Non-LDS families

[Balzer]

BCSpace said this on another thread: "Brings up a question in my mind of how valuable a family relationship is to God if said family is not LDS? Matthew 10:34-39 seems to indicate not very. I don't think we should intentionally go out to break up a family, but as a Church, are we perhaps too sensitive when it comes to conversion strife in families or are we just right? What do you think?"

I was so blown away by this that I decided to make it the subject of a thread in hopes that BC or someone else might explain. Is this really how LDS view non-LDS families? Is this really how LDS interpret that section of Matthew?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[frankenstein]

complete and utter non-sense that matthew 10 would only apply to non-lds.

also, bcspace does not speak for the LDS, when someone seems to put forth LDS doctrine ask for the reference.

[Yirgacheffe]

complete and utter non-sense that matthew 10 would only apply to non-lds.

also, bcspace does not speak for the LDS, when someone seems to put forth LDS doctrine ask for the reference.

I don't think Balzer was saying it was "doctrine" it seems to me he was asking if LDS people held non member families in low esteem.

[BCSpace]

What I was thinking about at the moment was the intensity I often see in LDS missionaries and gung-ho ward mission leaders to baptize 9 year olds and above when, even though they have the permission of the parents, they don't really have any support such as being driven to Church and Young Men/Young Women, etc. And of course such parental permission is often lacking because it's not an "active" permission.

The misssionaries and WML's often counter with the notion that if you baptise them, they have a chance of becomming active later in life, however small. Frankly, I disagree with the practice in most cases.

So I essentially proposed a possible basis for doing such a thing. I have to agree with the scripture that the Gospel is more important than the family. But I have to disagree that the small chance of such people being active later in life is worth it. I think more people are damned than saved with an unprepared/unsupportted baptism.

Perhaps how I've expressed it is a little awkward, and I see that I've not really made the connection between young convert baptisms and breaking up the family, but that is how I feel about it currently.

Perhaps that's why I left the question open ended without actually giving my opinion at the time.

[Balzer]

What I was thinking about at the moment was the intensity I often see in LDS missionaries and gung-ho ward mission leaders to baptize 9 year olds and above when, even though they have the permission of the parents, they don't really have any support such as being driven to Church and Young Men/Young Women, etc. And of course such parental permission is often lacking because it's not an "active" permission.

The misssionaries and WML's often counter with the notion that if you baptise them, they have a chance of becomming active later in life, however small. Frankly, I disagree with the practice in most cases.

So I essentially proposed a possible basis for doing such a thing. I have to agree with the scripture that the Gospel is more important than the family. But I have to disagree that the small chance of such people being active later in life is worth it. I think more people are damned than saved with an unprepared/unsupportted baptism.

Perhaps how I've expressed it is a little awkward, and I see that I've not really made the connection between young convert baptisms and breaking up the family, but that is how I feel about it currently.

Perhaps that's why I left the question open ended without actually giving my opinion at the time.

Thanks for the response. With all due respect, allthough your comment was posed in the form of a question, you did in fact argue that Matthew 10:34-39 says that the non-LDS family relationship is not important to God. Is this your own personal interpretation or can you provide any sort of reference for this statement? I'm not trying to give you a hard time BC, just want to try to understand.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Deborah]

Perhaps how I've expressed it is a little awkward, and I see that I've not really made the connection between young convert baptisms and breaking up the family, but that is how I feel about it currently.

Your experience then is very limited.

I was baptized at age 14 with very reluctant parental permission. My LDS friend's family saw to it that I got to church. I was very active because of them. It took several years but eventually all my family members joined the church and all but one sister went through the temple. They now have kids who've been on missions and who have been through the temple and those kids have kids who are growing up in the church.

I had many friends converted early and remained active and often whose families joined. I have seen inactive families reactivated by a Primary child whose neighbors made sure they got the child to Primary.

Yes, a young person who joins the church may depend on other families to "adopt" them and make sure they get to their meetings, but can you imagine the effect that has on the child's family to see other people care.

[Deborah]

Both 1 Corinthians 7 and D&C 74 say this: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

So why not the unbelieving parents being sanctified by the child?

All families are of greatest importance and I don't think Matthew 10 has anything to do with child converts. I think it is talking about grown-ups who have a testimony but choose family over the church when it comes to obedience. But a child who has the support of the ward family can make a bridge that might not otherwise be there.

[LDS Guy 1986]

BCSpace said this on another thread: "Brings up a question in my mind of how valuable a family relationship is to God if said family is not LDS? Matthew 10:34-39 seems to indicate not very. I don't think we should intentionally go out to break up a family, but as a Church, are we perhaps too sensitive when it comes to conversion strife in families or are we just right? What do you think?"

