What To Do When Loved Ones Leave the Church

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

There probably are some who feel shame. I know when my brother and I were young and he started drinking and doing drugs I felt some of it. When he went to prison I felt it more. However, as I have matured I have lost all of that shame/embarrassment. 

When my son and sister started separating from the church I was past all of that. My deepest concerns were for their eternal happiness. Embarrassment has not been a part of my feelings at all. 

What I conclude from this? That embarrassment has less to do with church and more to do with maturity and how comfortable you are with yourself.

When my late wife only had a few months left, she made sure to insist upon my remarrying after I said I'd probably just stay single.  I think she was worried that a single Stargazer would drift out of church activity and perhaps drift out of eternal life with her without someone to steady me.  Not out of embarrassment, but that she really wanted to be with me for eternity.  I am regretful about my own children's inactivity because of my concern for their eternal happiness -- no embarrassment, in fact I use them as my examples of how not to live one's life when I give talks and lessons.  Nobody here knows who they are, so no harm done.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

When my late wife only had a few months left, she made sure to insist upon my remarrying after I said I'd probably just stay single.  I think she was worried that a single Stargazer would drift out of church activity and perhaps drift out of eternal life with her without someone to steady me.  Not out of embarrassment, but that she really wanted to be with me for eternity.  I am regretful about my own children's inactivity because of my concern for their eternal happiness -- no embarrassment, in fact I use them as my examples of how not to live one's life when I give talks and lessons.  Nobody here knows who they are, so no harm done.

Do your children know you use them as bad examples in your talks? How do they like being your cautionary tale to others? Does it hurt or help your relationship?

Personally, I can't see how it would possibly help. The message of "I love you but I'm very disappointed by the person you've become" is not a very loving message IMO.

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For those who have mistakenly done so, sure. I've got no problem allowing for some charity. Do you?

 

I seem to have hit a nerve. Yes, I recall many such conversations on this board. If you don't want to take the time to talk about the errors, no big deal. But telling someone they "should know better" is condescending. You didn't even point out which issue you believe was incorrect, let alone try to make your point.

I agree that dealing with 1-2 issues at a time rather than a "shotgun approach" is better for discussion. At the same time, if a person is asking for the issues people feel have been lied about, it seems reasonable to list a number of those items so the person can review and research them. It wasn't really a call for discussion, but information. I've got no problem with the reddit user giving a list. It's hard for me to understand why that is so offensive.

But I stand by my post. If you tell someone they are wrong but do not even tell them what they are wrong about, and then tell them they should know better, it just comes across as either 1- lazy or 2- condescending

I lack confidence in myself and bow down when getting reprimanded, you've been very generous to go to bat for me. Yes, that list was a representation of the unbeliever's issues, and I do see that some on the list need a lot of help to become totally the truth, so I was bad for not reading thoroughly, and stating that. But thanks HJW!

[MustardSeed]

My son and his wife are inactive in church. They are not ready to talk about their activities in things like drinking , but other than that we have an excellent relationship with each other. 

I have watched people around me approach their kids in different ways and I admire people who are in love with their children and who worry less about the after life. 

That is my chosen path.  I trust them to make decisions for themselves. I don’t know that I have all the answers in life.  My son just learned that his best friend is transitioning.  My response was, I don’t understand it but I don’t have anything bad to say.  I love him. her. I know nothing. 

I still choose to embrace my religion.  But I hold my kids closer to my heart than anything else. I may go to hell for it but I couldn’t live with anything else. ❤️

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, Exiled said:

So, you obviously assume the believing spouse is correct here, right?  What do you ask of the non-believer if their believing spouse continually makes comments, or sighs, or continually pressures the non-believer to return to something the non-believer thinks is untrue?  Is a rescue mission not allowed? Should the non-believer just accept the continued pressure to return?

No, I don't. I'm curious what you even mean by "correct" in this question. My degree is in Marriage and Family Therapy. My bias is helping families stay together as much as I can and generally believe that most couples who enter my office have the capacity for a happy marriage IF they're willing to work through their current hurdles. You simplified my post in a way that I disagreed with because I view it as inadvertently expecting more from the believer than the non-believer. One was being asked to remember a couple positive things from their former religion....which could be as broad as service opportunities and noting a good youth program. The other was being asked to shift their belief structure. When I had a little over-zealous mission companion who told an atheist we tracked into to take a moment and just "suspend her beliefs," I immediately shut down the conversation, apologized to the atheist, and then chatted with my companion as to why that is inappropriate to ask of anyone.  In your post, it wasn't an unbeliever being asked to do that, it's the believer....thus why I talked about the believer and what I would do for them specifically that is different from your summary. 

