Parents leave son in Bryce Canyon-thoughts?

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I can't imagine what he'd have done if my husband and I sent in his papers anyway despite his not wanting to go.

Mission 'papers' aren't actual papers. The application is online, using lds.org. The application has to be created by a person's bishop, and then the young person has to fill it in by logging in using her/his personal LDS Account. When that end of it is complete, the bishop is notified, and he adds his bits (after having interviewed the candidate), and then the electronic application gets passed over to the stake president, who also adds his bits (after having interviewed the candidate). When the stake president finishes, he's the one who sends the completed application off (again, electronically).

Edited July 28, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Pete Ahlstrom]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder who on here you think is defending the parents' conduct. 

I think the only one you've gone after here personally is me, and I've repeatedly stated I don't condone the conduct.

 

Read through the entire thread. There are a few who were defending the parents. I disagreed. Anyway, I think I've made my point ad nauseum.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

This could be a form of Stockholm syndrome.

That is pure conjecture with nothing at this point to substantiate it . 

On the other hand, we have his own account that he was instrumental in the conversion of an investigator while in the MTC and that this experience affected him deeply and turned his attitude around. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mission 'papers' aren't actual papers. The application is online, using lds.org. The application has to be created by a person's bishop, and then the young person has to fill it in by logging in using her/his personal LDS Account. When that end of it is complete, the bishop is notified, and he adds his bits (after having interviewed the candidate), and then the electronic application gets passed over to the stake president, who also adds his bits (after having interviewed the candidate). When the stake president finishes, he's the one he sends the completed application off (again, electronically).

It wasn't electronic back when this happened, or it was and we were dealing with paperwork that hadn't been quite as far before he changed his mind, but good to know.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think Californiaboy was asking why the defenders were defending. So, I responded with why I believe persons would feel compelled to defend poor conduct. You are obviously excluded.

Why do you think the defenders feel it is necessary to defend the poor conduct? It doesn't make sense in a vacuum. It seems there are outside influences at work here. I think it has to do with the pushback members have received over the years from outsiders. But I could be mistaken.  

There are some on this board that feel if you ask a question about how the church may be dealing with an issue, they take it as a personal attack on the church itself, call you anti mormon, ignore the question and resort to demeaning you for asking the question. They live in a world where the church has to be perfect even when the issue is not about the church at all.  It is much easier to demean the person to shut down the discussion than to think about what actually was asked and give a thoughtful reply.

Fortunately Calm addressed my question and actually answered it.  I though her answer was thoughtful and gave me a better understanding on how these defenders were feeling about the incident.  Her post is worth repeating.  This is what she said.

 

Quote

 

Calm

I think use of the term "defenders" for those I think you are talking about is inaccurate.  I suggest using noncondemning unless your actual intent is to limit it just to a few posters.  

I think each approach has to do with mainly individual qualities, most likely a result of their own experiences.  I see many explaining what happened in their own life that allowed them to be independent and this experience gets put through that filter so they see it as an opportunity for growth and not harm.  I think those of us who are focused on what we see as wrongdoing may have personal or seen up close experiences where abandonment led to detrimental suffering that cannot be justified by the individual making their life into something good.  There are a few who are cautious and refusing to make judgment on the prelude because they see a lack of information, there are a few others who are confident to say it was wrong, but see the story should be more about what happens next as was the original intent of the missionary.

There is plenty of pushback here coming from the "TBM" section such as myself, I don't think using typical group dynamics in this case works because of that and the many varied approaches.

IOW, I think your explanation has little applicability to this particular situation.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It wasn't electronic back when this happened, or it was and we were dealing with paperwork that hadn't been quite as far before he changed his mind, but good to know.

Be that as it may, Hamba Tuhan has described the procedure as it is in place now,** so the application couldn't have been submitted without the knowledge or involvement of the young man under discussion here, as you keep implying here. He would had to have given his consent if interviews with both his bishop and stake president were part of the process.