I was so blown away by this that I decided to make it the subject of a thread in hopes that BC or someone else might explain. Is this really how LDS view non-LDS families? Is this really how LDS interpret that section of Matthew?

Respectfully,

Balzer

This quote has nothing to do with how LDS sees non LDS families, it has to do with non LDS families are not sealed in heaven so they are not seen a family unit in heaven.

As LDS we love all, but that doesn't mean that those who are not sealed by the proper priesthood authority are not seen as a family in a spiritual sense. Remember that without the proper priesthood authority nothing can be sealed for eternity, all unions are till death do we part. Those who died without a knowledge of the Restored Gospel can receive this knowledge in the spirit world and have there ordinances performed by proxy, but God only recognizes things done in the proper manner through his priesthood.

"Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion." (D&C 132)

I agree that his position that God doesn't care about non LDS families is completely wrong, but he reaches that position by misinterpreting our doctrine IMO.

[BCSpace]

Thanks for the response. With all due respect, allthough your comment was posed in the form of a question, you did in fact argue that Matthew 10:34-39 says that the non-LDS family relationship is not important to God. Is this your own personal interpretation or can you provide any sort of reference for this statement? I'm not trying to give you a hard time BC, just want to try to understand.

That's okay. I don't see any way around the Matthew 10 teaching that the Gospel is more important than family which by implication shows that God places less value on a nonLDS family unit than an LDS one which is ostensibly sealed as an enternal unit and where the correct doctrines are taught. LDS doctrine, which by definition is the Church's interpretation of scripture, seems to agree:

(11-6) Matthew 10:38, 39 . How Can You Save Your Life by Losing It?

[Deborah]

That's okay. I don't see any way around the Matthew 10 teaching that the Gospel is more important than family which by implication shows that God places less value on a nonLDS family unit than an LDS one

How can you say that. Why do you think the church's primary goal is to bring in whole families? The church knows the value of all families in the eyes of the Lord.

We have a family who has just recently moved in.

you gave one example and not even one that fits the parameters of a child being baptized in a non-member family. The issue of an embittered ex-member is a different matter. I also think you are mistaking the efforts of missionaries and how far they should go with the fact that families, even when broken can be restored to the church. The missionaries may back off but God won't and I've seen individuals from these types of families come back to the church, maybe not for years but they do come back. Are you saying God doesn't care about these individuals because their parents messed up?

And frankly if I had a husband who was so controlling he wouldn't last very long, especially if I already had kids from another marriage who were at stake.

[BCSpace]

That's okay. I don't see any way around the Matthew 10 teaching that the Gospel is more important than family which by implication shows that God places less value on a nonLDS family unit than an LDS one

How can you say that.

Because there is no other interpretation of the scripture. It's too plain andthe CHurch seems to recognize that

Why do you think the church's primary goal is to bring in whole families? The church knows the value of all families in the eyes of the Lord.

Nothing I said does away with that goal. But the fact remains we do go after invidiuals too, and quite often, even if the rest of their family is not interested.

you gave one example and not even one that fits the parameters of a child being baptized in a non-member family.

I gave an example that occurs quite, if not most, often. The roles are full of inactive familes with unbaptized children.

The missionaries may back off but God won't and I've seen individuals from these types of families come back to the church, maybe not for years but they do come back.

They do. But how many more people don't and end up hardened against the Church?

Are you saying God doesn't care about these individuals because their parents messed up?

I'm wondering to what extent Matthew 10 takes us since it's obvious that God will take the converted individual over the unconverted family.

And frankly if I had a husband who was so controlling he wouldn't last very long, especially if I already had kids from another marriage who were at stake.

So you believe divorce is the prescription here? I might actually agree with that.

[Balzer]

That's okay. I don't see any way around the Matthew 10 teaching that the Gospel is more important than family which by implication shows that God places less value on a nonLDS family unit than an LDS one which is ostensibly sealed as an enternal unit and where the correct doctrines are taught. LDS doctrine, which by definition is the Church's interpretation of scripture, seems to agree:

I agree that Christ was trying to teach us that He is more important than anything/anyone else, but you lose me when you say that this somehow implies that God places less value on a non-LDS family. How does that work exactly? I also don't get how you come to the conclusion that your church agrees by reference to the noted comment. Seriously, is this just something you came up with on your own, or is it derived of something you learned in the LDS church? When it says that "all who seek eternal life are required to come to Christ willing to give up all that they possess" do you suppose that would include your church?

Respectfully,

Balzer