Parents leave son in Bryce Canyon-thoughts?

[Stargazer]

It looks like we can have Elder Alabbas speak for himself about the matter:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F1463995797251252%2Fvideos%2F1834888656828629%2F&show_text=0&width=560

I was surprised to discover that he is from Olympia, Washington -- my home town.  I don't know the family, though.  

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It looks like we can have Elder Alabbas speak for himself about the matter:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F1463995797251252%2Fvideos%2F1834888656828629%2F&show_text=0&width=560

I was surprised to discover that he is from Olympia, Washington -- my home town.  I don't know the family, though.  

 

Hate to burst your bubble, Stargazer, but I do believe this was linked to earlier in the thread. Or perhaps I sa the link in the LDS Living piece which was linked to here. 

[Calm]

It was in the LDS Living piece along with several others that discussed it.

From as far as I can tell, it was this video that started the public discussion.  I haven't found anything referencing something earlier.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hate to burst your bubble, Stargazer, but I do believe this was linked to earlier in the thread. Or perhaps I sa the link in the LDS Living piece which was linked to here. 

Yeah, I guess I was looking for a YouTube video, but didn't see it, so...

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It looked like your earlier post was an attempt to justify the wrong conduct of the mother and the weak response of the father in his acquiecence to his wife. Leaving the son, suddenly and without warning, just because he was getting cold feet, was wrong plain and simple. Children need to learn responsibility and self reliance to be sure. However, obviously, this was not the time and place for that lesson.

It's ok to condemn mormons who do bad things surrounding their efforts to encourage their kids to go on missions. People, including members, do bad things at times. However, one doesn't have to have a knee jerk defend at all costs response here. Obviously, the church didn't condone the behavior and it was a bad choice to publicize the story. But the isolated conduct of one member doesn't reflect the entire church population. I think everyone can see it.

Pete, I understand your position and the fact that you, and a great many of the rest of us, would never have done what this couple did; however, my position is to hold off on the stone throwing.  You don't, we don't, have all the facts, the history, or any real understanding of these parents and the manner in which this young man has been raised.  We don't know anything about his past behavior or choices.  The fact that you don't know anything substantive about this family leads me to think you might want to take a breathe and wait before judging them.

I can judge myself and I know what when I have erred with my children because I know the whole story.  You don't in the same way you don't know about this family.  I have no problem judging myself and my actions, but I am more cautious about condemning other parents.  Not because I don't think that other people are human, but that I don't know the whole story.  

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You don't, we don't, have all the facts, the history, or any real understanding of these parents and the manner in which this young man has been raised.  We don't know anything about his past behavior or choices.

What manner of being raised, past behavior or past choices would justify this treatment?

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Pete, I understand your position and the fact that you, and a great many of the rest of us, would never have done what this couple did; however, my position is to hold off on the stone throwing.  You don't, we don't, have all the facts, the history, or any real understanding of these parents and the manner in which this young man has been raised.  We don't know anything about his past behavior or choices.  The fact that you don't know anything substantive about this family leads me to think you might want to take a breathe and wait before judging them.

I can judge myself and I know what when I have erred with my children because I know the whole story.  You don't in the same way you don't know about this family.  I have no problem judging myself and my actions, but I am more cautious about condemning other parents.  Not because I don't think that other people are human, but that I don't know the whole story.  

they basically left him for dead? do we need more facts than that?! does any past behaviour warrant that and if so why was he recommended for a mission?

[strappinglad]

When we use words like " appalling " , " outrageous" ,  etc. we leave no room for an escalation of emotion. If the actions of these parents was appalling then what is left to say if they had stabbed him and left him in the desert? I see this hyperbolic reaction often on Youtube where it is asserted that person X " destroyed " person Y in a debate. No they didn't. Both still live, walk the earth and speak on other occasions.

 What these parents did may have been unwise, silly, wrong, even stupid perhaps, but when I see a parent trying to teach a child to ride a bike I try not to judge them when they ,after guiding them for a while, eventually let them ride off on their own, despite my knowledge of all the potential dangers and mishaps connected with bike riding. That said, one would hope they would at least watch the bike rider from a distance and not immediately take off for the summer cabin assuming the kid was now fine and could get themselves out of any trouble.

[The Nehor]

On 7/24/2017 at 9:01 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not comfortable with an assumption either way. 

Mainly, I find it deplorable that what should be very private family business went viral and is now being bandied about by tongue-clucking  strangers as though it were the stuff of the latest grocery store tabloid. 

Does anyone here know if the family consented to it being made public in the first place? I know the missionary made a video, but was that after the incident had gone viral?