**I know from personal observation and experience in our family of less than two years ago that Hamba is right. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are some on this board that feel if you ask a question about how the church may be dealing with an issue, they take it as a personal attack on the church itself, call you anti mormon, ignore the question and resort to demeaning you for asking the question. They live in a world where the church has to be perfect even when the issue is not about the church at all.  It is much easier to demean the person to shut down the discussion than to think about what actually was asked and give a thoughtful reply.

Fortunately Calm addressed my question and actually answered it.  I though her answer was thoughtful and gave me a better understanding on how these defenders were feeling about the incident.  Her post is worth repeating.  This is what she said.

 

 

Yet despite what she said, you continue to carelessly use "defenders" as a broad brush term applied to those with whom you disagree, whether or not they are actually defending the parents' conduct. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It wasn't electronic back when this happened, or it was and we were dealing with paperwork that hadn't been quite as far before he changed his mind, but good to know.

It's been electronic for about ten years.

And this mission application was definitely done online, because it's my old stake, and that's the only way it's done.  And Hamba's description is exactly how it works.  In short, the young man cooperated with the process, it wasn't that his parents did everything behind his back and then kidnapped him off to Utah.

All the evidence that has been presented (which you may not have examined in its entirety) says that this young man vacillated back and forth several times between wanting to go and not wanting to go, and then the day before they were to deliver him to the MTC, he flipped again.

And in answer to your earlier comment about why they didn't put him on a plane to Utah -- they combined his entering the MTC with a family vacation, for which they drove the family car.

[Stargazer]

I've confirmed that this young man is a member of my old stake (I'm currently temporarily living within that stake's boundaries, but I'm now a technically a member of a British stake, waiting for my permanent visa).  Though I've never met this family, I am acquainted with people who know this family and this young man.

This matter came up on my Facebook feed because one of my friends posted the video in question.

So far, two young persons from my old ward have chimed in on the FB thread, a young lady and a young man, both of whom know Kaydin and his family.  Neither one find this event at all sinister like many of you do.  The young lady said that Kaydin's mother is a very sweet person.  I'm going to quote the young man:

Who are we to claim it wasn't inspired. After all they are the ones given godly 
stewardship over their own family and not us. So our opinions and thoughts on 
kaydin story are irrelevant. I suggest we focus on the good outcome that came 
from it.

And by the way, saying that your opinion is irrelevant is not to say that you're not entitled to it.  Of course you're entitled to it.  Even if it is irrelevant (and possibly highly misinformed).

But I find that the exaggeration, mindreading, and sheer busybodying going on with this, both here and in social media, is deplorable.  You don't know the full situation, you don't understand the persons or the personalities involved, and you clearly deny the possibility that this young man's mother might have been guided by the Holy Spirit in this, and that she did exactly what she was inspired to do.  

For those of you who have lost or never had any faith in God, or the Restoration, this is perfectly understandable -- you only regard the temporal, so of course this was a monstrous thing for the mother to do.  I get that, and I won't argue with you.  

But for those of you have testimonies of what the Lord can and sometimes does inspire us to do (things that might seem odd to those without inspiration), I do not understand how you can go off cluck-clucking like this. OK, fine, maybe you would not have done this if you were simply relying upon your own wisdom -- heck, I can't see me doing this, based on my worldly wisdom -- but were you there?  Were you this young man's mother?  Do you really think that she didn't go through a great deal of anguish about what she put her son through in this matter?  If you were in her position, and the Spirit told you to do what she did, would you have done what the Spirit said to do, or would you have said "Screw that!" and put him back in the car and drove back to Washington?

