"love The Sinner, Hate The Sin"

[cartoon bluejay]

Somehow i'm thinking you're being sarcastic Pahoran.

I agree though that most people DO feel that we can't love people unless we not only accept their choices but support those choices, and i disagree with that.

Any 'wild oat sowing' son of mine is welcome in our home WITH his girlfriend (and she would be loved like a member of the family) but that doesn't mean they would be allowed to share a bed in my home-that would depend on a few things.

I think he was being sarcastic too but I know better than to argue with Pahoran. Also, I'm considering that any son of Pahoran would know how Pahoran feels about pre-marital sex but if a son of his is brave enough to say "I have a girlfriend that I want to bring home to meet the family and BTW - we're sleeping in the same bedroom..." I think it's absolutely right that in order to show love for your son - you will accept his decision.

You said it depended on a few things - may I ask, what does it depend on?

[bluebell]

I think he was being sarcastic too but I know better than to argue with Pahoran. Also, I'm considering that any son of Pahoran would know how Pahoran feels about pre-marital sex but if a son of his is brave enough to say "I have a girlfriend that I want to bring home to meet the family and BTW - we're sleeping in the same bedroom..." I think it's absolutely right that in order to show love for your son - you will accept his decision.

What if instead of a girlfriend it was drugs that he wanted permission to use in the house? Would you still have to accept his decision to show him love?

And remember in answering, that pahoran believes that premarital sex is as damaging to his son as doing drugs would be.

You said it depended on a few things - may I ask, what does it depend on?

It would mostly depend on the age of my son and the relationship that he was in.

If he was a mature man who was in a committed relationship woman-that to me is different than some kid home from college with his girlfriend.

There are probably other things it would depend on as well as each situation and relationship is unique.

[dude]

It would mostly depend on the age of my son and the relationship that he was in.

For me it would also depend on whether there were younger siblings in the house still.

I would have no problem saying to an older son that I couldn't allow it because of the example it would show to the younger ones. If they see us waffle on the older ones, it's a silent green light for the younger ones.

[Zoidberg]

I think there is a big difference between homosexuality/premarital sex and drug use, which I have already pointed out in post #71. As for child molestation, although I believe I have already addressed that also, it involves not just your hypothetical child molesting son, but also the children he is molesting. The children are not consenting, or if they think they are, that's not really considered consent in the current legal system. So it is abuse. Besides, it's obviously illegal, as well as using drugs. Saying "I think you should stop a certain behavior because you are imposing yourself on others or because you can go to jail for that" is NOT an example of what I consider "loving the sinner, hating the sin". If someone is using drugs in your house, that jeopardizes you and YOU can go to jail, so obviously you don't have to let anyone use drugs in your house. Telling your underage kids "You can't watch R-rated movies because as your legal guardian I am appointed to act in your best interest and I deem that watching R-rated movies is not in your best interest, but as soon as you are of age, you can make your own choices" is NOT what I consider "loving the sinner, hating the sin". In the case of a son sleeping over with his girlfriend while there are younger siblings in the house, I don't see how it would be sending mixed messages to the siblings, as they are still in your custody and you can make it clear that you don't want them having sex while you are still their legal guardian. By not letting your son sleep over with his girlfriend you are not preventing him sleeping with his girlfriend per se. He has already made this decision and will continue to do so outside your house. And you have to prioritize. If you have already resolved that you accept him despite sleeping with his girlfriend, then why make life harder for him? I'm sure this situation would not arise that often if your son is living on his own.

[bluebell]

I think there is a big difference between homosexuality/premarital sex and drug use, which I have already pointed out in post #71.

etc.....

There is in a legal sense, yes, and in your beliefs, obviously-

but to really understand this issue zoidberg, you have to be able to look at it from OTHER PEOPLES perspectives and not just your own.

This thread isn't about who is right and who is wrong on their definitions of sin.

It's about learning how to take those definitions of what is sin (regardless of if they are right or not) and hold on to those morals while loving someone who disagrees with those morals.

You're too caught up in trying to explain to the posters WHY they shouldn't feel the way they do about certain choices. That's not the issue here.

