Apparently new policy is no longer

[CV75]

I mentioned parental stewardship earlier (a sacred stewardship the Church assists parents in carrying out by providing the highest order of doctrines, covenants, ordinances and commandment available in the earth), and that didn’t get much play.

According to D&C 68:25-28, 25, only parents in Zion are bound to teach their children “to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.” This “shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.”

This tell me that parents that have been expelled from Zion are not under this stewardship, and the Church has no obligation to actively assist them in it. The Church will welcome all comers, but the covenant of Zion and this stewardship are not active for parents who have left Zion.

Children may have a moral obligation to act on the light they have been given of their parents in Zion, but they have no such obligation to act on the corrupt examples and teachings of those who have been expelled. On the contrary, they should be protected from such. This is why it is well and good that they wait until they are of age to make their own decisions about baptism, picking up on whatever light they were able to garner along the way from whatever exposure to the Church they might have enjoyed.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, SteveO said:

See, one of the big annoyances I have with this issue is that people like you reduce people's identity--or a "key part of it"--to their sexual orientation.  

I have a cousin, who I've mentioned elsewhere has a sexual attraction to children.  He's never married and will most likely never be.  

No, I am not equating homosexuality between two consenting adults to that of pedophillia.  I am comparing the fact that acting out on either sexual attraction is prohibited by the church. 

I accept my cousin for who he is.  Having that sexual attraction doesn't make him less of a person to me nor should it to anyone else.  We are who we are.  Were he to act on his sexual attraction--that would be something I would not accept, nor would I have any obligation to.

I LOVE my cousin, because he is a Child of God.  Because he is my brother in the church.  Because those ARE key parts of who he is.

I sincerely doubt my cousin would describe his sexuality as a key part of who he is.  

I reject that I am incapable of loving others with SSA because I do not accept the lifestyle.  

 

Sexuality IS a major part of personal identity. It effects virtually every aspect of life. If you don't think so, ask yourself what would be different in your life if you were gay.

Honestly, that kind of "love" sounds more like a duty than an emotional connection. It sounds like "love" out of obligation because one is supposed to love others because x,y,z. To me, love is more about embracing the person and having an individual relationship, not their eternal pedigree. I don't see a hope for a person's eternal welfare as being love for that person. That kind of love sounds more like toleration than affection.

As I have tolerated you, tolerate one another. It's one of my favorite scriptures.

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, SteveO said:

Did you read my post about my cousin?

edit to add:. And what of single sisters who never marry and are expected to keep the law of chastity?  There are many of those in the church.  

This is a tired argument. I barely have the energy to address it at all, but here goes.

People who are hetero and single have the hope for an opportunity to connect with another person in a meaningful way, whether in this life or the next. A gay person doesn't have that hope. To be accepted by the church they must be eternally alone. Sounds pretty miserable to me.

People who are hetero and single are allowed to date and express affection within the law of chastity. A gay person in the church can not date or express affection with others and be deemed acceptable. They cannot kiss, and hold hands and date like a normal hetero dating couple might.

So comparing a single sister who is temporarily single, with a gay person would be required to be eternally alone, is a terrible comparison.

[SteveO]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sexuality IS a major part of personal identity. It effects virtually every aspect of life. If you don't think so, ask yourself what would be different in your life if you were gay.

Honestly, that kind of "love" sounds more like a duty than an emotional connection. It sounds like "love" out of obligation because one is supposed to love others because x,y,z. To me, love is more about embracing the person and having an individual relationship, not their eternal pedigree. I don't see a hope for a person's eternal welfare as being love for that person. That kind of love sounds more like toleration than affection.

As I have tolerated you, tolerate one another. It's one of my favorite scriptures.

 

...What are you even talking about?

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I hear this argument but nobody has ever explained why one is considered an "orientation" and the other a "disorder".

Sincerely, what is the medical/scientific differentiation?
Aren't all three simply about the characteristics of who a person is sexually attracted to?

Heterosexuals are not attracted to children, and neither are homosexuals. Pedophiles are attracted to children - it's what makes them pedophiles. 

That's my common sense from the gut response, but I don't know much about the science of pedophilia.

I will say that a disorder is something that brings about harm. Left-handedness, although outside the norm, is not a disorder because it is harmless. 

[CMZ]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

It's the leaders of the church who have labeled them apostates.

But not for being alone.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a tired argument. I barely have the energy to address it at all, but here goes.

People who are hetero and single have the hope for an opportunity to connect with another person in a meaningful way, whether in this life or the next. A gay person doesn't have that hope. To be accepted by the church they must be eternally alone. Sounds pretty miserable to me.

