Withholding Inheritance From "unworthy" Children?

[KevinG]

I'm busy consecrating everything I have to my children while they are alive.  They have been remarkably faithful to our family values and belief system.  

 

No threats of withholding current or future substance necessary.

[Tacenda]

I won't ever go by worthiness in the gospel/church when leaving money or helping my children with money.  Most of my children are inactive, but being active says nearly nothing.  Many go to please their folks or to stay in the will.  I want authenticity in my children.  I see the good they do outside of the church.  And maybe their good isn't someone else's good.  We're all doing the best we can.  Someone's good can be in measurement according to their capabilities.  The idea of  Reed Mellor, which is my relative apparently, of a child being a Melchizedek holder and that being a measurement is not my measurement.  The idea that the church has put this video out is shocking.  I'm sure my in laws got a whiff of this.  But it does say in the temple ceremony that we are to sacrifice everything for the building up of the kingdom, which is also where they got it, more than likely.  

 

I kind of feel sorry for their boys in the video.  It's like holding up a carrot stick, as others have said.  Makes service not quite as legit or from the heart, if their parents are doing that.  Of course as mentioned in the video, they liken it to what Heavenly Father does also.  So I'm sure my words here are totally off base to most TBM out there. 

 

My in laws sacrificed a lot to the church, they served in the temple on a weekly basis, they got the message loud and clear.  They've put their money in a church trust, which is fine but to some of their boys that worked in a family business for years and were holding out for compensation in the end for sticking it out for lower pay etc.  This didn't sit very well.  Who knows, maybe my husband and I will be kicked out of the will entirely because of our lack of a current temple recommend.  It doesn't matter to me, but kind of does something to my husband as far as tithing goes. 

 

Kind of a rant here, sorry.       

[ERayR]

My kids have all expressed a concern about being in my will.  They tell me they just do not want a share of my left over bills.

[Tacenda]

My kids have all expressed a concern about being in my will.  They tell me they just do not want a share of my left over bills.

Oh, this is good!  You're a character!!  . 

 

Actually it's a lot easier when your parents don't have a big estate....kids don't fight over it, or they certainly shouldn't.  Maybe that's one reason my in laws didn't want to leave the bulk, if there is any, but give to the church.  I liked that my folks didn't leave anything other than a small amount from a life insurance.  I can see how it can mess with siblings and their relationships.  The only good I see is if it helps the grandchildren with college or something.  Or maybe just help those get a leg up. 

[cinepro]

I actually plan on leaving more of my estate to any wayward children, since this life may be all the time they have to live it up before an eternity of dreary Telestiality, whereupon they will always remember how their time on Earth was slightly better because of what I could give them. 

 

The good kids won't need it because they'll just have a short time to go before an eternity of Celestial glory, at which point anything I might have given them will look like a paltry irrelevance.

[Sanpitch]

Ignoring the worthy projects for now and just considering an inheritance, I listened to the video with closed caption on (words on the screen) and he does say that if his kids are not worthy priesthood holders and temple worthy, the entire inheritance would go to the church.  Would anyone that agrees with father feel different if the father was a devoted catholic and wanted the kids to become a catholic nun and priests but the kids could not accept that and were converted to the LDS faith? So all of his inheritance went to the Catholic faith? 

[cinepro]

Ignoring the worthy projects for now and just considering an inheritance, I listened to the video with closed caption on (words on the screen) and he does say that if his kids are not worthy priesthood holders and temple worthy, the entire inheritance would go to the church.  Would anyone that agrees with father feel different if the father was a devoted catholic and wanted the kids to become a catholic nun and priests but the kids could not accept that and were converted to the LDS faith? So all of his inheritance went to the Catholic faith? 

 

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the concept of making an inheritance contingent on Church loyalty, or good grades, or good behavior, or prudent fiscal habits, or proper political leanings, or whatever.  Sure, it might be a jerk move, but if someone wants to be a jerk, so be it. 

 

The real problem I have is that the idea came from Ron Black at LDS Philanthropies.  It just has the appearance of being so self serving that I can't believe anyone could even say it with a straight face.  "Hey, did you know that the Church has a program where if your kids aren't strong in the Church, you can give the Church all your money instead of it going to them?"