The OP is not a question of deciding which morality is good and which is bad.

The issue here is 'this is how i honestly and truly feel, how can i best show my love WHILE feeling those things'?

take a step back and look at the topic from that perspective and share your feelings and thoughts about THAT.

[Zoidberg]

There is in a legal sense, yes, and in your beliefs, obviously-

but to really understand this issue zoidberg, you have to be able to look at it from OTHER PEOPLES perspectives and not just your own.

That's all I ever do. I can understand your perspective very well. You think there is such a thing as a sin and I don't think you should stop thinking that unless that's what you want.

This thread isn't about who is right and who is wrong on their definitions of sin.

I have never offered my own definition of sin, first of all. So I couldn't be arguing that my definition of sin is right if that's what you think I am doing.

It's about learning how to take those definitions of what is sin (regardless of if they are right or not) and hold on to those morals while loving someone who disagrees with those morals.

You're too caught up in trying to explain to the posters WHY they shouldn't feel the way they do about certain choices.

Well, since I think I'm the only one here (to my knowledge) who got the "love the sinner, hate the sin" treatment for something you obviously consider a good thing (joining the LDS Church), I think I am in the position to see both sides. However, I'm not saying you should feel a certain way about anything. I've never said that. I was just offering my perspective on things. If you think being gay is 100% equivalent to being a drug addict or molesting children, fine. Then this discussion is irrelevant.

The OP is not a question of deciding which morality is good and which is bad.

The issue here is 'this is how i honestly and truly feel, how can i best show my love WHILE feeling those things'?

take a step back and look at the topic from that perspective and share your feelings and thoughts about THAT.

I feel that that's the only thing I have been doing. When I say "you should differentiate between x and y", it is not addressing you, bluebell, and/or the other posters, it's hypothetical, like saying "one should differentiate between x and y". It just sounds too formal, but I can switch to doing that if it is less confusing. I have never argued that one morality is better than the other. The only thing I am 100% sure is crucial to the understanding why "love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't work is the ability to look at things from other people's perspectives. Which I feel I am doing in every post. However, you are obviously under the impression that I am only able to see things from my own perspective. I don't know what else I could say to make it more clear that I equally consider and respect all perspectives, whether or not I share them. You are asking "Why can't I love a person without telling them I hate their behavior?". I'm giving you my own experience and the way I imagine other people might perceive it (which is not my perspective, since I'm married, straight, don't use drugs or alcohol and do not molest children). If you started this thread only looking to confirm your already existing belief that it IS possible to "love the sinner, hate the sin", I can only say that I respect this position and understand why you would feel this way, but in my subjective experience it is impossible, so I will continue to adhere to that belief. However, I respect your belief and deem it as valid and worthy of existence as my own.

[bluebell]

Alright-this is an emotional topic and i think many of us here are having trouble understanding each other-

so let's change the equation a bit.

Does everyone in the discussion know about the Westboro Baptist Church?

These are the people who protest at Soldiers Funerals because they believe that the war is God's punishment on the US for homosexuality.

Now-i would imagine that all of us in this discussion dislike (maybe even hate?) the teachings of this church-perhaps if we're all on the same side of an issue, it'll be easier to discuss the topic.

So-what would you do if a loved one became a member of this church and was very vocal about the church's teachings?

How would you continue to love this person who espouse doctrines of God hating 'fags' etc. and whom might even want to speak of such things in your own home?

Do we allow them to speak of such in our homes? Do we invite their church members over for dinner to show we support them in their choice? Do we tell them we believe their decision is good and positive?

(those have all been things that people have suggested NEED to be done for loved ones who believe differently than we do-do these suggestions still sound good?)

If yes-then why?

If no-then why not?

[Zoidberg]

Alright-this is an emotional topic and i think many of us here are having trouble understanding each other-

so let's change the equation a bit.

Does everyone in the discussion know about the Westboro Baptist Church?

These are the people who protest at Soldiers Funerals because they believe that the war is God's punishment on the US for homosexuality.

Now-i would imagine that all of us in this discussion dislike (maybe even hate?) the teachings of this church-perhaps if we're all on the same side of an issue, it'll be easier to discuss the topic.