People who are hetero and single are allowed to date and express affection within the law of chastity. A gay person in the church can not date or express affection with others and be deemed acceptable. They cannot kiss, and hold hands and date like a normal hetero dating couple might.

So comparing a single sister who is temporarily single, with a gay person would be required to be eternally alone, is a terrible comparison.

Eternally alone?  Where is that doctrine?  I'm sure this was addressed in a thread a while ago regarding the state of gays in the hereafter...or do you honestly think that everyone else gets restored to their perfect frame, gets a reward, gets to be happy--except the gays...nope, the gays get to be eternally miserable, because that's where the mercy of God ends.  An impregnable fortress keeping God's mercy out. Right. Around. The. Gays.

C'mon man!!

I hate to be the guy who is constantly bringing up personal examples, but you and others aren't broadening your view.  What of those with SEVERE physical handicaps?  BYU is a place where I saw plenty of them.  A girl in particular was wheelchair bound with all four limbs withered, but otherwise fully functional mentally.  MAYBE, by a legitimate miracle she gets married in this life--but I doubt it.  I doubt she'll ever go out on a date that isn't anything other than an "act of service".  To like boys and know you will absolutely never have companionship in this life...that sounds pretty miserable.

My former bishop at the singles ward has three daughters who are severely autistic, to the point of being unable to live on their own (I think the oldest is 26?), but are aware enough to know they are attracted to boys.  I got a "secret admirer" note from her even.  Will not get married in this lifetime.  

And it goes on and on.  

And before you start telling me how there is a difference between being celibate by "choice" and being celibate by "circumstance"--I don't see how being alone because no one wants you is any less painful.  There's a lot of crummy situations that are worse than being a gay mormon.  Again, nobody has addressed what is to become of my cousin...because I'd argue that is about the worst.  

I and others can only have faith that everything will be made right after this earthly life.  And thats really what this is all about.  Faith.  Faith and hope in the atonement, in the resurrection, and in good things to come.

Edited September 9, 2016 by SteveO

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Eternally alone?  Where is that doctrine?  I'm sure this was addressed in a thread a while ago regarding the state of gays in the hereafter... 

 

I hate to be the guy who is constantly bringing up personal examples, but you and others aren't broadening your view.  What of those with SEVERE physical handicaps?  BYU is a place where I saw plenty of them.  A girl in particular was wheelchair bound with all four limbs withered, but otherwise fully functional mentally.  MAYBE, by a legitimate miracle she gets married in this life--but I doubt it.  I doubt she'll ever go out on a date that isn't anything other than an "act of service".  To like boys and know you will absolutely never have companionship in this life...that sounds pretty miserable.

My former bishop at the singles ward has three daughters who are severely autistic, to the point of being unable to live on their own (I think the oldest is 26?), but are aware enough to know they are attracted to boys.  I got a "secret admirer" note from her even.  Will not get married in this lifetime.  

And it goes on and on.  

And before you start telling me how there is a difference between being celibate by "choice" and being celibate by "circumstance"--I don't see how being alone because no one wants you is any less painful.  There's a lot of crummy situations that are worse than being a gay mormon.  Again, nobody has addressed what is to become of my cousin...because I'd argue that is about the worst.  

I and others can only have faith that everything will be made right after this earthly life.  And thats really what this is all about.  Faith.  Faith and hope in the atonement, in the resurrection, and in good things to come.

Steve, I think a big part of your issue here is that it would help your understanding if you'd stop thinking of a person who is gay as being the same as someone who has "severe physical handicaps" or someone who is autistic.

.

Edited September 9, 2016 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Eternally alone?  Where is that doctrine?  I'm sure this was addressed in a thread a while ago regarding the state of gays in the hereafter... 

 

I hate to be the guy who is constantly bringing up personal examples, but you and others aren't broadening your view.  What of those with SEVERE physical handicaps?  BYU is a place where I saw plenty of them.  A girl in particular was wheelchair bound with all four limbs withered, but otherwise fully functional mentally.  MAYBE, by a legitimate miracle she gets married in this life--but I doubt it.  I doubt she'll ever go out on a date that isn't anything other than an "act of service".  To like boys and know you will absolutely never have companionship in this life...that sounds pretty miserable.

My former bishop at the singles ward has three daughters who are severely autistic, to the point of being unable to live on their own (I think the oldest is 26?), but are aware enough to know they are attracted to boys.  I got a "secret admirer" note from her even.  Will not get married in this lifetime.  

And it goes on and on.  

And before you start telling me how there is a difference between being celibate by "choice" and being celibate by "circumstance"--I don't see how being alone because no one wants you is any less painful.  There's a lot of crummy situations that are worse than being a gay mormon.  Again, nobody has addressed what is to become of my cousin...because I'd argue that is about the worst.  