The family told their story. If they did not want it shouted from the rooftops they should have avoided discussing it. I know if I were a parent and I was inspired to do something that would appear malevolent to most people I would not tell the story and encourage all others involved to be circumspect. Someone talked so they have to deal with it.

Incidentally this is similar to why visions, dreams, and the visitation of angels are also generally kept quiet.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The family told their story. If they did not want it shouted from the rooftops they should have avoided discussing it. I know if I were a parent and I was inspired to do something that would appear malevolent to most people I would not tell the story and encourage all others involved to be circumspect. Someone talked so they have to deal with it.

Incidentally this is similar to why visions, dreams, and the visitation of angels are also generally kept quiet.

This doesn't answer my question. Did they seek the spotlight on their own initiative or were they "outed" by somebody, making them feel obliged to go public for the sake of telling their side of the story? 

Do you know? I have to admit that, after this long, I still don't. 

[Thinking]

There have been many posters defending the parents decision because...

• Kaydin is an adult so they did nothing illegal.
• Everything seems to have turned out ok.

1. Legal ≠ Moral

2. The result of a situation does not validate the situation.

Adult or not, the parents had a moral obligation to return Kaydin home and then have a discussion about his plans. Kaydin was honest and was rewarded by being abandoned at the campsite. The charity of the campsite owner and the rescue efforts of his grandfather should be applauded.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

There have been many posters defending the parents decision because...

• Kaydin is an adult so they did nothing illegal.
• Everything seems to have turned out ok.

1. Legal ≠ Moral

2. The result of a situation does not validate the situation.

Adult or not, the parents had a moral obligation to return Kaydin home and then have a discussion about his plans. Kaydin was honest and was rewarded by being abandoned at the campsite. The charity of the campsite owner and the rescue efforts of his grandfather should be applauded.

There have been some intemperate things said on this thread. So what we are seeing is the phenomenon of misbehavior by some provoked by their perception of misbehavior on the part of others. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Pete, I understand your position and the fact that you, and a great many of the rest of us, would never have done what this couple did; however, my position is to hold off on the stone throwing.  You don't, we don't, have all the facts, the history, or any real understanding of these parents and the manner in which this young man has been raised.  We don't know anything about his past behavior or choices.  The fact that you don't know anything substantive about this family leads me to think you might want to take a breathe and wait before judging them.

I can judge myself and I know what when I have erred with my children because I know the whole story.  You don't in the same way you don't know about this family.  I have no problem judging myself and my actions, but I am more cautious about condemning other parents.  Not because I don't think that other people are human, but that I don't know the whole story.  

There is a certain standard society requires in raising children. I think the parents fell below that standard and could have been criminally charged with child abandonment had the boy been under 18. Sure I don't know the history but I don't have to. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

There is a certain standard society requires in raising children. I think the parents fell below that standard and could have been criminally charged with child abandonment had the boy been under 18. Sure I don't know the history but I don't have to. 

What if he had been 21? 26? 33? 40? Would you be calling it child endangerment then?

if not, then this is a matter of quibbling over what age constitutes competent adulthood. Apparently you and the government disagree over that question.

My 20-year-old has had to manage some fairly stressful situations while on his mission. I have marveled as he has recounted them later. I would not have known if he had it in him. I don't know whether he knew either. But the experiences have given him some newfound confidence and years of maturity within a few months.

Do I condone the parents'action? I've already said no -- repeatedly. But I'm not going to call it child endangerment when it pertains to a grown man. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What if he had been 21? 26? 33? 40? Would you be calling it child endangerment then?

if not, then this is a matter of quibbling over what age constitutes competent adulthood. Apparently you and the government disagree over that question.

My 20-year-old has had to manage some fairly stressful situations while on his mission. I have marveled as he has recounted them later. I would not have known if he had it in him. I don't know whether he knew either. But the experiences have given him some newfound confidence and years of maturity within a few months.

Do I condone the parents'action? I've already said no -- repeatedly. But I'm not going to call it child endangerment when it pertains to a grown man. 

This is in response to those, seemingly like you, who feel the knee-jerk need to lessen or justify the parent's conduct because it happened in a mormon context and could possibly be used to negatively paint the church with a broad brush.  Obviously, it doesn't reflect the entire church or its teachings.  So, I think the fear is misplaced.  There is no need to justify the parents' conduct.  Let's just call it what it is - an extremely poor choice by the parents and an even worse choice by those who published the story, that was hastily retracted and changed to a grandparent rescue story.  Do you think the decision to publish was a wise one?  You are in a good position to judge this one, what are your thoughts? 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This doesn't answer my question. Did they seek the spotlight on their own initiative or were they "outed" by somebody, making them feel obliged to go public for the sake of telling their side of the story? 