So-what would you do if a loved one became a member of this church and was very vocal about the church's teachings?

How would you continue to love this person who espouse doctrines of God hating 'fags'

I can't help remembering this awesome music video for the song entitled "God Hates a Fag" that was circulating on youtube at al. a while ago recorded by a gay comedian as a joke (which was taken awfully seriously and deleted for offensiveness from youtube and myspace).

I would allow them to speak of such as I believe in the freedom of speech. I would probably ask them to refrain from terms I consider offensive (such as "fag"), but even that I'm not sure of... I'm not really offended by sounds. If there were other family members who considered certain words offensive, I would probably side with them. Similarly, I would try to avoid using terms that would offend the Westboro Baptist family member, such as "bigot" and "hatemonger". If they were dating someone from their church and wanted to bring them over, or bring friends they've made there over, I'd let them. If I sensed they were trying to convert me, I'd politely decline and say that I already have a belief system I'm comfortable with and am currently not interested in changing it. If my newly converted family member invited me to an event at their church, I would go unless it required my participation in something I consider immoral, like anti-gay demonstrations at funerals (my family wouldn't even go to choir concerts where all they had to do is sit down and listen to me sing some generic Christian hymns that were written long before the Restoration). I definitely wouldn't stop associating with my gay family members/friends as a show of support to the Westboro Baptist and make it clear from the start. If they got involved into any illegal activities (to specify, the ones that I consider both illegal and immoral, as there are some immoral laws, IMHO), I would make my disapproval known to them. If they got involved in activities that are illegal but that I do not consider immoral, I would probably still warn them of the dangers of the legal punishment.

Although there is a very slim chance that it would actually happen, and they probably wouldn't argue that being a westboro baptist is something they were born with or they are addicted to the Westboro baptist church, I would still show them the same treatment I wanted to get from my family and didn't. If later they come to realize that their church is a pile of dung, let them figure it out on their own. That said, if they tried to argue a point without substantial evidense, or were making a flase claim, I would show them evidence that would contradict their claim. But then I do that even to people who share the vast majority of my beliefs when they are talking nonsense even if it hurts the point I would like to prove, so that's not discrimination. If my family treated me this way when I joined what they deemed a cult, I would have been beyond grateful. If my Westboro Baptist family member won't rest until they convert me to their Church - too bad for them, as it's not happening. In this case it would be them imposing their definition of morality on me.

[bluebell]

I can't help remembering this awesome music video for the song entitled "God Hates a Fag" that was circulating on youtube at al. a while ago recorded by a gay comedian as a joke (which was taken awfully seriously and deleted for offensiveness from youtube and myspace).

I would allow them to speak of such as I believe in the freedom of speech. I would probably ask them to refrain from terms I consider offensive (such as "fag"), but even that I'm not sure of... I'm not really offended by sounds. If there were other family members who considered certain words offensive, I would probably side with them. Similarly, I would try to avoid using terms that would offend the Westboro Baptist family member, such as "bigot" and "hatemonger". If they were dating someone from their church and wanted to bring them over, or bring friends they've made there over, I'd let them. If I sensed they were trying to convert me, I'd politely decline and say that I already have a belief system I'm comfortable with and am currently not interested in changing it. If my newly converted family member invited me to an event at their church, I would go unless it required my participation in something I consider immoral, like anti-gay demonstrations at funerals (my family wouldn't even go to choir concerts where all they had to do is sit down and listen to me sing some generic Christian hymns that were written long before the Restoration). I definitely wouldn't stop associating with my gay family members/friends as a show of support to the Westboro Baptist and make it clear from the start. If they got involved into any illegal activities (to specify, the ones that I consider both illegal and immoral, as there are some immoral laws, IMHO), I would make my disapproval known to them. If they got involved in activities that are illegal but that I do not consider immoral, I would probably still warn them of the dangers of the legal punishment.