And for all of you cluck-cluckers out there, have you ever been to Bryce Canyon National Park's campgrounds?  Some poster on the Facebook feed I'm talking about, responded to the assertion that Kaydin's mother is a "super sweet lady" by asking: "Sweet enough to leave him in the desert to die?"  Oh, sweet cheese and crackers. Sounds like some of you here.  It's easy to exaggerate, isn't it? You may not like what his mother did, but he was in no danger. Bryce Canyon is a National Park; unlike a random sand dune in the Sahara, it has facilities, including a visitor center and a lodge, located right next to the campgrounds, including the one they were staying in. He was in no more danger than you are when you drive down the freeway.  Probably even less.
https://www.nps.gov/brca/planyourvisit/campgrounds.htm

I suggest everyone chill about this.  The thing is, Kaydin is an adult.  If he feels he was put in danger, he can sue his mother for reckless endangerment or whatever other charge might be appropriate.  He could probably find some cub reporter to take it to court.  But it appears he hasn't done that, or even thought about it.

 

 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's been electronic for about ten years.

And this mission application was definitely done online, because it's my old stake, and that's the only way it's done.  And Hamba's description is exactly how it works.  In short, the young man cooperated with the process, it wasn't that his parents did everything behind his back and then kidnapped him off to Utah.

All the evidence that has been presented (which you may not have examined in its entirety) says that this young man vacillated back and forth several times between wanting to go and not wanting to go, and then the day before they were to deliver him to the MTC, he flipped again.

And in answer to your earlier comment about why they didn't put him on a plane to Utah -- they combined his entering the MTC with a family vacation, for which they drove the family car.

Tacenda was talking about her son in that post, not the missionary. 

[Stargazer]

50 minutes ago, Rain said:

Tacenda was talking about her son in that post, not the missionary. 

Ah, didn't catch that.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've confirmed that this young man is a member of my old stake (I'm currently temporarily living within that stake's boundaries, but I'm now a technically a member of a British stake, waiting for my permanent visa).  Though I've never met this family, I am acquainted with people who know this family and this young man.

This matter came up on my Facebook feed because one of my friends posted the video in question.

So far, two young persons from my old ward have chimed in on the FB thread, a young lady and a young man, both of whom know Kaydin and his family.  Neither one find this event at all sinister like many of you do.  The young lady said that Kaydin's mother is a very sweet person.  I'm going to quote the young man:

Who are we to claim it wasn't inspired. After all they are the ones given godly 
stewardship over their own family and not us. So our opinions and thoughts on 
kaydin story are irrelevant. I suggest we focus on the good outcome that came 
from it.

And by the way, saying that your opinion is irrelevant is not to say that you're not entitled to it.  Of course you're entitled to it.  Even if it is irrelevant (and possibly highly misinformed).

But I find that the exaggeration, mindreading, and sheer busybodying going on with this, both here and in social media, is deplorable.  You don't know the full situation, you don't understand the persons or the personalities involved, and you clearly deny the possibility that this young man's mother might have been guided by the Holy Spirit in this, and that she did exactly what she was inspired to do.  

For those of you who have lost or never had any faith in God, or the Restoration, this is perfectly understandable -- you only regard the temporal, so of course this was a monstrous thing for the mother to do.  I get that, and I won't argue with you.  

But for those of you have testimonies of what the Lord can and sometimes does inspire us to do (things that might seem odd to those without inspiration), I do not understand how you can go off cluck-clucking like this. OK, fine, maybe you would not have done this if you were simply relying upon your own wisdom -- heck, I can't see me doing this, based on my worldly wisdom -- but were you there?  Were you this young man's mother?  Do you really think that she didn't go through a great deal of anguish about what she put her son through in this matter?  If you were in her position, and the Spirit told you to do what she did, would you have done what the Spirit said to do, or would you have said "Screw that!" and put him back in the car and drove back to Washington?