 

I know the intent and principles behind it are probably very sincere, but at some point you just have to acknowledge that it looks really, really bad.  The lack of self-awareness is what is really surprising.

Edited September 9, 2015 by cinepro

[Calm]

Did Ron Black actually speak on the video or was that just the report...I looked at the video at the suggested time only so don't know.

 

Given that it was a video put out by his department (right?), I am not saying he didn't suggest it or didn't approve of himself being quoted that way, but am wondering if there might have been additional counsel that wasn't shared on the video itself.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Calm

[Gray]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the concept of making an inheritance contingent on Church loyalty, or good grades, or good behavior, or prudent fiscal habits, or proper political leanings, or whatever.  Sure, it might be a jerk move, but if someone wants to be a jerk, so be it. 

 

The real problem I have is that the idea came from Ron Black at LDS Philanthropies.  It just has the appearance of being so self serving that I can't believe anyone could even say it with a straight face.  "Hey, did you know that the Church has a program where if your kids aren't strong in the Church, you can give the Church all your money instead of it going to them?"

 

I know the intent and principles behind it are probably very sincere, but at some point you just have to acknowledge that it looks really, really bad.  The lack of self-awareness is what is really surprising.

 

Yes, it was a really unfortunate message. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archbishop#Plot

Edited September 9, 2015 by Gray

[Five Solas]

I wonder if the rank & file LDS (the ones who regularly participate in church functions on Sundays, not necessarily the same ones found on internet boards) would view the patriarch in this film as their ideal--someone they wish they could emulate (or wish that their sons would emulate, or their husbands). 

 

From the standpoint of the LDS religion, he appears to check the important boxes:  Devoted to the LDS Church, its temple, its standards and its interpretation of Melchizedek priesthood.  He commits bold acts of service, pushing the Pontiac Sunfire, helping out Mexicans.  And of course, he's a devoted family man (so long as they stay true to his first devotion).

 

He checks important cultural boxes for LDS too (at least the ones in Utah and nearby states).  As ludicrous as his tricked-out, spare-no-option pickup truck is to me, I'm sure my LDS nephews would think it was "the bomb" (the post 1997 meaning of that expression).  And of course he's rich (or at least puts on a good show), reward for his worthiness.  

 

Any thoughts on how the rank & file might react to the film?  Obviously it's gotten a somewhat mixed reception here. 

 

--Erik

 

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder if the rank & file LDS (the ones who regularly participate in church functions on Sundays, not necessarily the same ones found on internet boards) would view the patriarch in this film as their ideal--someone they wish they could emulate (or wish that their sons would emulate, or their husbands). 

 

From the standpoint of the LDS religion, he appears to check the important boxes:  Devoted to the LDS Church, its temple, its standards and its interpretation of Melchizedek priesthood.  He commits bold acts of service, pushing the Pontiac Sunfire, helping out Mexicans.  And of course, he's a devoted family man (so long as they stay true to his first devotion).

 

He checks important cultural boxes for LDS too (at least the ones in Utah and nearby states).  As ludicrous as his tricked-out, spare-no-option pickup truck is to me, I'm sure my LDS nephews would think it was "the bomb" (the post 1997 meaning of that expression).  And of course he's rich (or at least puts on a good show), reward for his worthiness.  

 

Any thoughts on how the rank & file might react to the film?  Obviously it's gotten a somewhat mixed reception here. 

 

--Erik

 

So you come onto a internet discussion board, but won't accept any of the answers you get there.

 

I don't believe he handled it well, but we are all human.

 

However your condemning all Priesthood holding fathers for an inartful presentation is hyperbole at best. After all it was Jesus whom said in Matthew 10;37-39 "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it".

[KevinG]

Chapel Mormons (rank and file) and Internet Mormons (posters here) are a fictional division created by a rather vocal conspiracy theorist.  I'm not sure there is much of a divide outside of the radical few who believe web surfing is evil, and those who think the interwebz are the font of all truth.  If someone has a real sociological study on the difference between the "average" Mormon and those who frequent discussion boards I've yet to see it.

 

So assuming that we're just a bit weird here, and not completely out to lunch...  The rank and file will probably react much like the sample we have here on MD&D.

 

I'd personally be mortified if my children ever suspected I would withhold resources over their expression of faith. 

