Calm Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I don't know, you may want to check out this research I saw on Bill Reel's podcast site. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/02/premium-who-is-the-doubter/ http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FaithCrisisFactorsmMD.pdf Can't read it. Who did the research?
bluebell Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 22 minutes ago, california boy said: I completely agree that people are more skeptical about religion, and for good reasons. I don't agree that millennials are more narcissistic and entitled. I certainly know a lot of millennials that don't fit that broad brush branding. I do think they are more likely to question what is being told to them. They have found out that too much of what they have been told is simply not true. Just because someone is an adult does not mean they should be believed. So I think they are following "what is true" for them. And they base that truth on different things than you might. They trust Google more than they trust what religion is telling them. One gives them scientific fact, backed by real data. The other gives them things that are not verifiable by facts, only feelings. I posted this in a different thread but i'll put it here too. It's from a Time Magazine article on Millennials- "Here's the cold, hard data: The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that's now 65 or older, according to the National Institutes of Health; 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982. Millennials got so many participation trophies growing up that a recent study showed that 40% believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance. They are fame-obsessed: three times as many middle school girls want to grow up to be a personal assistant to a famous person as want to be a Senator, according to a 2007 survey; four times as many would pick the assistant job over CEO of a major corporation. They're so convinced of their own greatness that the National Study of Youth and Religion found the guiding morality of 60% of millennials in any situation is that they'll just be able to feel what's right. Their development is stunted: more people ages 18 to 29 live with their parents than with a spouse, according to the 2012 Clark University Poll of Emerging Adults." "What millennials are most famous for besides narcissism is its effect: entitlement. If you want to sell seminars to middle managers, make them about how to deal with young employees who e-mail the CEO directly and beg off projects they find boring. English teacher David McCullough Jr.'s address last year to Wellesley High School's graduating class, a 12-minute reality check titled "You Are Not Special," has nearly 2 million hits on YouTube. "Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you," McCullough told the graduates. He says nearly all the response to the video has been positive, especially from millennials themselves; the video has 57 likes for every dislike. 3
Tacenda Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 51 minutes ago, Calm said: Can't read it. Who did the research? I can't remember, but if you take this one time to listen to the podcast, Bill goes over it in detail, and mentions how the research was conducted.
Gray Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I posted this in a different thread but i'll put it here too. It's from a Time Magazine article on Millennials- "Here's the cold, hard data: The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that's now 65 or older, according to the National Institutes of Health; 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982. Millennials got so many participation trophies growing up that a recent study showed that 40% believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance. They are fame-obsessed: three times as many middle school girls want to grow up to be a personal assistant to a famous person as want to be a Senator, according to a 2007 survey; four times as many would pick the assistant job over CEO of a major corporation. They're so convinced of their own greatness that the National Study of Youth and Religion found the guiding morality of 60% of millennials in any situation is that they'll just be able to feel what's right. Their development is stunted: more people ages 18 to 29 live with their parents than with a spouse, according to the 2012 Clark University Poll of Emerging Adults." "What millennials are most famous for besides narcissism is its effect: entitlement. If you want to sell seminars to middle managers, make them about how to deal with young employees who e-mail the CEO directly and beg off projects they find boring. English teacher David McCullough Jr.'s address last year to Wellesley High School's graduating class, a 12-minute reality check titled "You Are Not Special," has nearly 2 million hits on YouTube. "Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you," McCullough told the graduates. He says nearly all the response to the video has been positive, especially from millennials themselves; the video has 57 likes for every dislike. This doesn't sound very scientific. What data are they using to back up their smarmy comment about participation trophies? I got participation trophies, and I was born in the 70s. The second sentence that you bolded sounds very Mormon. Are you saying people shouldn't follow their internal moral compass? To me this smacks of old people angry about kids on their lawn. I grew up reading similar disparaging articles about Gen X. Regarding kids living at home, that's the economic reality. Wage stagnation is a real thing. Edited February 26, 2017 by Gray
bluebell Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 23 minutes ago, Gray said: This doesn't sound very scientific. What data are they using to back up their smarmy comment about participation trophies? I got participation trophies, and I was born in the 70s. The second sentence that you bolded sounds very Mormon. Are you saying people shouldn't follow their internal moral compass? To me this smacks of old people angry about kids on their lawn. I grew up reading similar disparaging articles about Gen X. Regarding kids living at home, that's the economic reality. Wage stagnation is a real thing. Three thoughts: 1) The bolded parts were a carry over from my other post where I discussed this article. Sorry for the confusion. 2) You should read the entire article before passing judgement on how it sounds. It was written by a Millennial and also says a lot of great things about Millennials. It acknowledges their strengths (and they have many) but also acknowledges their weaknesses, which are just as real and supported by research. Here's a link. 3) Mormon teachings are not about following your own personal moral compass. That's relativism, where, according to Elder Christofferson, every person "acts as his or her own highest authority." These are those who "believe that they, themselves, individually, decide what is right and wrong." Or those like this person who replied (when asked about the basis for his religious beliefs) "Myself--it really comes down to that." Elder Christofferson describes this belief system or philosophy as an attempt to "deny God's supremacy."