And for all of you cluck-cluckers out there, have you ever been to Bryce Canyon National Park's campgrounds?  Some poster on the Facebook feed I'm talking about, responded to the assertion that Kaydin's mother is a "super sweet lady" by asking: "Sweet enough to leave him in the desert to die?"  Oh, sweet cheese and crackers. Sounds like some of you here.  It's easy to exaggerate, isn't it? You may not like what his mother did, but he was in no danger. Bryce Canyon is a National Park; unlike a random sand dune in the Sahara, it has facilities, including a visitor center and a lodge, located right next to the campgrounds, including the one they were staying in. He was in no more danger than you are when you drive down the freeway.  Probably even less.
https://www.nps.gov/brca/planyourvisit/campgrounds.htm

I suggest everyone chill about this.  The thing is, Kaydin is an adult.  If he feels he was put in danger, he can sue his mother for reckless endangerment or whatever other charge might be appropriate.  He could probably find some cub reporter to take it to court.  But it appears he hasn't done that, or even thought about it.

Stargazer, I am shocked, SHOCKED I say to think that facts would be relevant!!!  You mean to tell me that God would inspire a parent to put their poor, defenseless, barely able to feed himself little, tiny child in a position where they could grow?  I cannot believe it.  God must not be; the Church must not be true; and there is not sanity left in the world.  It is absolutely impossible that this could be a viable method of parenting and you just adding facts to make sound like it is viable is just an effort to distort the superior opinions of so many on the board.  Shame on you!  You take those facts back and don't bring them up again.  Humans prefer to walk in darkness and hold to the vastly enlightened opinions of utter ignorance. 

On another note, thank you for adding facts.  As upsetting as they will be to many I wonder if we see any repentance and acknowledgement of the rather obnoxious effort to judge in ignorance regardless of warnings that they did not know the facts.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Tacenda was talking about her son in that post, not the missionary. 

She was actually talking about both. She was drawing a comparison and saying how her son would have reacted if his parents had sent the application in without his consent. 

But that didn't happen in this case. It can't happen. Not these days -- if it was ever possible. The bishop and stake president each have to interview the prospective missionary before adding to the application and clicking the send button. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

On 7/28/2017 at 5:03 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Yet despite what she said, you continue to carelessly use "defenders" as a broad brush term applied to those with whom you disagree, whether or not they are actually defending the parents' conduct. 

I've seen at least a couple of posters here defend the parents' conduct.  I don't include you, but it's not careless to call someone who is defending a "defender".  I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to you though.  Members on here have a right to defend these parents if they feel what they did was not wrong or feel that they are being criticized unfairly. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I've seen at least a couple of posters here defend the parents' conduct.  I don't include you, but it's not careless to call someone who is defending a "defender".  I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to you though.  Members on here have a right to defend these parents if they feel what they did was not wrong or feel that they are being criticized unfairly. 

I read his use of "defenders" as codespeak for "anyone on this thread who doesn't think as I do." To wit, he came at me even after I had repeatedly said I don't condone the conduct of the parents. 

Under the codespeak, anyone who doesn't react with a suitably vehement degree of rage against the parents' action becomes a "defender." It's an if-you're-not-with-me-you're-against-me attitude. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I read his use of "defenders" as codespeak for "anyone on this thread who doesn't think as I do." To wit, he came at me even after I had repeatedly said I don't condone the conduct of the parents. 

"Codespeak"?  Ok.   

He's explained to you his position and has been very civil, yet you continue to berate him.  There have definitely been defenders on this thread (so he's correct) and there have been those who have criticized or not agreed with what the parents did.  This is a discussion board and all part of the experience here, so no need to get so overly defensive as you've done, IMO.

Edited July 29, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Codespeak"?  Ok.   

He's explained to you his position and has been very civil, yet you continue to berate him.  There have definitely been defenders on this thread (so he's correct) and there have been those who have criticized or not agreed with what the parents did.  This is a discussion board and all part of the experience here, so no need to get so overly defensive as you've done, IMO.

I'm responding to the polarization I see on the part of some. Read the part I added to my last post that you hadn't seen before you posted this. 

One can disapprove of the parents' action without calling for them to be consigned to the nether regions of hell. 

You probably should see Calm's posts -- re-read them if you already have -- about the diversity of and nuances in opinion expressed here. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm responding to the polarization I see on the part of some. Read the part I added to my last post that you hadn't seen before you posted this. 