Although there is a very slim chance that it would actually happen, and they probably wouldn't argue that being a westboro baptist is something they were born with or they are addicted to the Westboro baptist church, I would still show them the same treatment I wanted to get from my family and didn't. If later they come to realize that their church is a pile of dung, let them figure it out on their own. That said, if they tried to argue a point without substantial evidense, or were making a flase claim, I would show them evidence that would contradict their claim. But then I do that even to people who share the vast majority of my beliefs when they are talking nonsense even if it hurts the point I would like to prove, so that's not discrimination. If my family treated me this way when I joined what they deemed a cult, I would have been beyond grateful. If my Westboro Baptist family member won't rest until they convert me to their Church - too bad for them, as it's not happening. In this case it would be them imposing their definition of morality on me.

I agree, and would treat such a loved one the same way as you described.

I feel i could love that person while retaining my belief that belonging to such a church is not a good choice and will harm them spiritually, because i would not have to discuss such beliefs with them unless they specifically asked.

[Zoidberg]

I agree, and would treat such a loved one the same way as you described.

I feel i could love that person while retaining my belief that belonging to such a church is not a good choice and will harm them spiritually, because i would not have to discuss such beliefs with them unless they specifically asked.

I guess it would be possible, but that would be totally different from the treatment of one's gay children suggested by Elder Oaks. If something does harm them spiritually, they can't repent until they themselves realize that they have sinned. Which is why I think it's important to let them arrive at this conclusion themselves, in any case.

[bluebell]

If something does harm them spiritually, they can't repent until they themselves realize that they have sinned. Which is why I think it's important to let them arrive at this conclusion themselves, in any case.

I agree.

[cartoon bluejay]

I agree.

I volunteer at my daughter's school (too much really) but it sounds like in my absence - the issues got discussed. I wasn't ignoring anyone.

I think I'm feeling frustrated with the idea of hating the sin because I know how consuming hate can be... one of the most powerful sacrament meetings I've ever been to was one where the family talked about forgiveness and their personal struggle of forgiving that man that had brutally murdered their pregnant daughter. Yes! they hated - but ultimately in order to truly forgive they could no longer hate.

This issue has already been discussed but homosexuality and pre-marital sex can not be compared to child molestation and drug use. Yes! I would hate anyone who molested my child. I would hate it if my child or husband were to molest a child. But I also understand that if my husband or a child of mine chooses to commit such an act that my hate for the sin also translates to me hating a part of them. When I work through the hate and I'm ready to forgive - the hate is gone and I can love.

It's easy to hate the sin and I think I was using the emphasis on the word in that particular post because I'm frustrated with the idea that it's okay to hate. I don't think it is. I think it's normal and I think it's an emotion that all people feel but I don't think it's possible to completely love when there is hate in the heart also.

Anyway, I know it's all been discussed and I appreciate listening to everyone's views - it's been eye-opening.

[Pahoran]

I think he was being sarcastic too but I know better than to argue with Pahoran. Also, I'm considering that any son of Pahoran would know how Pahoran feels about pre-marital sex but if a son of his is brave enough to say "I have a girlfriend that I want to bring home to meet the family and BTW - we're sleeping in the same bedroom..." I think it's absolutely right that in order to show love for your son - you will accept his decision.

Absolutely right to abandon your moral standards as soon as someone demands that you do? Er--okay.

Has it not occurred to you that if the hypothetical son--or any other blatantly misbehaving relative--were to make such demands, they would be emotionally blackmailing you?

You seem to agree with the following chain of reasoning:

• If you don't fully condone my behaviour, you don't accept me as I am.
  
• If you don't accept me as I am, you don't love me unconditionally.
  
• If you don't love me unconditionally, then you may as well not love me at all.
  

Is that what you agree with?

Don't you realise that the person making such a claim is himself attaching a whole lot of strings to his love? It's really just a new twist on the old lie boys used to tell girls: "if you really love me, you'll prove it by going to bed with me." The answer to that is, "if you really loved me, you wouldn't try to blackmail me like that."

And a relative who says, "if you really love me, you'll jettison your moral standards to accommodate my wishes" is making a similar selfish demand. The proper response is, "if you really loved me, you wouldn't try to blackmail me like that."

A perfect parallel to the chain of reasoning described above would be:

• If you don't fully embrace my moral standards, you don't accept me as I am.
  