  As to the non-believer, I'd first slow down the believer and help him/her explore the said comments, sighs, etc with both of them to make sure they're both interpretting what they mean in the same way. Often, they're not. It's actually not super common that I have a spouse who's making "comments, sighs, or continually pressures the non-believer." When I do, it's not just in religious matters that things have fallen apart. Usually there's some form of a breach in trust in their relationship as well. The most recent cases where I saw this entail the believing spouse being lied to (usually by omission) in one way or another often for years. I've never had a spouse actively pursue a "rescue mission." The closest to that is when the non-believer views the reach out by well-meaning members as such and the believing spouse feels a need to defend these well-meaning neighbors/ward members, which then makes the non-believing spouse feel as though the believing one cares more about religion than them. Which is almost never true (I can't currently think of a case where that was true....but I'm leaving it open due to a currently spotty memory).

Usually the concern or subtle methods to try and push belief or activity is easily fixed by just overtly looking at the believing spouse and empathetically stating something along the lines of "I can't make your spouse believe again, that's not my job and I'm not that powerful" if there's space for a light joke and it's just the believing spouse there, I might also mention that was "satan's plan" anyways. They know this inside and if I have someone really pushing for some form of activity, even if it's superficial....it's usually trying to collect their old life and a form of grief for losing experiences and things they've very much wanted. It's pushing against the sorrow and acknowledging what path they're really on now from what they thought they'd have.

My job isn't to fix the believer or non-believer to better "fit"...my job is to fix the marriage. When religion comes up as a problem in the marriage, I address it with them. When it doesn't overtly come up, I don't bother. And there are plenty of spouses that have a spouse in some form of faith crisis/transition/unbelief where it isn't directly affecting their marriage, minus the sadness and confusion that can naturally come from an unexpected change.      

20 hours ago, Exiled said:

I understand what she said and maybe she should be the one answering for herself.  If she doesn't priviledge belief, I don't think she would discount what I said regarding having both relax over who is right and who is wrong. If it is fine to be triggered when the non-believer suggests that the believer might not have such a strong position, obviously belief is favored. That's fine. However, I wonder if she has problems counseling the non-believer if belief  being correct is assumed from the beginning?

No you don't. I will answer for myself as I have time (which is limited right now....I have a newborn), but I generally agree with Calm's explanation. She's known me on this board for quite a while (I joined when I was 14...I'm now 31) and I know would take correction if she read me wrong. But in this case she hasn't. 

Just because I disagree with your wording doesn't mean I "privilege belief." That is jumping to conclusions I never made. 

20 hours ago, Exiled said:

Ok. But at a certain point, words have meanings that are understood by the population at large and meanings can be presumed and thoughts therefore understood. Again, if Blue Dreams thinks I don't understand her, she is capable of letting me know and explaining where I am in error.

If she decides to further engage, I would like to know if she tackles the problem presuming that the church is true and if this can ever be an issue with her couples. Or does the non-believer need to remain quiet while pressured to return?

And yet several people interpreted my words drastically different from the assumption and direction you took it.

My clients generally know my biases when a topic is brought up. I don't hide them and want them to be explicitly stated for them to judge the information I give them and my perspective. In these cases, they know I'm happily a believing member and they often know that I come from a very blended family that does not fit LDS norms and some aren't LDS. A number came to me because I don't  fit the average UT mormon stereotype or they see me a little as "middle ground." I've had a few clients have concerns about my religious background at the beginning of therapy/before we've started therapy. We talk about them, I listen to their stories, and they generally end up enjoying therapy with me. I expect no one to "remain quiet" in my office unless someone is overtaking therapy and their partner cannot find space to talk in session. 

 

Quote

 

Terming the "problem" as a faith "crisis" assumes non-belief is a problem, not continued belief.  Also, I suspect non-believing psychologists, from my experience, would perhaps take the tact of telling both spouses to relent a little in order to find common ground. (If belief isn't that big of a deal, why not have both accomodate?) However, Ms. Blue Dreams pushed back on that a little, saying it was unfair for the believer to relent on his/her belief.

