in another country, even if they are on a mission for another religion.

My guess would be... Latte..

Christians are all about getting that broken heart... 3 Nephi 9:19-20 If they get a broken heart due to some singer (who I admit I've never listened to), wouldn't he be doing the Lord's work?