• If you don't accept me as I am, you don't love me unconditionally.
  
• If you don't love me unconditionally, then you may as well not love me at all.
  

But that is not the argument that the Gospel recommends that Latter-day Saints use with their misbehaving loved ones. Rather, it would be something like this:

• If your love is conditional upon my abandoning my moral standards upon your demand, then you don't love me unconditionally.
  
• If you don't love me unconditionally, then you have no business demanding that I love you unconditionally.
  

Now if you think keeping your kids happy is more important than having some backbone yourself, then that is your choice. Speaking only for myself, if I have to choose between being loved for being permissive and being respected for having some vertebrae, I'll go with the respect.

Somehow in the end I don't believe that pushover parents are really loved any more than those with moral fibre.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I like that.

And yes! I would be devastated if my child were to become a prostitute or a porn star. However, I've always felt that if there is a ever a time that my child feels like they can't come home - I've failed as a parent. So I think it sometimes it is better to swallow our own pride or belief systems and accept and love.

But something else you said may me think - Christs love is a perfect love and I believe he accepts the sinner and the sin through His atoning sacrifice. If we are to become Christ-like - does that mean we too need to accept the sin? Just a thought.

No.

And it is false doctrine that Jesus "accepts the sinner and the sin through His atoning sacrifice." Jesus does not--cannot--look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, because he is perfect. Jesus atoned for our sins precisely so that we could be forgiven, and thus come into his presence, leaving our sins behind.

Jesus did not say to the woman taken in adultery, "everything's cool and I love you unconditionally," he said, "go and sin no more."

So maybe if we are to become Christ-like, we too need to emphatically reject the sin by saying "go and sin no more" to those whom we love.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zoidberg]

No.

And it is false doctrine that Jesus "accepts the sinner and the sin through His atoning sacrifice." Jesus does not--cannot--look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, because he is perfect. Jesus atoned for our sins precisely so that we could be forgiven, and thus come into his presence, leaving our sins behind.

Jesus did not say to the woman taken in adultery, "everything's cool and I love you unconditionally," he said, "go and sin no more."

So maybe if we are to become Christ-like, we too need to emphatically reject the sin by saying "go and sin no more" to those whom we love.

Regards,

Pahoran

I guess you really liked that talk by Elder Nelson where he argued that God's love is not unconditional. I especially liked this bit: "Why is divine love conditional? Because God loves us and wants us to be happy." Yes. That makes sense. He loves us, therefore he loves us if we are good. Duh! That doesn't mean he doesn't love us if we're bad.

[Pahoran]

I guess you really liked that talk by Elder Nelson where he argued that God's love is not unconditional. I especially liked this bit: "Why is divine love conditional? Because God loves us and wants us to be happy." Yes. That makes sense. He loves us, therefore he loves us if we are good. Duh! That doesn't mean he doesn't love us if we're bad.

Adding Elder Nelson to Elder Oaks, so far that's two of the Lord's apostles you've sneered at from the heights of your undemonstrated superiority today. Given Elder Nelson's unquestioned intellect, if you have to respond with a "duh!" then maybe there's something you don't get.

I wonder who the Latter-day Saints should look to for leadership: Zoidberg--or the Lord's apostles? Zoidberg--or the Lord's apostles?

What a dilemma!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zoidberg]

Adding Elder Nelson to Elder Oaks, so far that's two of the Lord's apostles you've sneered at from the heights of your undemonstrated superiority today. Given Elder Nelson's unquestioned intellect, if you have to respond with a "duh!" then maybe there's something you don't get.

I wonder who the Latter-day Saints should look to for leadership: Zoidberg--or the Lord's apostles? Zoidberg--or the Lord's apostles?

What a dilemma!

Regards,

Pahoran

Why are you resorting to personal attacks? I'm not sneering at anybody, questioning their intellect, or attributing ideas they have not expressed to them (all of which you are doing to me, BTW). I have not offered anyone to make me their leader). I am quite ready to admit I DON'T get Elder Nelson's talk on divine love, but that's just what it sounded like. He wasn't saying God ONLY loves us when we are good. So I didn't really see any substance to it. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

As per your other post, not all "sinners" demand that we agree with them 100% or use manipulation techniques. I would hesitate to say that only manipulative people were the subject of this discussion.