So, what is the non-believer to do? Is the "counseling" then really about getting the non-believer to not evangelize and be patient with the attempts to get the "prodigal" to return?

 

With all due respect, I'm really wondering how you even reached these conclusions from the 2 posts I've made. I used "problem" exactly once in between both posts. And it was a specific piece of advice towards members who may get focused on fixing their spouses faith concerns by answering this or that point of doctrinal concern...which generally doesn't work and adds to the frustration and distance in the marriage. I'm saying it would be unfair to expect either party to change their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as the premise to their interactions. The counseling is to help them have a better relationship/marriage and to feel that they have tools and methods to talk more openly about these fundamental shifts currently affecting their marriage. 

Also I used the term faith crisis and faith transition because that was what was used in the OP article and most of the people on this thread (believer or not). Many people in faith crisis wouldn't immediately describe themselves as a non-believer or no longer LDS. My general rule is to mirror whatever terms they use to describe themselves and their current situation. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 17, 2019 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t see why a believer would need to relent their belief to come to an understanding between the two that allows for a healthy relationship. Maybe I’m not following. 

IMO many attend therapy with an agenda of changing the other person.  In reality, that is not what therapy is. 

I think many believers (imo) hope that non believers will “come around”.  Sometimes that makes the relationship feel like it is motivated by agenda, for the non believer.  That cannot feel good. 

I think believers often feel afraid of offending (further?). 

In truth, there is much miscommunication and assumption that happens between believer and nonbeliever.  Therapy can facilitate clarity. Good therapists are non biased in their approach. 

I generally agree. I would just say, that there are varying approaches to therapy. I'm of the type that thinks it's impossible to really be non-biased and that it's better to recognize one's biases in and outside of therapy to better facilitate therapy. I'm big into bringing myself, as appropriate, into therapy since I'm a big believer that relationships heal and it's easiest to have a relationship with a person rather than a name and title  

 

 

With luv,

BD

[gregory_underscore]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, interesting right? Works both ways, and neither should expect the other to agree but neither should point out the faults, I've come to believe. (of course this board is a relief to get that out here, haha). It's so difficult because it's easy to have differences in other things just not when it comes to beliefs, such as even political beliefs within close relationships. Now with the LDS church the beliefs lead to another level whereas if one doesn't believe then the believing member feels panic that they've lost loved one/ones.

 

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right that many/most of us lack humility and exhibit arrogant pride when we profess our beliefs to be absolute truth.

 

The truth is the truth, Christs grace is the only way back to Heavenly Father. If you deny this truth and took out covenants at least be honest you broke the promises you made even if it Is "Santa" to you its not Santa to your spouse and heritage. SHOW HUMILITY. 

You are not going to get along here if you lecture posters. Spend more time getting familiar with the board. - Moderator

[gregory_underscore]

36 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No, I don't. I'm curious what you even mean by "correct" in this question. My degree is in Marriage and Family Therapy. My bias is helping families stay together as much as I can and generally believe that most couples who enter my office have the capacity for a happy marriage IF they're willing to work through their current hurdles. You simplified my post in a way that I disagreed with because I view it as inadvertently expecting more from the believer than the non-believer. One was being asked to remember a couple positive things from their former religion....which could be as broad as service opportunities and noting a good youth program. The other was being asked to shift their belief structure. When I had a little over-zealous mission companion who told an atheist we tracked into to take a moment and just "suspend her beliefs," I immediately shut down the conversation, apologized to the atheist, and then chatted with my companion as to why that is inappropriate to ask of anyone.  In your post, it wasn't an unbeliever being asked to do that, it's the believer....thus why I talked about the believer and what I would do for them specifically that is different from your summary. 

  As to the non-believer, I'd first slow down the believer and help him/her explore the said comments, sighs, etc with both of them to make sure they're both interpretting what they mean in the same way. Often, they're not. It's actually not super common that I have a spouse who's making "comments, sighs, or continually pressures the non-believer." When I do, it's not just in religious matters that things have fallen apart. Usually there's some form of a breach in trust in their relationship as well. The most recent cases where I saw this entail the believing spouse being lied to (usually by omission) in one way or another often for years. I've never had a spouse actively pursue a "rescue mission." The closest to that is when the non-believer views the reach out by well-meaning members as such and the believing spouse feels a need to defend these well-meaning neighbors/ward members, which then makes the non-believing spouse feel as though the believing one cares more about religion than them. Which is almost never true (I can't currently think of a case where that was true....but I'm leaving it open due to a currently spotty memory).