california boy Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 56 minutes ago, bluebell said: Three thoughts: 1) The bolded parts were a carry over from my other post where I discussed this article. Sorry for the confusion. 2) You should read the entire article before passing judgement on how it sounds. It was written by a Millennial and also says a lot of great things about Millennials. It acknowledges their strengths (and they have many) but also acknowledges their weaknesses, which are just as real and supported by research. Here's a link. 3) Mormon teachings are not about following your own personal moral compass. That's relativism, where, according to Elder Christofferson, every person "acts as his or her own highest authority." These are those who "believe that they, themselves, individually, decide what is right and wrong." Or those like this person who replied (when asked about the basis for his religious beliefs) "Myself--it really comes down to that." Elder Christofferson describes this belief system or philosophy as an attempt to "deny God's supremacy." This is an interesting article. Thanks for posting it. Not sure about the data. I couldn't find a link to the actual studies. I can tell that the conclusions are pretty fuzzy. I will give you some examples. "The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that's now 65 or older," I don't think this is any different than previous generations. Young people have always been more centered on themselves than when they mature. Since they don't refer to the actual study, one doesn't know how millennials compare to previous generations. "58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982" Is this the study the author is referring to? And who developed or what is the criteria for a narcissism scale?? Unless you know that, you can't really draw any conclusions. "Millennials got so many participation trophies growing up that a recent study showed that 40% believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance." Promoted every two years in what? Grammer school? High School? College? Jobs? How does that compare to other groups. How many adults believe that children should not be kept back in grammer school for more than 2 years. The whole article seems to be drawing conclusions from fuzzy data. I am not trying to dump on you. I really appreciate you posting this article. But I am not quite ready to draw the conclusion you seem to be willing to accept. It sounds a lot like the usual dumping on the younger generation that has been going on since the beginning of time. And even if this article is all true, is the reason millennials are leaving the church because they are narcissistic. Or could it also be some of the issues I brought up? I personally don't think there is just one thing that is causing so many millennials to leave religion. I am sure this is contributing to people leaving the church. But I can't easily write off a complete generation based on this issue along. And more important, that group is not alone among those leaving religion. It has to be for more reasons that being narcissistic.
Stargazer Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 8 hours ago, bsjkki said: You are mistaken in most but not all cases. This judgement/attitude is very harmful to those faithful parents whose children have strayed. I hope you don't express this from the pulpit and send mothers into the hall crying. (My mother in law told me a story of a very faithful family who were struggling with a child leaving the church. A stake conference speaker bluntly stated, it was the parents fault if their children stray. This poor struggling mother left the meeting in tears.) Most parents of adult children I know, have inactive children. These are faithful, dedicated members who are strong members. In a public meeting with teenagers, unless the questions were anonymous and written down, there is no way for you to know what questions these kids have. There is a level of narcissism in the church and some kids are very good at telling their leaders what they want to hear. We praise those who speak well and outwardly participate. Most teenagers would never publicaly ask a question from a less than faithful perspective. It would be social suicide in the Mormon world. The teachers in my ward of the 14-15 SS class asked for anonymous, written questions. They received questions on the seer stone in hat, race and the Priesthood, where dinosaurs fit into the creation, the new policy and many others. They were informed and thinking about issues. And I have known strong member parents who have had children go astray, too. But I have also seen strong member parents who were relatively clueless or ineffective at raising children in the church. I am afraid that I can count myself in that number. I didn't have anyone telling me that we weren't doing a good job with them, but I could see it. I don't know if my children were those who just didn't care about religion -- perhaps that might have been part of it, I don't know. But my wife and I tried to be good examples, and our children would probably have not liked it if we had strayed ourselves.