[Pahoran]

I guess you really liked that talk by Elder Nelson where he argued that God's love is not unconditional. I especially liked this bit: "Why is divine love conditional? Because God loves us and wants us to be happy." Yes. That makes sense. He loves us, therefore he loves us if we are good. Duh! That doesn't mean he doesn't love us if we're bad.

Doesn't the above simply drip with sarcasm?

Or are you telling us that you really did "love this bit?" The one you said "Duh!" about?

Forty-seven minutes later:

Why are you resorting to personal attacks? I'm not sneering at anybody, questioning their intellect, or attributing ideas they have not expressed to them (all of which you are doing to me, BTW).

I love the innocent "who me" act. It's just so refreshing.

What idea did I attribute to you that you have not expressed?

I have not offered anyone to make me their leader).

So you try to undermine the confidence of the Saints in their inspired leaders, but you have absolutely no thought that anyone convinced by your sneers (yes sneers, regardless of your denial) might then look to you for guidance on these issues?

Really?

I am quite ready to admit I DON'T get Elder Nelson's talk on divine love, but that's just what it sounded like. He wasn't saying God ONLY loves us when we are good. So I didn't really see any substance to it. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I fail to see that it is on-topic for this thread. I did not reference it or even have it in mind when I posted. You brought it up entirely out of left field, and I have no interest in chasing that particular red herring anywhere.

For the record, before Elder Nelson gave his talk, I had already noticed that the scriptures nowhere attribute "unconditional love" to God. That is a concept that is probably incoherent, but is still cherished these days as a "value" of sorts in the dominant culture of the decadent West.

As per your other post, not all "sinners" demand that we agree with them 100% or use manipulation techniques. I would hesitate to say that only manipulative people were the subject of this discussion.

Then those who don't make such demands wouldn't really object or feel unloved, would they?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cartoon bluejay]

Absolutely right to abandon your moral standards as soon as someone demands that you do? Er--okay.

Has it not occurred to you that if the hypothetical son--or any other blatantly misbehaving relative--were to make such demands, they would be emotionally blackmailing you?

Well - unconditional love vs. conditional love - that's another thread...

I think the reason I started getting frustrated with this thread and it began to show in my posts â?? is this --- There is a question posed and people with many different perspectives offer their opinions and thatâ??s what they are â?? they are opinions. People need to do what works best for them. I offer my opinion about why I donâ??t think the phrase â??love the sinner- hate the sinâ? works. Iâ??m not asking anyone to agree with me but maybe take a look at my view and consider it. Iâ??ve considered many of the things that Bluebell has offered. Iâ??m not saying it hasnâ??t been visa versa but there was a moment that I felt like it wasnâ??t so then Iâ??m thinking â?? why pose the question? If you already have an answer and youâ??re not looking for deeper understanding or another way to look at it â?? why pose the question? Iâ??m all for misunderstandings in communication and working it out but Iâ??m not okay with a shut down approach to communication or relationships.

I feel like I have moral fibre. My moral fibre is different than yours but probably not by much. Iâ??m not saying let go of your moral standards as a parent â?? allowing your children to make their choices and live with the consequences is not lowering your own standards. Having honest conversations with your children about sex and educating them about the implications of pre-marital sex and stating your concerns and your moral beliefs â?? in my mind is expected. Every parent should clearly state their moral beliefs. I do all the time â?? I talk to my 16 yr old constantly about the possible consequences of pre-marital sex. What he does after that â?? I canâ??t control. And no - at 16 I would never allow him to have sleepovers with girls. But at 25 â?? Iâ??d rather he felt like he could bring a girl home than keep such an important part of life a secret from me. Iâ??ve already told him how I feel. I donâ??t think he should have sex before marriage but I donâ??t want my opinion to interfere from me accepting him into my home.

I can see what youâ??re saying about the emotional blackmail that could possibly be used by this hypothetical son but â?? I think children try to emotionally blackmail their parents when they themselves have been emotionally blackmailed. Putting conditions on your children can lead to them putting conditions on you.