[Ahab]

There's a good movie called 'The Ultimate Gift' that gives some good food for thought.

The best gift is the gift of Charity and if parents or grandparents can give that gift to their children it won't be selfishly wasted.

[Five Solas]

...

However your condemning all Priesthood holding fathers for an inartful presentation is hyperbole at best.

...

A very curious post, sometimesaint.  In my previous post I asked participants on this forum what they suppose the reaction of rank & file LDS would be to the film.  How did you arrive at the conclusion my query condemns anyone?  I certainly didn't write anything like that--nor did I imply it.  Earlier I expressed my appreciation for my own father (who is an LDS High Priest) for having the humility and the grace not to disinherit his children (myself included) who have left the LDS Church. 

 

Kindly explain yourself. 

 

--Erik

[Stargazer]

I won't ever go by worthiness in the gospel/church when leaving money or helping my children with money.  Most of my children are inactive, but being active says nearly nothing.  Many go to please their folks or to stay in the will.  I want authenticity in my children.  I see the good they do outside of the church.  And maybe their good isn't someone else's good.  We're all doing the best we can.  Someone's good can be in measurement according to their capabilities.  The idea of  Reed Mellor, which is my relative apparently, of a child being a Melchizedek holder and that being a measurement is not my measurement.  The idea that the church has put this video out is shocking.  I'm sure my in laws got a whiff of this.  But it does say in the temple ceremony that we are to sacrifice everything for the building up of the kingdom, which is also where they got it, more than likely.  

 

I kind of feel sorry for their boys in the video.  It's like holding up a carrot stick, as others have said.  Makes service not quite as legit or from the heart, if their parents are doing that.  Of course as mentioned in the video, they liken it to what Heavenly Father does also.  So I'm sure my words here are totally off base to most TBM out there. 

 

My in laws sacrificed a lot to the church, they served in the temple on a weekly basis, they got the message loud and clear.  They've put their money in a church trust, which is fine but to some of their boys that worked in a family business for years and were holding out for compensation in the end for sticking it out for lower pay etc.  This didn't sit very well.  Who knows, maybe my husband and I will be kicked out of the will entirely because of our lack of a current temple recommend.  It doesn't matter to me, but kind of does something to my husband as far as tithing goes. 

 

Kind of a rant here, sorry.       

 

One occasionally hears of very wealthy parents who, instead of leaving sizable inheritances to their children, choose to make their children earn their own way.  This, in my opinion, is the best way to go, not to turn your children into trust-fund snobs.  I believe that George Romney did that for his children -- I suppose he might have paid for Mitt's mission to France and possibly his BYU education, but Mitt's current wealth is a result of his own work, not inherited from his father.  Donald Trump is an opposite example I believe, since I believe that his father bequeathed him something like $400 million.  These two examples explain something, though I will avoid saying what.

[Tacenda]

One occasionally hears of very wealthy parents who, instead of leaving sizable inheritances to their children, choose to make their children earn their own way. This, in my opinion, is the best way to go, not to turn your children into trust-fund snobs. I believe that George Romney did that for his children -- I suppose he might have paid for Mitt's mission to France and possibly his BYU education, but Mitt's current wealth is a result of his own work, not inherited from his father. Donald Trump is an opposite example I believe, since I believe that his father bequeathed him something like $400 million. These two examples explain something, though I will avoid saying what.

You're exactly right. I can't believe I left that out of my wordy post. My father in law, in his tape recorded interview a few months before his passing, talked about teaching his family how to be hard workers, which I can vouch for.

My in laws did go to each child and made them aware of the church trust but first verified everyone had their homes paid off and no one in debt. Our home wasn't paid off but has a tiny mortgage. My MIL asked if we needed help to pay it off, we said no, we're doing fine. But they did make sure no one was in debt.

Forgot that they had wealthy friends die in a small plane crash years ago, which they would have been on had they not had something come up and backed out of the trip.

Their friend's kids didn't do well at all with the money. The oldest child didn't distribute it fairly or something like that. Money probably was the culprit, good call Stargazer.

[Stargazer]

You're exactly right. I can't believe I left that out of my wordy post. My father in law, in his tape recorded interview a few months before his passing, talked about teaching his family how to be hard workers, which I can vouch for.