bsjkki Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 31 minutes ago, Stargazer said: And I have known strong member parents who have had children go astray, too. But I have also seen strong member parents who were relatively clueless or ineffective at raising children in the church. I am afraid that I can count myself in that number. I didn't have anyone telling me that we weren't doing a good job with them, but I could see it. I don't know if my children were those who just didn't care about religion -- perhaps that might have been part of it, I don't know. But my wife and I tried to be good examples, and our children would probably have not liked it if we had strayed ourselves. I don't think there is a magic formula and it sounds like you are a loving, caring, parent doing your best. I think most of us fall into that category. Perfection is not required. (Hugs) One thing I have learned through the trials of my children that I finally believe is, it really wasn't about me. Not taking it personally when children stumble is a huge hurdle to overcome. My love for my kids is not dependent on their activity level and I have stomped down the voice in the back of my mind saying, "you failed, you failed, you failed." In some ways, I love them even more because my worth is not dependent on their achievements. I followed a prompting this week to call a friend. She was struggling because her BYU student is actively in a gay and chaste relationship. I counseled her to not take it personally. It didn't have anything to do with her. He wasn't in a gay relationship because he didn't love her, or ignored all her teachings, or didn't care what she thought. He was in a gay relationship because he was gay. It didn't have anything to do with her "worthiness" or whether they did enough to teach him the gospel or had enough family home evenings. As parents, when we beat ourselves up, it really doesn't help us help our kids or show them Christ like love. 2
Tacenda Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 5 hours ago, Calm said: I don't do podcasts. Try this again, the graphics are quite large on my end. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FaithCrisisFactorsmMD.pdf It's quite extent. I may have even participated, I remember filling out a questionaire about the time this was started.
Calm Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 it wasn't the size, they were blacked out last time. Not this time. No references were given. Hard to judge value of stats when you don't know how they were created.
Tacenda Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, Calm said: it wasn't the size, they were blacked out last time. Not this time. No references were given. Hard to judge value of stats when you don't know how they were created. I saw something in the top corner, like it had been done by BYU or something. I'll check on it.
Tacenda Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 22 minutes ago, Calm said: it wasn't the size, they were blacked out last time. Not this time. No references were given. Hard to judge value of stats when you don't know how they were created. Bill responded to someone in the comment section....who had the same question as you...below is his answer. "While the author of the study has shared this info directly with Church leadership and is based on solid research, he wishes to remain anonymous which limits what can be said."
Calm Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: Bill responded to someone in the comment section....who had the same question as you...below is his answer. "While the author of the study has shared this info directly with Church leadership and is based on solid research, he wishes to remain anonymous which limits what can be said." That could mean he wrote a letter and sent it to church headquarters. And someone claiming his work is solid research without showing methodology, why should we assume he is knowledgeable to make an accurate judgment on his work. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 On 2/25/2017 at 2:17 PM, rongo said: I understand. You think that there is a disconnect between the fact that many of the youth in our stake will not be active in the LDS Church, and the fact that they didn't have any worries, skepticism, or concerns in an EFY class that you feel they must have (and just didn't want to get into in that time and setting). It's very simple. They don't have concerns of this type. I have been a counselor in two different bishoprics and a bishop of two different wards in this stake. I have taught many of these kids in school. I have done many firesides and Q&A type things in this stake since 2007. Those few who are deep thinkers and enjoy discussing gospel topics, historical issues, anti-Mormon attacks, etc. have been discussing such things with me, and know that "I'm the guy" and where to find me. The vast super-majority of these youth don't have "throw 'em for a loop" concerns," and they also wouldn't have them if you cornered them and showed them sources critical of the Church. They aren't interested in these things, and aren't that interested in church and religion in general, to be honest (with notable exceptions). For all that, they are good kids, in their way. I'm