Usually the concern or subtle methods to try and push belief or activity is easily fixed by just overtly looking at the believing spouse and empathetically stating something along the lines of "I can't make your spouse believe again, that's not my job and I'm not that powerful" if there's space for a light joke and it's just the believing spouse there, I might also mention that was "satan's plan" anyways. They know this inside and if I have someone really pushing for some form of activity, even if it's superficial....it's usually trying to collect their old life and a form of grief for losing experiences and things they've very much wanted. It's pushing against the sorrow and acknowledging what path they're really on now from what they thought they'd have.

My job isn't to fix the believer or non-believer to better "fit"...my job is to fix the marriage. When religion comes up as a problem in the marriage, I address it with them. When it doesn't overtly come up, I don't bother. And there are plenty of spouses that have a spouse in some form of faith crisis/transition/unbelief where it isn't directly affecting their marriage, minus the sadness and confusion that can naturally come from an unexpected change.      

No you don't. I will answer for myself as I have time (which is limited right now....I have a newborn), but I generally agree with Calm's explanation. She's known me on this board for quite a while (I joined when I was 14...I'm now 31) and I know would take correction if she read me wrong. But in this case she hasn't. 

Just because I disagree with your wording doesn't mean I "privilege belief." That is jumping to conclusions I never made. 

And yet several people interpreted my words drastically different from the assumption and direction you took it.

My clients generally know my biases when a topic is brought up. I don't hide them and want them to be explicitly stated for them to judge the information I give them and my perspective. In these cases, they know I'm happily a believing member and they often know that I come from a very blended family that does not fit LDS norms and some aren't LDS. A number came to me because I don't  fit the average UT mormon stereotype or they see me a little as "middle ground." I've had a few clients have concerns about my religious background at the beginning of therapy/before we've started therapy. We talk about them, I listen to their stories, and they generally end up enjoying therapy with me. I expect no one to "remain quiet" in my office unless someone is overtaking therapy and their partner cannot find space to talk in session. 

 

With all due respect, I'm really wondering how you even reached these conclusions from the 2 posts I've made. I used "problem" exactly once in between both posts. And it was a specific piece of advice towards members who may get focused on fixing their spouses faith concerns by answering this or that point of doctrinal concern...which generally doesn't work and adds to the frustration and distance in the marriage. I'm saying it would be unfair to expect either party to change their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as the premise to their interactions. The counseling is to help them have a better relationship/marriage and to feel that they have tools and methods to talk more openly about these fundamental shifts currently affecting their marriage. 

Also I used the term faith crisis and faith transition because that was what was used in the OP article and most of the people on this thread (believer or not). Many people in faith crisis wouldn't immediately describe themselves as a non-believer or no longer LDS. My general rule is to mirror whatever terms they use to describe themselves and their current situation. 

 

With luv,

BD

therapy was a Freudian scam to replace the priest. my teenage years would have been astromicly better without the drugs and therapy and just admitting my sins and trails to my bishop. 

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, gregory_underscore said:

therapy was a Freudian scam to replace the priest. my teenage years would have been astromicly better without the drugs and therapy and just admitting my sins and trails to my bishop. 

What does the bishop/priest do when they are unqualified to deal with certain issues?  They send them to therapy!

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

...................................

I seem to have hit a nerve. Yes, I recall many such conversations on this board. If you don't want to take the time to talk about the errors, no big deal. But telling someone they "should know better" is condescending. You didn't even point out which issue you believe was incorrect, let alone try to make your point.

I agree that dealing with 1-2 issues at a time rather than a "shotgun approach" is better for discussion. At the same time, if a person is asking for the issues people feel have been lied about, it seems reasonable to list a number of those items so the person can review and research them. It wasn't really a call for discussion, but information. I've got no problem with the reddit user giving a list. It's hard for me to understand why that is so offensive.

But I stand by my post. If you tell someone they are wrong but do not even tell them what they are wrong about, and then tell them they should know better, it just comes across as either 1- lazy or 2- condescending

So you want a rehash, as long as it doesn't require you to do any analysis of any of those items in that long list.  Does Jeremy Runnells also favor such a hit and run attack?  At least Runnells edits his open book when he is found to have made a gross error, as did Fawn Brodie in the second edition of her No Man.  And you pointedly ignore Tacenda's willingness to admit that some of those items are not at all on point.  And you are unable even to select out the chaff from the wheat in that assemblage?  Not even willing to try.  So much easier to put the onus on someone else.  Nothing like a good shotgun attack.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do your children know you use them as bad examples in your talks? How do they like being your cautionary tale to others? Does it hurt or help your relationship?