One can disapprove of the parents' action without calling for them to be consigned to the nether regions of hell. 

You probably should see Calm's posts -- re-read them if you already have -- about the diversity of and nuances in opinion expressed here. 

I've read Calm's posts and they apply to some on here, but there have been at least a couple of posters who have outright defended these parents' actions.  I have no problem with that as they have every right to their opinion regarding what took place.  But they are definitely "defenders" and there's nothing wrong with using that term to describe them.

And you're pretty over the top here with this:

"One can disapprove of the parent's action without calling them to be consigned to the nether regions of hell."  I know, I know....hyperbole again...

But thanks for the laugh 

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I've read Calm's posts and they apply to some on here, but there have been at least a couple of posters who have outright defended these parents' actions.  I have no problem with that as they have every right to their opinion regarding what took place.  But they are definitely "defenders" and there's nothing wrong with using that term to describe them.

And you're pretty over the top here with this:

"One can disapprove of the parent's action without calling them to be consigned to the nether regions of hell."  I know, I know....hyperbole again...

But thanks for the laugh 

 

You're still not getting my point. I know there are a few outright defenders of what the parents did. But everyone who is not deemed to be suitably contemptuous or judgmental of the parents gets lumped into the same pile under the blamket term defenders. Calm observed as much; I agree. 

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're still not getting my point. I know there are a few outright defenders of what the parents did. But everyone who is not deemed to be suitably contemptuous or judgmental of the parents gets lumped into the same pile under the blamket term defenders. Calm observed as much; I agree. 

I think I understand what you are saying finally...is it like calling and lumping all ex mormons..anti????  Yeah..I get it!

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I read his use of "defenders" as codespeak for "anyone on this thread who doesn't think as I do." To wit, he came at me even after I had repeatedly said I don't condone the conduct of the parents. 

Under the codespeak, anyone who doesn't react with a suitably vehement degree of rage against the parents' action becomes a "defender." It's an if-you're-not-with-me-you're-against-me attitude. 

And so you once again make assumptions and then base your comments on those assumptions.  Perhaps ti would come across better if you relied on exactly what I said rather than projecting our own "code speak"  You are so incredible protective of the church that you treat it like a fragile egg where if one crack appears then the whole thing is going to crumble apart.  I don't view the church that way.  I think it is strong enough to ask questions that may bring more understanding to us.  

I might add that in the post I was responding to you on I specifically stated when you accused me of targeting you, that I clearly stated that I was NOT targeting you.  You have completely ignored that and continue to use "code speak" so that you can be offended.  

Edited July 29, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I think I understand what you are saying finally...is it like calling and lumping all ex mormons..anti????  Yeah..I get it!

I've never done that. 

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

She was actually talking about both. She was drawing a comparison and saying how her son would have reacted if his parents had sent the application in without his consent. 

But that didn't happen in this case. It can't happen. Not these days -- if it was ever possible. The bishop and stake president each have to interview the prospective missionary before adding to the application and clicking the send button. 

I was out of posts, only allowed 12 I believe, because of my status so just now responding. Good to know, I guess I didn't know that. My son was just figuring out the paperwork, it didn't get to the electronic stage, good to know that there are safegaurds to keep parents from sending in papers w/o their child's consent!! 

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this thread has outlived whatever modicum of usefulness it might have had. 

Moderators?

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're still not getting my point. I know there are a few outright defenders of what the parents did. But everyone who is not deemed to be suitably contemptuous or judgmental of the parents gets lumped into the same pile under the blamket term defenders. Calm observed as much; I agree. 

Of course I get your point.  I just don't see it as being as huge a deal as you've made it out to be here.  I haven't seen anyone "lump" everyone together under the blanket term "defenders".  You're way overly sensitive and defensive and have made a mountain out of a mole hill.  Many have clarified and outright stated that you are not included in who they are referring to as "defenders" of the parents.  But, that's still not good enough for you and you feel you have to continue complaining and whining about it.

Edited July 29, 2017 by ALarson