sure you do, Erik. And yet, that's how it went down. And, I think the problem lies in the LDS families, that by and large aren't raising their kids to be interested thinkers about their history, religion, concerns, etc. --- so it's very much inside the LDS Church, and not just a product of the outside society. The whole problem is that many LDS families mirror non-LDS families. Without a doubt in my mind. Not at all. Those who had questions and wanted to ask them asked them. Those who didn't ask anything weren't hiding questions they secretly had from me, their peers, and their leaders. The fact was that most kids didn't have questions of their own. A few of the deep thinkers came up to me after and, apologetically, said that they didn't have any questions about concerns, issues, worries, etc. Their questions are from the perspective and assumption that "it's all true," and they wonder about certain scholarly things out of personal interest and curiousity (i.e., old-style LDS scholarship). But, they aren't racked with doubt and shaken to their core --- even if they didn't ask technical questions in that setting. I don't understand how you can be so certain about this. You seem to know what every youth is thinking. You know that those who wanted to asked questions, and those who didn't don't have any concerns. I don't say this to be rude but I find your inability to consider that these kids are skeptical and have concerns to be naïve and reckless. If this is the attitude you communicate I can't understand why anyone would open up to you. This attitude does not communicate safety. I think that at some point you are in for a rude awakening. 1
Gray Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 14 hours ago, bluebell said: Three thoughts: 1) The bolded parts were a carry over from my other post where I discussed this article. Sorry for the confusion. 2) You should read the entire article before passing judgement on how it sounds. It was written by a Millennial and also says a lot of great things about Millennials. It acknowledges their strengths (and they have many) but also acknowledges their weaknesses, which are just as real and supported by research. Here's a link. Thanks, I'll give it a read. 14 hours ago, bluebell said: 3) Mormon teachings are not about following your own personal moral compass. That's relativism, where, according to Elder Christofferson, every person "acts as his or her own highest authority." These are those who "believe that they, themselves, individually, decide what is right and wrong." Or those like this person who replied (when asked about the basis for his religious beliefs) "Myself--it really comes down to that." Elder Christofferson describes this belief system or philosophy as an attempt to "deny God's supremacy." Following your own moral compass is what's called in other contexts as following the Spirit. Whose moral compass should you follow, if not your own? Light of Christ and all that. The church is all about relativism, even though you'll occasionally find talks that speak out against it (not seeming to understand what it is).
Gray Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, bluebell said: Three thoughts: 1) The bolded parts were a carry over from my other post where I discussed this article. Sorry for the confusion. 2) You should read the entire article before passing judgement on how it sounds. It was written by a Millennial and also says a lot of great things about Millennials. It acknowledges their strengths (and they have many) but also acknowledges their weaknesses, which are just as real and supported by research. Here's a link. 3) Mormon teachings are not about following your own personal moral compass. That's relativism, where, according to Elder Christofferson, every person "acts as his or her own highest authority." These are those who "believe that they, themselves, individually, decide what is right and wrong." Or those like this person who replied (when asked about the basis for his religious beliefs) "Myself--it really comes down to that." Elder Christofferson describes this belief system or philosophy as an attempt to "deny God's supremacy." Here's a counterpoint to the Time article: The Persistent Myth of the Narcissistic Millennial https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-persistent-myth-of-the-narcissistic-millennial/382565/ Quote Whether it’s Time’s 2013 cover story “The Me, Me, Me Generation” or Kluger’s book, the same statistics are cited as proof of Millennial narcissism. In a 2008 study published in the Journal of Personality, San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge found that narcissistic behaviors among college students studied over a 27-year period had increased significantly from the 1970s. A second study published in 2008 by the National Institutes of Health showed that 9.4 percent of 20- to 29-year-olds exhibit extreme narcissism, compared with 3.2 percent of those older than 65. But there’s a problem with all of this evidence: The data is unreliable. “It’s incredibly unfair to call Millennials narcissistic, or to say they’re more so than previous generations,” says Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a professor of psychology at Clark University