No, they don't know, because they live on the other side of the planet, I don't name them, they don't attend church of any kind whatsoever, and will likely never visit me where I now live.  Should I tell them that I use their misadventures as cautionary tales?  There doesn't seem to be a good reason for it.  

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, I can't see how it would possibly help. The message of "I love you but I'm very disappointed by the person you've become" is not a very loving message IMO.

It might not help, but then again it might.  One of my sons was convicted of felony drug possession, spent some time in the county hoosegow, and then went straight as an arrow.  He got married, had a couple of lovely daughters, drives big rig trucks locally, and just recently got his civil rights (voting and firearms rights) back.  If I were to tell him that I use him as an example of someone who got off the path, but later found his way back (message being "you can turn yourself around") do you think he would get bent out of shape about it?  Or might he feel good that he was providing a good example for others?

I agree that telling one's children that one is disappointed with who they've become is not a loving message.  So I don't tell them that.  I praise their good behavior, and am mostly quiet on the rest of it.  They know what they were taught, so I don't really need to tell them where I think they are coming up short.

And not all of them have disappointed me, by the way.

[changed]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If he were handicapped, the temple is wheelchair accessible, and temple workers are given instruction on how to accommodate people who are 'differently abled".  As for vegetarianism, I don't think this was an issue.  This person chose to disassociate himself from the Church.  Must all those who chose otherwise accommodate him by doing what they feel is not proper?  How far must the accommodation go?

There is the concept of "reasonable accommodation".  Must I answer a toast with an alcoholic drink just because my beloved relative has decided that the WoW is crap?  Or is it enough if I accommodate him with a non-alcoholic drink?

 

 

Why do you think Nelson changed the temple marriage policy to allow civil marriages prior to the temple?  At least part of that change was to better accommodate the needs of everyone in the family.  

There could be a discussion around "choice".  As a parable, if someone worked in a chicken farm, or viewed information on how chickens were treated and killed - and afterwards felt physically ill if they were around chickens - is their aversion to chickens their choice?  Their fault?  I guess you could say it was their fault to choose to educate themselves... but is reading and studying really a bad thing?  

I think you are exaggerating a bit here - has anyone asked you to drink alcohol?  My guess is no.  Most ex-mo's are very flexible around family - they are left out of so much, would like to feel loved and included regardless of religious affiliation.  

If a non-member came to your home, or was friends with you, how would you treat them?  How do you treat any guest?  Why treat an ex-mo any differently than you would treat anyone from any other faith?  Our family should be treated better - not worse - than guests.  

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by changed

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

...When I had a little over-zealous mission companion who told an atheist we tracked into to take a moment and just "suspend her beliefs," I immediately shut down the conversation, apologized to the atheist, and then chatted with my companion as to why that is inappropriate to ask of anyone. ..

This is a bit off-topic, but I was rather curious about this.  

If I were trying to teach someone (atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, or whatever) about the gospel, I would think that asking someone to temporary suspend their disbelief and consider what I was teaching them would be entirely appropriate.  In other words, open your mind and consider for a moment what I am about to tell you.  Someone who listens to what you have to say while refusing to consider that you might be right is only listening to words, and when it comes down to "...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" you've lost him or her.  Alma 32 requires that one experiment with faith, which means that one must suspend one's disbelief temporarily.  Otherwise the experiment is void.

Or maybe there's more to it than what you've indicated?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

wrong the same as viewing it as inferior?

Viewing the belief system as wrong is viewing it as inferior imo, but it isnt automatic that one views the person holding that belief as inferior, imo. 

I think the Catholic belief system is wrong and while I admire it in many ways and believe it has great value, I do see it as inferior in somethings. However, I view Rory and Misere as magnificent human beings, easily equal to the best Saints I know. I find their acceptance of Catholic belief to be reasonable and intelligent based on their own world views. 

That does not seem like an atypical approach to orhers’ Beliefs to me. 

[let’s roll]

6 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Why do you think Nelson changed the temple marriage policy to allow civil marriages prior to the temple?  At least part of that change was to better accommodate the needs of everyone in the family.  

