Parents leave son in Bryce Canyon-thoughts?

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, Jeanne that is not accurate.  This is a common misunderstanding of personal agency and Satan's plan.  To force is to remove consequences of one's personal choice - there is no choice.  What the parents did, whether you or I agree with their process, is provide a choice and consequences.  Do you see the difference?  There is nothing in common with the two.  It is great to stand on a box, beat your chest, rip your clothes and fall down with crocodile tears pouring from your eyes for the sack of good drama and to shame the parents, but it is just not reality.  

My father wasn't LDS.  He raised us seven children and each of us heard as we were growing up that when we each turned 18 he was breaking our dinner plate i.e. we were going to be out of the house.  Guess what?  Each of us where gone by the time we were 18.  We were either in school - which we individually paid for - or we joined the workforce full time.  Not a single one of my brothers or sisters stayed home after high school graduation because we each knew what our responsibility was.  Some would view that as harsh, but it was just his style of parenting.  It was not abusive, but it was firm.  He clearly drew the line about the future for us.  

You just may not understand my reality and how I see things...but I respect your thoughts..not crying though. 

[Thinking]

35 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My father wasn't LDS.  He raised us seven children and each of us heard as we were growing up that when we each turned 18 he was breaking our dinner plate i.e. we were going to be out of the house.  Guess what?  Each of us where gone by the time we were 18.  We were either in school - which we individually paid for - or we joined the workforce full time.  Not a single one of my brothers or sisters stayed home after high school graduation because we each knew what our responsibility was.  Some would view that as harsh, but it was just his style of parenting.  It was not abusive, but it was firm.  He clearly drew the line about the future for us.  

It sounds like you knew before your high school graduation what the situation would be. That's much different than what happened here.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet so many are not defending, so did the culture screw up when it came to us?

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.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

It sounds like you knew before your high school graduation what the situation would be. That's much different than what happened here.

Exactly..very different to me.  I have had two adult children living with me on and on for various life reasons.  I have made sure that they set goals and did my best to help them out with a fixed time to move on..

My son in one fell swoop..lost his wife, his car, his home and his job..(he worked for her mother's business)...I can just see me telling my 30 year old...tough beans...and dropping him off in a canyon. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for responding. We interpret some things differently and that's fine with me. I acknowledged that here reaction against the Church has been mild, but I maintain that it is present nevertheless. My observation was that these agenda-driven attention-seeking dramas are used to shame the Church and I asked if the more subtle approach here is typical of the reaction elsewhere. Unfortunately, it is not.

What appears to be the first to publicize the episode with the son was the local ward with the missionary video.  Then someone who saw the whole story as faith promoting sent it to .LDS Living (iirc it is someone who does this on a regular basis so no attempt to sucker them into using it.

Unfortunately, then they had the episode of making public a rejected draft by accident, at which time they decided to go with focus on the positive aspects.

In my view there was no agenda to use this video to shame the Church, quite the opposite.  As I said in my first response though iirc, the most unusual aspect of the story is the parents' reaction and that will thus become the story.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

45 minutes 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.  

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.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Calm

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

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

 

What should I call those that are defending the parents' action in this case? And I know nobody wants to be labeled or be swept into a group with a broad stroke, but sometimes it is unavoidable. My comments on this thread are primarily about those who feel it is necessary to defend the poor conduct of these parents. I don't think it is necessary and their poor conduct doesn't reflect the church. People do dumb things all the time and these just happen to be LDS.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What appears to be the first to publicize the episode with the son was the local ward with the missionary video.  Then someone who saw the whole story as faith promoting sent it to .LDS Living (iirc it is someone who does this on a regular basis so no attempt to sucker them into using it.

Unfortunately, then they had the episode of making public a rejected draft by accident, at which time they decided to go with focus on the positive aspects.

In my view there was no agenda to use this video to shame the Church, quite the opposite.  As I said in my first response though iirc, the most unusual aspect of the story is the parents' reaction and that will thus become the story.

Thank you for the information. In this case, it's the outliers who glom on to the story and then use it to bash the church like the one I quoted above in which he says this approach to parenting is the most common among Mormons. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for the information. In this case, it's the outliers who glom on to the story and then use it to bash the church like the one I quoted above in which he says this approach to parenting is the most common among Mormons. 

Who has stated that "this approach to parenting is the most common among Mormons"?  Do you have a source for this?

Let's hope what these parents did is not "common" among any group.

Edited to add:

Are you referring to this comment from another website?

Quote

"Like, it’s very clear that Mormonism prioritizes and privileges mission work. To me, if someone asked me who has a more typically Mormon response to mission work: my parents or Alabbas’ parents, I would easily say Alabbas’s parents. Even though I am very fortunate my parents did not have that sort of expectations, I cannot honestly say that that is a particularly orthodox Mormon POV."