and author of Getting to 30: A Parent’s Guide to the Twentysomething Years. Arnett has devoted a significant amount of time and research to disproving the statistics that San Diego State’s Twenge has built a career on. He says that her assertion that narcissistic behaviors among young people have risen 30 percent is flimsy, since she’s basing it around data collected from the 40-question Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), the results of which leave quite a bit up for interpretation. For example, does agreement with statements like “I am assertive” or “I wish I were more assertive” measure narcissism, self-esteem, or leadership? Quote Other studies have directly contradicted the idea that Millennials are the most narcissistic of previous generations. In a large survey of high-school seniors across several decades, psychologist M. Brent Donnellan (now at Texas A&M University) found little change when looking at the Millennial generation’s ideas about self-esteem, individualism, or life satisfaction compared to young people in the past. And when psychology researchers at the University of Illinois compared narcissism rates with age and life stages in another 2010 study, they found that narcissistic behavior was related not to generation, but to age-related developmental stages. “This leads to the conclusion that every generation is Generation Me, as every generation of younger people are more narcissistic than their elders,” the researchers wrote. I think we should be very cautious about assuming that new generations are somehow radically different from older ones. That's what people said about Baby Boomers and that's what people said about Gen X. It sells magazines, but it's probably distorted by bias. Edited February 27, 2017 by Gray 3
Jeanne Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 10 hours ago, Tacenda said: Try this again, the graphics are quite large on my end. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FaithCrisisFactorsmMD.pdf It's quitet extent. I may have even participated, I remember filling out a questionaire about the time this was started. This link seems to be on target. Just a few months ago, I noticed that rx mormon had a top thread that showed that they were even surprsied at the total increase. Quite a few former bishops/stake presidents and even missionaries in the field have inquired to the sight to ask questions or to share their fears. Quite a few..to my surprise, are the young people on there complaining about the answers they are getting in seminary.
rongo Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 bsjkki: This judgement/attitude is very harmful to those faithful parents whose children have strayed. I hope you don't express this from the pulpit and send mothers into the hall crying. (My mother in law told me a story of a very faithful family who were struggling with a child leaving the church. A stake conference speaker bluntly stated, it was the parents fault if their children stray. This poor struggling mother left the meeting in tears.) dberrie2000: Not only did that not help the ones who came for some comfort – it made them feel worse. I *always* try to give a lifeline to people. I have even given ward conference talks on “the terrible questions,” which center around worry about loved ones and the afterlife. I often share my favorite parable: the laborers in the vineyard (it’s never too late, and there is hope). And part of my lifeline includes sharing statements from our prophets about hope for our wayward loved ones. That said, I think there is a creeping culture in the Church of never bringing up hard topics that could hurt people’s feelings, drudge up guilt, or make people feel inadequate. Properly understood, it should be possible to exhort people to improve themselves and correct past mistakes without them being crushed by negative emotions, but some seem to be advocating here that people who have children who have strayed should never, ever be exposed to the thought that there might possibly be some factors in the upbringing that might have had an impact (or not had an impact). This seems to be the opposite attitude to “Lord, is it I?” This is a very coddling approach. I strive never to have anyone leave our chapel or my office feeling hopeless or defeated, but I also try not to coddle members. I think the best approach is to help members face the truth of their past, present, and future with the hope the Atonement offers all three.
rongo Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 bsjkki: You are mistaken in most but not all cases. dberrie2000: Anyone who puts the blame on parents for their children’s deviance, as a blanket cause – is not in touch with reality, IMO. I think we all gravitate to the extremes in this question --- with all of us (myself included) acknowledging exceptions. I tend towards the view that upbringing is factor in most cases where children go astray. Others seem to be insisting that only very rarely is parenting a factor (and by parenting, I’m not implying “bad” parenting. There is quite a difference between being “good” parents and being parents who instill a love and commitment for the Restoration in their children. Many “good” parents do not actively do this).