There could be a discussion around "choice".  As a parable, if someone worked in a chicken farm, or viewed information on how chickens were treated and killed - and afterwards felt physically ill if they were around chickens - is their aversion to chickens their choice?  Their fault?  I guess you could say it was their fault to choose to educate themselves... but is reading and studying really a bad thing?  

 

Reading and studying what?  For what purpose?

If there is an omnipotent, omniscient God who has promised to provide you wisdom if you ask with the requisite intent, wouldn’t that be the best way to gain knowledge and wisdom?

Reading and studying the works of mortals provides a mortal view, with varying degrees of refinement.  Not surprisingly, such reading and studying results in divergent opinions and beliefs.

God promises us that all of His children, and that’s all of us, will agree His judgments are just with respect to each and every one of us.

So in choosing to educate ourselves, and in our decisions to read and study, we are allowed to choose exclusively mortal sources or we can choose Divine sources and include mortal sources that align with the Divine.  

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, gregory_underscore said:

its not Santa to your spouse and heritage.

Doesn’t that apply to someone brought up and married as Catholic though?

I don’t understand why you apparently see a difference except perhaps because you know in your heart it is Truth. But others don’t and may believe as strongly as you know their faith is the truth even if they are wrong. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Why do you think Nelson changed the temple marriage policy to allow civil marriages prior to the temple?  At least part of that change was to better accommodate the needs of everyone in the family. 

I think you're right that that was at least part of the reason.  I actually agree with the change. But how far must one go?  And what if I just don't want to have civil marriage first, and want to go for the marriage being in the temple?  Sure there's an option, but is the option required?  If so, it's not an option.  In other countries, including the one where I live now, there is no option to be married in the temple.  Because religious ministers do not have the authority to perform marriages, which must by law take place in public view.  Afterwards, LDS couples go to the temple to be sealed.

And what if the nonbelieving non-TR-holding relative wants to see the sealing as well?  Do we have to accommodate that as well?  

16 minutes ago, changed said:

There could be a discussion around "choice".  As a parable, if someone worked in a chicken farm, or viewed information on how chickens were treated and killed - and afterwards felt physically ill if they were around chickens - is their aversion to chickens their choice?  Their fault?  I guess you could say it was their fault to choose to educate themselves... but is reading and studying really a bad thing? 

Their aversion is their problem, not mine, however the aversion was acquired.  I'm happy to try to make them feel comfortable around me.  But am I therefore required to accommodate their aversion and order beef instead if we go out to a restaurant to eat?  What if I go out to dinner with a Hindu, who by the way do not eat beef?  He can have the chicken, and I can have the beef, and I expect him to accommodate me at least that far.  If his religion precludes him eating with someone who is eating beef, maybe I might go for the chicken instead, just to be friendly.  And does this really have anything to do with marriages?

16 minutes ago, changed said:

I think you are exaggerating a bit here - has anyone asked you to drink alcohol?  My guess is no.  Most ex-mo's are very flexible around family - they are left out of so much, would like to feel loved and included regardless of religious affiliation.  

Your guess would be wrong.  It has happened to me -- which is why I even brought it up.  It didn't happen to be an ex-mo, by the way.

16 minutes ago, changed said:

If a non-member came to your home, or was friends with you, how would you treat them?  How do you treat any guest?  Why treat an ex-mo any differently than you would treat anyone from any other faith?  Our family should be treated better - not worse - than guests.  

I don't know why you think I'm going to treat an ex-mo or a non-mo any different from any other human.  Family or not.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

This is a bit off-topic, but I was rather curious about this.  

If I were trying to teach someone (atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, or whatever) about the gospel, I would think that asking someone to temporary suspend their disbelief and consider what I was teaching them would be entirely appropriate.  In other words, open your mind and consider for a moment what I am about to tell you.  Someone who listens to what you have to say while refusing to consider that you might be right is only listening to words, and when it comes down to "...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" you've lost him or her.  Alma 32 requires that one experiment with faith, which means that one must suspend one's disbelief temporarily.  Otherwise the experiment is void.

Or maybe there's more to it than what you've indicated?

For me it is the phrasing. It is to me dismissive of someone’s beliefs as minor if you believe they can truly suspend them.  A strong belief is to one’s mind like a skeleton is to one’s body, imo.  One just can’t turn it on or off it truly committed to it  

I think a better way would be ask them to do a thought experiment. Or to consider the possibility. 