I and others can only have faith that everything will be made right after this earthly life.  And thats really what this is all about.  Faith.  Faith and hope in the atonement, in the resurrection, and in good things to come.

Yes, eternally alone. Show me the doctrine that states that a. a gay person will be made straight and therefore can enter into an eternal hetero relationship, or b. that there will be SS relationships in eternity. Neither doctrine exists. The best that can be shown is a statement by a GA 70 and seeming approval by Elder Oaks of the 70's answer to a question. Sounds more like personal opinion than doctrine to me.

I agree that being alone in this world sounds miserable, for whatever reason. Whether it is mental or physical disability, I agree it would be a massive challenge. But there is doctrine we can point to, ie the resurrection, that will heal the individual and they can then enter into eternal relationships. So their trial, as hard as it is, is temporary. For a gay person, that trial is eternal because there is no course for them to have an accepted eternal relationship (according to the church despite a failure to produce a revelation stating such)

So I think you've missed my previously state point, that the eternal plan of happiness for a gay person doesn't exist because there is no doctrinal course for them to experience an acceptable, eternal relationship, either now or in the next life. Removal of hope is the greatest cruelty and according to the church, they are offering our LGBTQ brothers and sisters no hope beyond the required loneliness.

[SteveO]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Steve, I think a big part of your issue here is that it would help your understanding if you'd stop thinking of a person who is gay as being the same as someone who has "severe physical handicaps" or someone who is autistic.

.

And that's your take away?  I'm not comparing the two.  I'm giving examples that everyone experiences pain and disappointment in this life--that gays are not the only ones who hurt.  Coming to this board, you'd think that gay mormons are the single biggest concern in the church--they are not...that the biggest injustice is that God would create someone who is gay and then forbid them to act on it--it isn't.  Gay Mormons are a small group that warrants greater understanding and love and compassion--but so does everyone.  

Edited September 9, 2016 by SteveO

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Eternally alone?  Where is that doctrine?  I'm sure this was addressed in a thread a while ago regarding the state of gays in the hereafter...or do you honestly think that everyone else gets restored to their perfect frame, gets a reward, gets to be happy--except the gays...nope, the gays get to be eternally miserable, because that's where the mercy of God ends.  An impregnable fortress keeping God's mercy out. Right. Around. The. Gays.

 

I hate to be the guy who is constantly bringing up personal examples, but you and others aren't broadening your view.  What of those with SEVERE physical handicaps?  BYU is a place where I saw plenty of them.  A girl in particular was wheelchair bound with all four limbs withered, but otherwise fully functional mentally.  MAYBE, by a legitimate miracle she gets married in this life--but I doubt it.  I doubt she'll ever go out on a date that isn't anything other than an "act of service".  To like boys and know you will absolutely never have companionship in this life...that sounds pretty miserable.

My former bishop at the singles ward has three daughters who are severely autistic, to the point of being unable to live on their own (I think the oldest is 26?), but are aware enough to know they are attracted to boys.  I got a "secret admirer" note from her even.  Will not get married in this lifetime.  

And it goes on and on.  

And before you start telling me how there is a difference between being celibate by "choice" and being celibate by "circumstance"--I don't see how being alone because no one wants you is any less painful.  There's a lot of crummy situations that are worse than being a gay mormon.  Again, nobody has addressed what is to become of my cousin...because I'd argue that is about the worst.  

I and others can only have faith that everything will be made right after this earthly life.  And thats really what this is all about.  Faith.  Faith and hope in the atonement, in the resurrection, and in good things to come.

Speaking as a mother of an autistic daughter and watching a good friend who is gay struggle with being a gay mormon...the two circumstances should not be compared.  

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If they sincerely loved me, i hope i would be able to feel that love even if they disagreed with my life choices and personal beliefs.  I would see it as a personal failing if i couldn't because i've never had much respect for the mindset of "agreement = love" and i wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.  

I hate that part of our cultural ideology right now (as Americans) is teaching kids from a very young age that in order to treat someone with respect and love them, we must first accept all of their choices as being equally valid as everyone else's, regardless of what those choices are.  I'm much more interested in raising my kids to be able to completely disagree with someone and yet still love them, see value in them, and respect them as human beings.  And likewise, not to demand agreement from other people before they can feel love and friendship from them.  This, in my opinion, is the example that the Savior set in dealing with others, and also how He wants us to approach our relationship with Him.

I realize that other people don't see things the same way though.

For me, love has to mean something... something other than just saying the words.  And if someone rejects a person in the fundamental way that I described for you -- I just can't see that as love.