rongo Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 bsjkki: Most parents of adult children I know have inactive children. These are faithful, dedicated members who are strong members. Rain: It would be helpful if you stated from the beginning that you are not talking about faithful parents. Stargazer: And I have known strong member parents who have had children go astray, too. But I have also seen strong member parents who were relatively clueless or ineffective at raising children in the church. I think we need to define what we mean when we say “faithful parents.” Are we talking about good, loving parents in general? Are we talking about people with good church attendance who serve in callings? Are we referring to the quality with which they serve in their callings? Or, are we talking about parents who purposely instill a love for and dedication to the Restoration? There are a lot of parents and families in the Church who attend church, but don’t instill a commitment and love of the Restoration in their children. When these children grow up, they don’t feel any special connection or commitment to either the Restoration or the Church. You can see this in the children when they are in Primary and MIA. They come to things, but they don’t think much about the Restoration or the gospel. If you did a “market share” pie chart of what they do spend their time thinking about and doing, the Restoration plays a very small role for most families --- even many who attend church. While we all can give examples of parents who are faithful and dedicated to the fullest extent who have wayward children, in most cases where this happens, a love of the Restoration has not been instilled in their children. If you take parents who attend church and bring their kids to church, and ask them about “the primary answers” (just taking that as a barometer), most active, attending LDS families do not have regular personal and family prayer, personal and family scripture study, and family home evening. In my experience, the cumulative protective and testimony effects of these small and simple things cannot be overstated. The counsel from our prophets is true, and it works! Yet, most families nonchalantly are very casual about how they instill the gospel in their children. One example of this that just came up a couple of weeks ago: the bishops and stake presidents were discussing things at bishopric training, and I mentioned that I have found very few youth in my experience who know mission stories from their parents: people, places, events, etc. I have encouraged parents, one-on-one, in my ward to tell their stories to their kids, and they have acted like that’s a good idea; why haven’t I done that. That resonated with the others. Many bishops and stake presidency members admitted that they haven’t said much of anything about their missions to their children. To me, this is a major factor in current struggles with missionaries. “Getting” missionaries to go on missions is a completely different thing from them “wanting” to go --- and not being able to wait to go. My children know all of my mission stories, and they can identify places and people in pictures. They also know my father’s mission stories (we served in the same mission) --- and they know my mom and dad’s mission stories from Poland (they return from their mission in a couple of weeks). But most families in the Church don’t really instill how special and what an adventure missions are, and then we wonder why youth have to be encouraged to serve a mission and struggle on one. This is one of many areas where active, faithful, attending members aren’t instilling the Restoration in their children. Mere church attendance without it being the warp and woof your being doesn’t instill very much, and this appears in the rising generation.
bsjkki Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, rongo said: I think we need to define what we mean when we say “faithful parents.” Are we talking about good, loving parents in general? Are we talking about people with good church attendance who serve in callings? Are we referring to the quality with which they serve in their callings? Or, are we talking about parents who purposely instill a love for and dedication to the Restoration? Yes--those are the faithful parents I am talking about. The ones who did purposely instill a love for and dedication to the Gospel and Restoration. The Bishops, Branch Presidents, Seminary Teachers, RS Presidents and those who served faithfully in whatever capacity they were asked. The ones who had daily scripture study and weekly family home evenings. The ones who went to scout camp, girls camp and were the last to leave ward activities. The ones who sacrificed their time, talents and abilities to help further the work. I find your premise completely wrong. It actually makes me sad this attitude still exists. It is not helpful. It seems, you would counsel a struggling parent to examine what they did wrong or where they fell short. I promise you that parent has already done that. I did and my answer was to do less and to not blindly trust my Priesthood leaders with my kids. It reminds me of how victims of sexual assault have been treated in the past--what were you wearing? What did you do that caused this to happen? You must have done something wrong to have this happen. I think you still believe in the illusion of control. Life is a lot more messy than that. "All of this is just another way of saying that we are a lot like Job’s Comforters when we talk about rape and sexual abuse. We want to live in a world where we can prevent bad things from happening to the people we love. We want these things to be part of patterns that we can predict and control. When this turns out not to be true, we often continue to insist on the world we want instead of the world we’ve got–and this can lead us to blame and criticize victims at the very moment that we should be loving them unconditionally and doing everything possible to help them heal." https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/05/08/the-logic-of-jobs-comforters-why-we-keep-blaming-victims-even-when-we-say-we-dont/ 2