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me it is the phrasing. It is to me dismissive of someone’s beliefs as minor if you believe they can truly suspend them.  A strong belief is to one’s mind like a skeleton is to one’s body, imo.  One just can’t turn it on or off it truly committed to it  

I think a better way would be ask them to do a thought experiment. Or to consider the possibility. 

Perhaps so.  Yet I read a fair amount of science fiction, and to successfully do so requires one to suspend one's disbelief.  Including belief in God sometimes.  I manage it temporarily when it's needed.  

But I agree that one can phrase it more positively or neutrally.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, gregory_underscore said:

therapy was a Freudian scam to replace the priest. my teenage years would have been astromicly better without the drugs and therapy and just admitting my sins and trails to my bishop. 

Yep, had you been honest, you wouldn’t have likely needed therapy.  Without honesty, therapy is a waste of your time and money.

I believe your disparaging comments about BD’s profession are a cheap insult to her and I disagree with your tactic. 

But we digress. 

[changed]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

Reading and studying what?  For what purpose?

If there is an omnipotent, omniscient God who has promised to provide you wisdom if you ask with the requisite intent, wouldn’t that be the best way to gain knowledge and wisdom?

Reading and studying the works of mortals provides a mortal view, with varying degrees of refinement.  Not surprisingly, such reading and studying results in divergent opinions and beliefs.

God promises us that all of His children, and that’s all of us, will agree His judgments are just with respect to each and every one of us.

So in choosing to educate ourselves, and in our decisions to read and study, we are allowed to choose exclusively mortal sources or we can choose Divine sources and include mortal sources that align with the Divine.  

 

 

If there is a loving and merciful God who is no respecter of persons,  everyone has the same guidance through their own conscience regardless of religious creed.  An observation of the university of life for everyone - through time, through the world - indicates no single church, no arms of flesh are needed.  A unity of opinions exists between all - https://afterall.net/papers/illustrations-of-the-tao/  because we are all given the same guidance which is a beautiful thing.  There are more divine scriptures than the Christian scriptures, and other divinely led teachers - more than Christian teachers.  ... other sheep - many other sheep - we are all children of the same Parents. 

All groups are perfect enough to teach community, and imperfect enough to allow for personal exploration and thought.   Reading all good books - both critical of one's beliefs, and supportive of it - are needed to see the larger picture, and learn from multiple cultures and peoples.  

 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I think you're right that that was at least part of the reason.  I actually agree with the change. But how far must one go?  And what if I just don't want to have civil marriage first, and want to go for the marriage being in the temple?  Sure there's an option, but is the option required?  If so, it's not an option.  In other countries, including the one where I live now, there is no option to be married in the temple.  Because religious ministers do not have the authority to perform marriages, which must by law take place in public view.  Afterwards, LDS couples go to the temple to be sealed.

And what if the nonbelieving non-TR-holding relative wants to see the sealing as well?  Do we have to accommodate that as well?  

Their aversion is their problem, not mine, however the aversion was acquired.  I'm happy to try to make them feel comfortable around me.  But am I therefore required to accommodate their aversion and order beef instead if we go out to a restaurant to eat?  What if I go out to dinner with a Hindu, who by the way do not eat beef?  He can have the chicken, and I can have the beef, and I expect him to accommodate me at least that far.  If his religion precludes him eating with someone who is eating beef, maybe I might go for the chicken instead, just to be friendly.  And does this really have anything to do with marriages?

Your guess would be wrong.  It has happened to me -- which is why I even brought it up.  It didn't happen to be an ex-mo, by the way.

I don't know why you think I'm going to treat an ex-mo or a non-mo any different from any other human.  Family or not.

But how far must one go? Well, there is how far the Savior went, how far Mother Theresa went - everyone is willing to sacrifice to different levels, and through that sacrifice, will have deeper and more meaningful bonds with those around them... or not...

My parents did not attend my marriage.. or baptism... I was young and naive, did not understand what I was doing... I know better now and try to make all events I invite others to inclusive and comfortable to anyone who is interested in coming.  

Edited June 17, 2019 by changed

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, changed said:

If there is a loving and merciful God who is no respecter of persons,  everyone has the same guidance through their own conscience regardless of religious creed.  An observation of the university of life for everyone - through time, through the world - indicates no single church, no arms of flesh are needed.  A unity of opinions exists between all - https://afterall.net/papers/illustrations-of-the-tao/  because we are all given the same guidance which is a beautiful thing.  There are more divine scriptures than the Christian scriptures, and other divinely led teachers - more than Christian teachers.  ... other sheep - many other sheep - we are all children of the same Parents. 