My in laws did go to each child and made them aware of the church trust but first verified everyone had their homes paid off and no one in debt. Our home wasn't paid off but has a tiny mortgage. My MIL asked if we needed help to pay it off, we said no, we're doing fine. But they did make sure no one was in debt.

Forgot that they had wealthy friends die in a small plane crash years ago, which they would have been on had they not had something come up and backed out of the trip.

Their friend's kids didn't do well at all with the money. The oldest child didn't distribute it fairly or something like that. Money probably was the culprit, good call Stargazer.

 

Thanks.

 

I found it classy to hear that your in-laws did that!

[Tacenda]

Thanks.

I found it classy to hear that your in-laws did that!

The only complaint my husband had was why not a trust for grandkids and college? But that may cause trouble later on. And I'm sure the kids will get some inheritance.

But like my 2 sisters and husbands in California always say...we're spending our kids inheritance. Which they do, every year on vacations!

This would be a smart idea also, why should the church get all of it?

Edited September 11, 2015 by Tacenda

[Five Solas]

Chapel Mormons (rank and file) and Internet Mormons (posters here) are a fictional division created by a rather vocal conspiracy theorist.  I'm not sure there is much of a divide outside of the radical few who believe web surfing is evil, and those who think the interwebz are the font of all truth. 

...

Interesting. 

 

Granted it's been ~ 10 years since I regularly participated in LDS Church functions, but based on my own dim recollections--I would say there is considerably more diversity of thought & perspective to be found in LDS members who are drawn to this online forum than anything I ever encountered in a ward setting.  A couple orders of magnitude more.  I think this forum would make a lot of "chapel Mormons" (as you call them) uncomfortable.  Not because they think "web surfing is evil" (as you wrote)--but because they would see the diversity and the disagreements and suppose "the spirit" adverse to such content and contention.  And they'd retreat to the safety of Facebook, Pinterest and anywhere else they can limit themselves to friends and topics they feel comfortable with and avoid exposure to foreign ideas.   

 

Am I really out on a limb here?  Do you think I'm a "conspiracy theorist" advocating "fictional division" for writing this? 

 

--Erik

[Stargazer]

Interesting. 

 

Granted it's been ~ 10 years since I regularly participated in LDS Church functions, but based on my own dim recollections--I would say there is considerably more diversity of thought & perspective to be found in LDS members who are drawn to this online forum than anything I ever encountered in a ward setting.  A couple orders of magnitude more.  I think this forum would make a lot of "chapel Mormons" (as you call them) uncomfortable.  Not because they think "web surfing is evil" (as you wrote)--but because they would see the diversity and the disagreements and suppose "the spirit" adverse to such content and contention.  And they'd retreat to the safety of Facebook, Pinterest and anywhere else they can limit themselves to friends and topics they feel comfortable with and avoid exposure to foreign ideas.   

 

Am I really out on a limb here?  Do you think I'm a "conspiracy theorist" advocating "fictional division" for writing this? 

 

--Erik

 

I think you make a good point. A former bishop of my ward and former member of the stake presidency asked for a link to this place because he wanted to see what was up, in case he wanted to suggest to one of his adult children this would be a nice place to do apologetics.  I got the impression that he thought this place was a bit more than he thought he wanted to handle.

[thesometimesaint]

A very curious post, sometimesaint.  In my previous post I asked participants on this forum what they suppose the reaction of rank & file LDS would be to the film.  How did you arrive at the conclusion my query condemns anyone?  I certainly didn't write anything like that--nor did I imply it.  Earlier I expressed my appreciation for my own father (who is an LDS High Priest) for having the humility and the grace not to disinherit his children (myself included) who have left the LDS Church. 

 

Kindly explain yourself. 

 

--Erik

 

While None of us here can speak for the Church. We, members of the Church, here are pretty representative of the Church. We run the gamut of TBM's to MINO's though of course we tend towards active believers. It is Mormon Dialogue after all.

 

Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but this comes across as snarky and condemning. "He checks important cultural boxes for LDS too (at least the ones in Utah and nearby states).  As ludicrous as his tricked-out, spare-no-option pickup truck is to me, I'm sure my LDS nephews would think it was "the bomb" (the post 1997 meaning of that expression).  And of course he's rich (or at least puts on a good show), reward for his worthiness".