Do you know? I have to admit that, after this long, I still don't. 

Since the only people who knew the story were the family if they were outed it was one of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Since the only people who knew the story were the family if they were outed it was one of them.

Not necessarily. Someone could have heard about it through word of mouth and at some point from there it could have gotten picked up on social media, at which point the public shaming commenced.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is in response to those, seemingly like you, who feel the knee-jerk need to lessen or justify the parent's conduct because it happened in a mormon context and could possibly be used to negatively paint the church with a broad brush.  Obviously, it doesn't reflect the entire church or its teachings.  So, I think the fear is misplaced.  There is no need to justify the parents' conduct. 

This is perhaps the ninth or 10th time I've had to repeat this, but I don't condone the parents' conduct.

Quote

Let's just call it what it is - an extremely poor choice by the parents and an even worse choice by those who published the story, that was hastily retracted and changed to a grandparent rescue story.  Do you think the decision to publish was a wise one?  You are in a good position to judge this one, what are your thoughts? 

The writer for LDS Living has already explained in a fairly lengthy treatise what went into his/her decision, so your negative speculation ("hastily retracted and changed") is irrelevant.

And if you will go back and look through the thread, you'll find I have already expressed myself on the question you pose here. I said it was an error to only tell part of the story, that regardless of intent, it makes it look like a whitewash.

For the record, I have little patience with those who ask me questions to which I have already responded on the same thread.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not necessarily. Someone could have heard about it through word of mouth and at some point from there it could have gotten picked up on social media, at which point the public shaming commenced.

And word of mouth started because someone in the family opened their yapper. Still their fault.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Since the only people who knew the story were the family if they were outed it was one of them.

The Woodington Ward where Kaydin is serving created the video and posted the video on its Facebook page. It seems to be part of #meetamissionary. If you scroll down you will see more such videos. Kaydin just told his story.

https://www.facebook.com/Woodington-Ward-of-The-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-Day-Saints-1463995797251252/

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The Woodington Ward where Kaydin is serving created the video and posted the video on its Facebook page. It seems to be part of #meetamissionary. If you scroll down you will see more such videos. Kaydin just told his story.

https://www.facebook.com/Woodington-Ward-of-The-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-Day-Saints-1463995797251252/

Thank you.

And from watching the video, it is clear there was no vindictive sentiment or any intent on his part to punish or vilify his parents. Clearly, his focus was on the change in attitude he had experienced about going on a mission. It was just as you say: He just told his story.

So, assuming the video was the genesis of the social and mass media publicity (and it's still not clear to me that it was) it was someone else who made the choice to pick it up and apply the public shaming to it.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/21/2017 at 6:58 PM, Calm said:

He had no cell phone, no money, no food, no job for self support to go to that we hear of after being kicked out of the car and the family.

Sounds like one of our boys...except he chooses this life himself. 

[ALarson]

On 7/21/2017 at 6:58 PM, Calm said:

"3)   It was Bryce Canyon in July, how is that "dangerous abandonment"?"

He had no cell phone, no money, no food, no job for self support to go to that we hear of after being kicked out of the car and the family.  If his grandfather had refused to come down, he probably would have ended up hitchhiking to get to somewhere (hitchhiking to Washington is not a safe endeavor).  He might have ended up homeless.  We are not talking about someone who was preparing to be financially independent or had some place else already set up to go to.  He lucked out that the campground owner was a nice guy instead of some jerk who would take advantage of him or even a psychopath.

It didn't have to be Bryce Canyon, but could have been anywhere away from his usual support system where with his emotions in turmoil, an unprepared 18 year old could make some very stupid decisions or plunge into depression or just get taken advantage of by others because he had not had time to prepare a safe haven to move to.  

Why not drive him up to his grandparents and leave him there? 

I agree.  No amount of trying to put a positive spin on what these parents did will ever make it right.  I'm amazed at how some are still trying to defend them just because their son wasn't physically harmed (and because he apparently holds no ill will towards them now).  I don't blame the church or church leaders for what these parents did.  They alone are responsible for making a potentially dangerous decision that definitely put their son in harm's way.  

Edited July 26, 2017 by ALarson

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, assuming the video was the genesis of the social and mass media publicity (and it's still not clear to me that it was) it was someone else who made the choice to pick it up and apply the public shaming to it.

The Woodington page is not private and the video was not restricted, so anybody with a Facebook account can share it.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The Woodington page is not private and the video was not restricted, so anybody with a Facebook account can share it.

Got it.

Thanks.