BTW, I believe my children do respect me. I respect them too and their opinions and their agency. Itâ??s not about what parenting style is the best â?? you do what you do because it works for you. And I can learn from your experiencesâ?¦ then I do what works best for me.

[Pahoran]

Well - unconditional love vs. conditional love - that's another thread...

I think the reason I started getting frustrated with this thread and it began to show in my posts â?? is this --- There is a question posed and people with many different perspectives offer their opinions and thatâ??s what they are â?? they are opinions. People need to do what works best for them. I offer my opinion about why I donâ??t think the phrase â??love the sinner- hate the sinâ? works. Iâ??m not asking anyone to agree with me but maybe take a look at my view and consider it. Iâ??ve considered many of the things that Bluebell has offered. Iâ??m not saying it hasnâ??t been visa versa but there was a moment that I felt like it wasnâ??t so then Iâ??m thinking â?? why pose the question? If you already have an answer and youâ??re not looking for deeper understanding or another way to look at it â?? why pose the question? Iâ??m all for misunderstandings in communication and working it out but Iâ??m not okay with a shut down approach to communication or relationships.

I feel like I have moral fibre. My moral fibre is different than yours but probably not by much. Iâ??m not saying let go of your moral standards as a parent â?? allowing your children to make their choices and live with the consequences is not lowering your own standards. Having honest conversations with your children about sex and educating them about the implications of pre-marital sex and stating your concerns and your moral beliefs â?? in my mind is expected. Every parent should clearly state their moral beliefs. I do all the time â?? I talk to my 16 yr old constantly about the possible consequences of pre-marital sex. What he does after that â?? I canâ??t control. And no - at 16 I would never allow him to have sleepovers with girls. But at 25 â?? Iâ??d rather he felt like he could bring a girl home than keep such an important part of life a secret from me. Iâ??ve already told him how I feel. I donâ??t think he should have sex before marriage but I donâ??t want my opinion to interfere from me accepting him into my home.

I can see what youâ??re saying about the emotional blackmail that could possibly be used by this hypothetical son but â?? I think children try to emotionally blackmail their parents when they themselves have been emotionally blackmailed. Putting conditions on your children can lead to them putting conditions on you.

Well there you are. I think children will constantly try to test the boundaries. They become experts at trying to get their way by appealing Mother's decision to Father and vice versa. They plead and they wheedle and they bargain and they try to play their parents off against each other--and that is when they are still pre-teens.

I know a family quite well that lives near me who have a grown daughter who is living in what used to be called "sin." (That was back in the day, when the "f" word was naughty, and the "s" word was not. They seem to have swapped over at about the same time.) The daughter lives out of town. Not long ago, she came back, with her boyfriend, for some family event or other. She and the boyfriend did not stay with the parents. I happen to know that the four of them went out together and ate dinner together, both in company with other family members and not, but they did not stay in the same house.

You see, that family do indeed accept their daughter. Wholeheartedly and completely. However, accepting her doesn't automatically mean that they have to accept her having sex outside of marriage. I know that they would be happy to accept her into their home--because they did--but they don't have to accept her having premarital sex in their home. I met the boyfriend myself. I found him quite a likeable fellow. Given that the girl is not active in the Church, I think she could do a lot worse than to marry him, at which time I would expect that the spare room would become available for them to stay in.

The interesting bit was that I detected no tension between the parents and the daughter about this. From what I understand, she simply accepted it as a given that she wouldn't be able to bring her boyfriend to the house to stay, so they made other arrangements. She respected her parents' standards enough to not try to impose her choices upon them. I don't know how they would have handled it had she tried, but I think they would be competent enough to handle the situation in such a way that she would know that they loved her no less for asking something she should not have asked.

BTW, I believe my children do respect me. I respect them too and their opinions and their agency. Itâ??s not about what parenting style is the best â?? you do what you do because it works for you. And I can learn from your experiencesâ?¦ then I do what works best for me.