(If so, I can't see where they are stating that this type of parenting is "most common among Mormons".)

Edited July 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Oh boy.  Are you sure you believe that?

I know many women in their 40's who are very independent, strong and capable of taking care of themselves.  I'd think that applies to some girls at 18 vs. some boys at 18 too.  

Bottom line is that I think abandoning any 18 year old like these parents did is wrong.  (I know you've stated that you agree.)

Doesn't matter how strong or independent, all other things being equal, a female is more prone to sexual attack than a male. This seems axiomatic to me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who has stated that "this approach to parenting is the most common among Mormons"?  Do you have a source for this?

Let's hope what these parents did is not "common" among any group.

Edited to add:

Are you referring to this comment from another website?

(If so, I can't see where they are stating that this type of parenting is "most common among Mormons".)

It's very clear to me that is precisely what it is saying. 

[Calm]

"Male and female hitchhikers were equally likely to have been the victims of a crime, where the person committing the crime was far more likely to be male (86%)."

Old study but on phone so research is difficult

https://wandrlymagazine.com/article/hitchhiking/

not impressed with conclusions of site ( they come up with stats using everyone in the US, not just those hitch hiking to figure out risk), so just using them to get to this study

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn't matter how strong or independent, all other things being equal, a female is more prone to sexual attack than a male. 

Interesting that you went right to being sexually attacked.  I was merely thinking of them surviving on their own without help.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's very clear to me that is precisely what it is saying. 

I don't see that it states that, but ok.  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

Interesting that you went right to being sexually attacked.  I was merely thinking of them surviving on their own without help.

Being without protection from violence is among the threats to survival. Is that not self-evident? 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Male and female hitchhikers were equally likely to have been the victims of a crime, where the person committing the crime was far more likely to be male (86%)."

Old study but on phone so research is difficult

https://wandrlymagazine.com/article/hitchhiking/

not impressed with conclusions of site ( they come up with stats using everyone in the US, not just those hitch hiking to figure out risk), so just using them to get to this study

Also, the kinds of crime are not categorized. Being mugged is not as great a threat to well being as is assault. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Being without protection from violence is among the threats to survival. Is that not self-evident. 

I doubt that being sexually attacked would be the first thing a 40 year old woman would think of who's left on her own (from your statement of: "I'd be more worried about a woman in her 40s left on her own than a man in his 40s").  So no, I don't think it's "self-evident".  

[Duncan]

In like 13 years from now we'll get a mormon leak saying that this was some failed Studio C skit or something

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I doubt that being sexually attacked would be the first thing a 40 year old woman would think of who's left on her own (from your statement of: "I'd be more worried about a woman in her 40s left on her own than a man in his 40s").  So no, I don't think it's "self-evident".  

I imagine there would be a number of things on her mind. But I've never been a 40-year-old woman. Neither have you. 

[Calm]

I have...being robbed is and was higher probability to my mind than being assaulted.

[Tacenda]

I keep thinking back to the time one of my sons decided against serving at the last minute. We had even been to a doctor about his allergies and decided against the shots for them when the doctor mentioned that it may be difficult to keep up with them on his mission. We were going through all the motions but at the last minute my son changed his mind. 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. And then going against his will and packing him off for a last trip before his mission then leaving him at Bryce Canyon. Let's just say these parents are awful lucky things turned out as well as it did. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I have...being robbed is and was higher probability to my mind than being assaulted.

I'm not arguing what would be a higher probability. Just saying that assault would be one of a number of things to worry about.

And I did say I thought being assaulted would be more injurious to one's well-being than being mugged. But maybe that's a subjective evaluation on my part. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What should I call those that are defending the parents' action in this case? And I know nobody wants to be labeled or be swept into a group with a broad stroke, but sometimes it is unavoidable. My comments on this thread are primarily about those who feel it is necessary to defend the poor conduct of these parents. I don't think it is necessary and their poor conduct doesn't reflect the church. People do dumb things all the time and these just happen to be LDS.

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.

 

[Thinking]

On 7/21/2017 at 5:34 PM, rpn said:

The person to whom it was done, doesn't harbor any ill will, so I'm not sure why anyone else has the right to on his behalf.

This could be a form of Stockholm syndrome.

[Storm Rider]

On 7/27/2017 at 2:16 PM, Thinking said:

It sounds like you knew before your high school graduation what the situation would be. That's much different than what happened here.

You sound like you know the history much better than I do of this family and this young man.  Where did you get it?  Facts are strange things - they don't drop out of the air; they are not invented when convenient to support a POV; they are the stuff of reality, which is exactly what not one of us knows in this situation.  Instead of posing as if you know the facts, how about taking a breath and realizing we don't know all of the facts about this story. Worse, some of us don't know that we don't know the reality of this story.  

Edited July 29, 2017 by Storm Rider