 

I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I am comfortably upper middle class, and I've never owned a pickup truck. I've been a High Priest for over 20 years. I take my Priesthood responsibilities very seriously, and give generously to the Church. I don't want or expect any brownie points for it. When I die my wife gets all of my earthly possessions. After she dies the kids each get an equal share of what's left.

[Ahab]

Just curious what folks here think about this*:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNRlg6O8ekU

Personally I don't think parents owe their children an inheritance and can use/spend/donate the fruit of their life's labor in any way they see fit.

Starting at ~11:30 you can hear this dad state how if his sons continue on behaving according to his beliefs, they will retain their inheritance (which it sounds like has been set up to do a lot of charity work). Otherwise, it will go to the LDS Church. Keep in mind this video was produced by LDS Philanthropies.

Has anyone here removed a "wayward" child from their will? A child who left the Church?

Seems to me this dad is setting up a scenario where his sons are highly motivated to 1) be good Church members in order to retain their inheritance or 2) pretend to be good Church members until Mom and Dad die. Seems like a bad situation all around with really bad carrots and sticks being used. Seems a an odd video to be made by LDS philanthropies. I'm glad they decided to remove it from their official sites but it has been mirrored several places.

* Note: I was alerted to this video by the vile apostate Kishkumen. Full disclosure.

His intent is wonderful and what it should be for anyone wanting to raise their children as our Father in heaven wants us to be.

If his boys use deception to try to fool him into thinking they are worthy of his estate it won't be the Father's fault. All he can do is to be a good example of how our Father is.

[Ahab]

While None of us here can speak for the Church. We, members of the Church, Herr are pretty representative of the Church. We run the gamut of TBM's to MINO's though of course we tend towards active believers. It is Mormon Dialogue after all.

Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but this comes across as snarky and condemning. "He checks important cultural boxes for LDS too (at least the ones in Utah and nearby states). As ludicrous as his tricked-out, spare-no-option pickup truck is to me, I'm sure my LDS nephews would think it was "the bomb" (the post 1997 meaning of that expression). And of course he's rich (or at least puts on a good show), reward for his worthiness".

I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I am comfortably upper middle class, and I've never owned a pickup truck. I've been a High Priest for over 20 years. I take my Priesthood responsibilities very seriously, and give generously to the Church. I don't want or expect any brownie points for it. When I die my wife gets all of my earthly possessions. After she dies the kids each get an equal share of what's left.

A pickup truck is a very useful form of transportation, and someone with plenty of money should get (and use) a nice one rather than a jalopy. A pickup truck can not only carry people but also a lot of other things in the bed. And it can tow a lot of things too. His is missing a bull bar with a good winch and he should be carrying a chain to tow cars with so he doesn't have to push them.

They're more commonly owned by people who live out in the country who have some land to take care of, but city folk could use them to move and carry things for themselves as well as other people.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

A pickup truck is a very useful form of transportation, and someone with plenty of money should get (and use) a nice one rather than a jalopy. A pickup truck can not only carry people but also a lot of other things in the bed. And it can tow a lot of things too. His is missing a bull bar with a good winch and he should be carrying a chain to tow cars with so he doesn't have to push them.

They're more commonly owned by people who live out in the country who have some land to take care of, but city folk could use them to move and carry things for themselves as well as other people.

 

I didn't say they weren't useful. I have borrowed therm when I had a large amount of stuff to carry(Primarily landscaping stuff). I'm not a city dweller type myself. By California standards I live in a relatively small town of about 40,000. However I still have never had any desire for one of those "urban assault vehicles" that get 10miles per gallon of gas or less.

[Ahab]

I didn't say they weren't useful. I have borrowed therm when I had a large amount of stuff to carry(Primarily landscaping stuff). I'm not a city dweller type myself. By California standards I live in a relatively small town of about 40,000. However I still have never had any desire for one of those "urban assault vehicles" that get 10miles per gallon of gas or less.

The fact that you've borrowed one shows that you have had a desire for one. Thank goodness you were at least able to borrow one from somebody who allowed you to borrow his.

But yeah the gas mileage sucks which is why it is good to have an additional car/SUV whatever that gets better MPG.