All groups are perfect enough to teach community, and imperfect enough to allow for personal exploration and thought.   Reading all good books - both critical of one's beliefs, and supportive of it - are needed to see the larger picture, and learn from multiple cultures and peoples

Thank you for your thoughts.  My experience has been that peace abides in my soul when I allocate at least twice as much time to communion with Deity than I do to searching mortal texts.  Communion often results in promptings to explore certain topics.  

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Viewing the belief system as wrong is viewing it as inferior imo, but it isnt automatic that one views the person holding that belief as inferior, imo. 

I think the Catholic belief system is wrong and while I admire it in many ways and believe it has great value, I do see it as inferior in somethings. However, I view Rory and Misere as magnificent human beings, easily equal to the best Saints I know. I find their acceptance of Catholic belief to be reasonable and intelligent based on their own world views. 

That does not seem like an atypical approach to orhers’ Beliefs to me. 

Aw, thanks! I feel the same about you and many posters on this board!

And I am with you 100% that it is not an atypical approach. We can look at someone else's beliefs, disagree with them, but also recognize that they are not completely irrational and that they do make sense within a certain belief system or paradigm. And most times we can separate the believer from the belief (of course there are extreme exceptions, but that's not what we're dealing with here).

I wish I could remember Rory's phrase that he sometimes uses when discussing the Trinity. When someone disparages the Trinity as ridiculous, he had some phrase like "intelligent mistake" or "reasonable error" or something like that. He was trying to point out, in the specific issue of the Trinity, that people may disagree with it but one must take into consideration that some of the greatest minds of western civilization believed and promoted it, so it can't just be stupid. I think his approach is an example of what we're talking about here. We can disagree with others and believe they are wrong, but we can at the same time understand their reasons for their beliefs and not think them lesser or dumber or something like that.

American politics is desperately in need of this way of viewing others who differ politically.

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This is a bit off-topic, but I was rather curious about this.  

If I were trying to teach someone (atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, or whatever) about the gospel, I would think that asking someone to temporary suspend their disbelief and consider what I was teaching them would be entirely appropriate.  In other words, open your mind and consider for a moment what I am about to tell you.  Someone who listens to what you have to say while refusing to consider that you might be right is only listening to words, and when it comes down to "...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" you've lost him or her.  Alma 32 requires that one experiment with faith, which means that one must suspend one's disbelief temporarily.  Otherwise the experiment is void.

Or maybe there's more to it than what you've indicated?

The context may help a little to get better why this was inappropriate. The person was obviously not interested in hearing our message. They were being polite in letting us talk but was giving several indications that they were content in their current beliefs and was not interested in our message. The “suspend the beliefs” was asking them to do something the person didn’t voluntarily want to do. That’s not okay. 

Also to me, voluntarily experimenting upon the word/teachings you’ve heard is different than insisting someone try ro suspend their beliefs. I also preferred to build from where the person was at, find common ground and beliefs and add to them or show how they tie into our message. When there were moments that beliefs diverged, i would share my perspective, why i believed it, etc. I would ask them to study that aspect for themselves. To me this is not “suspending” belief structures. That’s an artificial  experience to me. This is helping  to facilitate their own organic growth/change in beliefs. Something only they and God can really do. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited June 18, 2019 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, gregory_underscore said:

therapy was a Freudian scam to replace the priest. my teenage years would have been astromicly better without the drugs and therapy and just admitting my sins and trails to my bishop. 

Welp, that’s definitely not what the church teaches. It’s definitely not what the bishops  said or indicated as i’ve worked with them to help their members with problems they know need more than what they can give. I think you are right in that sometimes therapy can lead to a focus or direction that isn’t the right one for a person. Often depression or anxiety or other dysfunctions are more like “common sense”...you won’t feel good in a life that is dissonant with what you believe. You shouldn’t feel good in situations that are in someway harmful. 

I’m glad that you found the answer that worked for you. But you are not all humanity. Your experiences do no ascribe an edict from God as to the value of what therapists do for everyone else. You are not the prophet... so your opinion - that run counter to official church stances and practices - means very little to me. 

 

With luv and a bit of a shrug, 

BD 

Edited June 18, 2019 by BlueDreams