bsjkki Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Parents with inactive children are in good company. They stand with God, Isaac, Jacob, Lehi, Mosiah and Alma. My faithful, angel, mother-in-law often states that some spirits are placed in homes because Heavenly Father knows those families will never give up and will love unconditionaly. "It is very unfair and unkind to judge conscientious and faithful parents because some of their children rebel or stray from the teachings and love of their parents. Fortunate are the couples who have children and grandchildren who bring them comfort and satisfaction. We should be considerate of those worthy, righteous parents who struggle and suffer with disobedient children. One of my friends used to say, “If you have never had any problems with your children, just wait awhile.” No one can say with any degree of certainty what their children will do under certain circumstances. When my wise mother-in-law saw other children misbehaving, she used to say, “I never say my children would not do that because they might be out doing it right while I am speaking!” When parents mourn for disobedient and wayward children, we must, with compassion, “forbid the casting of the first stone.”19https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/06/dear-are-the-sheep-that-have-wandered?lang=eng 1
rongo Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: Yes--those are the faithful parents I am talking about. The ones who did purposely instill a love for and dedication to the Gospel and Restoration. The Bishops, Branch Presidents, Seminary Teachers, RS Presidents and those who served faithfully in whatever capacity they were asked. The ones who had daily scripture study and weekly family home evenings. The ones who went to scout camp, girls camp and were the last to leave ward activities. The ones who sacrificed their time, talents and abilities to help further the work. We all know wonderful parents and families who are saddened by children who have used their agency counter to how they have been taught --- through no fault of them own. I like your thought in a later post that Parents with inactive children are in good company. They stand with God, Isaac, Jacob, Lehi, Mosiah and Alma. My faithful, angel, mother-in-law often states that some spirits are placed in homes because Heavenly Father knows those families will never give up and will love unconditionaly. I think there is a lot of truth to the thought that parents are given children "assignments" that align with their capacity and talents --- and that this can result in "tough assignments" (children who are going to be more of a challenge and potentially cause heartbreak). All parents know that we get our children with many of their own personalities and traits when they arrive --- before upbringing has played a role. Each person truly is a unique spirit that comes into this life. Do you agree, though, that parents should focus on what they can affect and influence? Or, is everything fatalistic and pre-determined? I know that we all agree that there are exceptions to our positions, but do you agree that parental impact also plays an important role in children's commitment to the gospel? Or would you say that is rarely the case? We all know "Bishops, Branch Presidents, Seminary Teachers, RS Presidents and those who served faithfully in whatever capacity they were asked" who don't do right by their family and don't raise their children well. One's position in the Church is not a guarantee of anything. It is possible to have a prominent position in the Church and not be that committed to it, too. I find your premise completely wrong. It actually makes me sad this attitude still exists. It is not helpful. What premise? That parental instilling and upbringing are an important factor? To what extent do you think its importance should be de-emphasized? Completely --- no mention of it, ever? It seems, you would counsel a struggling parent to examine what they did wrong or where they fell short. I promise you that parent has already done that. Where applicable. If applicable. I mainly help them have hope in the Atonement and in the promises of the prophets. I did and my answer was to do less and to not blindly trust my Priesthood leaders with my kids. I don't blindly trust the schools or the Church to teach my kids, and I say that as a public school teacher and as a bishop. My wife and I are the biggest influence on our kids, and the buck ultimately stops with us. As our kids, they are raised with the expectation that they will be a light, wherever they are.
Gray Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: Yes--those are the faithful parents I am talking about. The ones who did purposely instill a love for and dedication to the Gospel and Restoration. The Bishops, Branch Presidents, Seminary Teachers, RS Presidents and those who served faithfully in whatever capacity they were asked. The ones who had daily scripture study and weekly family home evenings. The ones who went to scout camp, girls camp and were the last to leave ward activities. The ones who sacrificed their time, talents and abilities to help further the work. I find your premise completely wrong. It actually makes me sad this attitude still exists. It is not helpful. It seems, you would counsel a struggling parent to examine what they did wrong or where they fell short. I promise you that parent has already done that. I did and my answer was to do less and to not blindly trust my Priesthood leaders with my kids. It reminds me of how victims of sexual assault have been treated in the past--what were you wearing? What did you do that caused this to happen? You must have done something wrong to have this happen. I think you still believe in the illusion of control. Life is a lot more messy than that. "All of this is just another way of saying that we are a lot like Job’s Comforters when we talk about rape and sexual abuse. We want to live in a world where we can prevent bad things from happening to the people we love. We want these things to be part of patterns that we can predict and control. When this turns out not to be true, we often continue to insist on the world we want instead of the world we’ve got–and this can lead us to blame and criticize victims at the very moment that we should be loving them unconditionally and doing everything possible to help them heal." https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/05/08/the-logic-of-jobs-comforters-why-we-keep-blaming-victims-even-when-we-say-we-dont/ Who knew, kids have free agency after all, and can choose to leave the church even with perfectly observant parents.
Recommended Posts