Doing what is best for your children may not always mean following the path of least resistance. In fact, it almost never does. I hope your children do respect you. However, should it be the case that they think you're a bit of a mug for being such a pushover, they are unlikely to tell you that. Children who have thus learned to get their way generally know which side their bread is buttered. But I would hate to hear that you had made a policy of giving way on hard moral choices, only to subsequently learn that your children didn't feel that they could trust you in a crisis because you hadn't held to your beliefs when it came to the crunch.

If you have moral standards, and you really mean them, then you should take them as applying, "as for me and my house." Anything less looks weak.

And there's a reason for that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zoidberg]

Well - unconditional love vs. conditional love - that's another thread...

I think the reason I started getting frustrated with this thread and it began to show in my posts

I can assure you that it didn't (honest). You seem to be really nice in all your posts - unlike Pahoran and me, who are just dripping with poisonous sarcasm (have you ever watched Daria, Pahoran?)

Pahoran, I'm sorry for making the assumption your got your idea about God's conditional love out of Elder Nelson's talk. Yes, I was being sarcastic. However, it was not a personal attack on either you or him. We have talked in this thread about thinking of the sinner independently of their sin. While it remains arguable that it is possible, I believe it is possible to talk about what someone might have said without it being interpreted as a personal attack on them. You clearly don't make this distinction. We can just agree to disagree.

I also think your "you don't love me unconditionally so I don't have to love you unconditionally" attitude is not derived from the Gospel. It is derived from Mosaic law ("an eye for an eye") which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

[cartoon bluejay]

But I would hate to hear that you had made a policy of giving way on hard moral choices, only to subsequently learn that your children didn't feel that they could trust you in a crisis because you hadn't held to your beliefs when it came to the crunch.

Backatcha. I would hate to hear that you had made a policy about your moral standards, only to subsequently learn that your children didn't feel they could trust you in a crisis because you put your beliefs between you and your relationship with them when it came to the crunch.

[Pahoran]

Backatcha. I would hate to hear that you had made a policy about your moral standards, only to subsequently learn that your children didn't feel they could trust you in a crisis because you put your beliefs between you and your relationship with them when it came to the crunch.

I have every reason to expect that, if a crisis really did come, my children would know that they could trust me to stick by them through thick and thin precisely because I didn't let them persuade me to compromise on a question of principle.

Love can survive large doses of "vitamin N," but respect once lost is a very difficult to regain.

In case you are wondering, "vitamin N" means the terrible word "no." More children need to hear it more often. "Pushover parenting" is a comprehensively failed strategy.

And besides, as a person of integrity, my beliefs are not fully encapsulated, readily detachable modules that can be separated from my decision making process anyhow.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cartoon bluejay]

I have every reason to expect that, if a crisis really did come, my children would know that they could trust me to stick by them through thick and thin precisely because I didn't let them persuade me to compromise on a question of principle.

Love can survive large doses of "vitamin N," but respect once lost is a very difficult to regain.

In case you are wondering, "vitamin N" means the terrible word "no." More children need to hear it more often. "Pushover parenting" is a comprehensively failed strategy.

And besides, as a person of integrity, my beliefs are not fully encapsulated, readily detachable modules that can be separated from my decision making process anyhow.

Regards,

Pahoran

I love how you use your words so that you can't quite be accused of personal attacks or making assumptions about other posters. You do that very well. Just so you know, this is a sincere compliment. Should I count up how many times I've said no today? I have 4 yr. old twins - I couldn't survive without the word NO - but thanks for the advice!

[Pahoran]

I love how you use your words so that you can't quite be accused of personal attacks or making assumptions about other posters. You do that very well. Just so you know, this is a sincere compliment.

Believe me CB, if I wanted to attack you, you'd know you'd been attacked. I do that well too, as both Hick Preacher and Rocmonkey have recently learned the hard way.

Should I count up how many times I've said no today? I have 4 yr. old twins - I couldn't survive without the word NO - but thanks for the advice!

Congratulations; mine are both 11.

And I'm glad to know that your practice exceeds your preaching instead of the other way around.

Two last points that parents of twins should always know:

1) They can smell fear and communicate non-verbally to co-ordinate their strategy.

2) Even so, they usually won't attack as long as you maintain eye contact.

Regards,

Pahoran