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Speaking as a mother of an autistic daughter and watching a good friend who is gay struggle with being a gay mormon...the two circumstances should not be compared.  

Again, if that's what you took away, you missed my point completely 

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, eternally alone. Show me the doctrine that states that a. a gay person will be made straight and therefore can enter into an eternal hetero relationship, or b. that there will be SS relationships in eternity. Neither doctrine exists. The best that can be shown is a statement by a GA 70 and seeming approval by Elder Oaks of the 70's answer to a question. Sounds more like personal opinion than doctrine to me.

I agree that being alone in this world sounds miserable, for whatever reason. Whether it is mental or physical disability, I agree it would be a massive challenge. But there is doctrine we can point to, ie the resurrection, that will heal the individual and they can then enter into eternal relationships. So their trial, as hard as it is, is temporary. For a gay person, that trial is eternal because there is no course for them to have an accepted eternal relationship (according to the church despite a failure to produce a revelation stating such)

So I think you've missed my previously state point, that the eternal plan of happiness for a gay person doesn't exist because there is no doctrinal course for them to experience an acceptable, eternal relationship, either now or in the next life. Removal of hope is the greatest cruelty and according to the church, they are offering our LGBTQ brothers and sisters no hope beyond the required loneliness.

I disagree.  The mercy of God would demand that there be a way.  

I'd like to see that quote from Elder Oaks if you would?

[CMZ]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, eternally alone. Show me the doctrine that states that a. a gay person will be made straight and therefore can enter into an eternal hetero relationship, or b. that there will be SS relationships in eternity. Neither doctrine exists. The best that can be shown is a statement by a GA 70 and seeming approval by Elder Oaks of the 70's answer to a question. Sounds more like personal opinion than doctrine to me.

I agree that being alone in this world sounds miserable, for whatever reason. Whether it is mental or physical disability, I agree it would be a massive challenge. But there is doctrine we can point to, ie the resurrection, that will heal the individual and they can then enter into eternal relationships. So their trial, as hard as it is, is temporary. For a gay person, that trial is eternal because there is no course for them to have an accepted eternal relationship (according to the church despite a failure to produce a revelation stating such)

So I think you've missed my previously state point, that the eternal plan of happiness for a gay person doesn't exist because there is no doctrinal course for them to experience an acceptable, eternal relationship, either now or in the next life. Removal of hope is the greatest cruelty and according to the church, they are offering our LGBTQ brothers and sisters no hope beyond the required loneliness.

Here's the doctrine:

Quote

Genesis 2

24 Therefore shall a ^aman leave his ^bfather and his mother, and shall ^ccleave unto his ^dwife: and they shall be ^eone flesh.

 

Quote

D&C 131

1. In the ^acelestial glory there are three ^bheavens or degrees;
2. And in order to obtain the ^ahighest, a man must enter into this ^border of the ^cpriesthood [meaning the ^dnew and everlasting covenant of ^emarriage];
3. And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an ^aincrease.

 

1.  

Quote

D&C 132

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man ^amarry a wife...

20 Then shall they be gods.

And others have brought up that 1 Nephi 3:7 shows that a way will be prepared for each person to follow that commandment (actually anything they are commanded to do). It may not happen instantly but it can happen, and it won't be forced either. There's no forcing of anyone to become straight. It will be a perfectly natural thing that happens over some length of time. This is completely and thoroughly the opposite of a removal of hope.

Quote

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I ^awill go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no ^bcommandments unto the children of men, save he shall ^cprepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

Of course one can always say, "But I know someone who is sooooo gay that there is no way they can ever change," and you are perfectly free to state that but it doesn't change the doctrinal reality. Forcing someone to believe the doctrine is not a goal here, but the doctrine can be pointed out.

Edited September 9, 2016 by CMZ

[CMZ]

Quote

 

We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.

http://mormonsandgays.org/#eternal-perspective

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

We believe that with an eternal perspective,

Is belief the same as a statement of doctrine? We can believe many things that aren't doctrinal so I don't view this as a doctrinal statement.

a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test.

It's a statement of belief and hope that this "mortal test" will not also be an eternal one, nothing more.

It should not be viewed as a permanent condition.

Why not? Is there a revelation somewhere that states it is not a permanent "condition"?

An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope.

How so? Other than a vague statement about belief, there is nothing doctrinal or revelatory that states things will change in the next life. The church offers little/no hope.

Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next.

Recognizing that eternal loneliness would be miserable, I think this is at least a compassionate hope, though there is nothing to back it up as anything more than personal opinion. I'll also note that it states they'll have a chance to marry the opposite gender, not that their orientation would change.

This borders on taking the Lord's name in vain by declaring what God WILL do, without apparent revelation to back it up.

We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.

At best, according to this, gays can hope that they will be changed eternally by a just God who won't require them to live in eternal loneliness. But there is no revelation to back up what I'm sure they intend to be a hope promoting statement. Gays can life a life in "full contest of who" they are as long as that doesn't include their gayness.

http://mormonsandgays.org/#eternal-perspective

 

Thanks for sharing the quote. Let's break it down a little.

So this statement is a personal opinion, which is fine, but hardly a church doctrine.

Edited September 9, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing the quote. Let's break it down a little.

As stated before nobody is forcing belief on anyone else. If someone wants to live as though their perceived sexual orientation is the most powerful force in the universe they are very welcome to. The statement you broke down may be purposely stating things softly so that people don't get the idea that God will force them to become straight. If you don't want to believe it then don't believe it. Isn't that great?

Quote

Know that this eternal truth is given:
That God will force no man to heaven.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Heterosexuals are not attracted to children, and neither are homosexuals. Pedophiles are attracted to children - it's what makes them pedophiles. 

That's my common sense from the gut response, but I don't know much about the science of pedophilia.

I will say that a disorder is something that brings about harm. Left-handedness, although outside the norm, is not a disorder because it is harmless. 

Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite gender.
Homosexuals are attracted to the same gender.
Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children.
Ephebophiles are attracted to teenagers
Gerontophiles are attracted to the elderly

All are physical attractions to physical traits in others.  The only difference in mortality are which ones society can accept.  The difference to God and in the eternities comes from eternal law.

I have still yet to see any scientific evidence showing the difference in these attractions that would make me believe some are natural conditions and some are not.

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At best, according to this, gays can hope that they will be changed eternally by a just God who won't require them to live in eternal loneliness. But there is no revelation to back up what I'm sure they intend to be a hope promoting statement. Gays can life a life in "full contest of who" they are as long as that doesn't include their gayness.

Maybe the hardest heartbreak is that God would give a revelation that the children of gay couples can not be baptized and their parents are apostates, but fails to give a revelation on what the hope for a gay person is in the next life.  

[SteveO]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite gender.
Homosexuals are attracted to the same gender.
Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children.
Ephebophiles are attracted to teenagers
Gerontophiles are attracted to the elderly

All are physical attractions to physical traits in others.  The only difference in mortality are which ones society can accept.  The difference to God and in the eternities comes from eternal law.

I have still yet to see any scientific evidence showing the difference in these attractions that would make me believe some are natural conditions and some are not.

Yep...I notice people still are skirting around my point I brought up concerning people like my cousin. It's a genuine sexual attraction.  It can't be cured.  It can't be prayed away.  It can't be removed via therapy.  The only ways to approach it is to act on it...or control it through self mastery.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

Yep...I notice people still are skirting around my point I brought up concerning people like my cousin. It's a genuine sexual attraction.  It can't be cured.  It can't be prayed away.  It can't be removed via therapy.  The only ways to approach it is to act on it...or control it through self mastery.

Why do you think that people are skirting around your point?  

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why do you think that people are skirting around your point?  

How would you expect him to conduct himself in this life?  What will happen to him in the next life?  How does the church address his needs?

I think you're skirting it because the answers would be the same for gays in the church...

Edited September 9, 2016 by SteveO

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, SteveO said:

How would you expect him to conduct himself in this life?  What will happen to him in the next life?  How does the church address his needs?

I think you're skirting it because the answers would be the same for gays in the church...

I would expect him to seek out a happy life. That means he would seek out and nurture loving relationships and having a family.

What will happen in the next life? The church has no answer so we must come up with our own. So my answer is that loving relationships will endure this life. The church does not address his needs. That's been my entire point. Not sure how you missed that

No one has been skirting it and NO, it wouldn't be the same for gays in the church, because as Elder Bednar said "there are no homosexuals in the church." And if there were, and they sought a happy life, they would quickly find themselves kicked out of the church. So from my limited perspective as a straight man, I see no path of happiness for gays inside the church. It's a terribly sad truth I'd like to see changed. The very first step would be to remove the wretched policy.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, SteveO said:

How would you expect him to conduct himself in this life?  What will happen to him in the next life?  How does the church address his needs?

I think you're skirting it because the answers would be the same for gays in the church...

Why do you feel that your cousin cannot get married?

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, SteveO said:

How would you expect him to conduct himself in this life? 

As HappyJackWagon already expressed, your cousin should seek out a nurturing and fulfilling relationship in this life.  A relationship where a child is not being hurt or damaged.