Solution to youth leaving the church

[2BizE]

I remember reading in the LDS Philanthropies website a few years ago ways to change you will to exclude children who no longer believe and donate your inheritance instead to LDS church.  Seriously messed up stuff here.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I remember reading in the LDS Philanthropies website a few years ago ways to change you will to exclude children who no longer believe and donate your inheritance instead to LDS church.  Seriously messed up stuff here.

No doubt you can find evidence of the behaviour outside the video already discussed.  If there, it would have been screenshot or webarchived by someone...

So CFR please.

[secondclasscitizen]

18 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I remember reading in the LDS Philanthropies website a few years ago ways to change you will to exclude children who no longer believe and donate your inheritance instead to LDS church.  Seriously messed up stuff here.

Whether that can be found anywhere on their website or not it would be interesting to read. People change wills all the time. Generally they set up trusts with a “trustee” who is charged with executing the will of the parents when managing the money. 
 

There are usually instructions as to when kids get it and any disqualifiers. Usually the disqualifiers are something like the kids is a drug addict, or spendthrift etc. never seen one yet where the trustee is charged with determining temple worthiness . I suppose a recommend may suffice but people lie everyday to get theirs so it’s not a real good indicator. Fun job for a trustee. I suppose if they figured one of the kids wasn’t righteous enough and the kid thought differently that could be a good day to bring popcorn to court. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[rpn]

I think that people who leave their property to the church generally think of it as giving all they have to the Lord ---- part of their temple covenant.

We've mostly used our money for our children while alive.   But if we die with money/property, we intend to put it into a family trust that will own the property, and give grants of the amount generated in income annually minus expenses (paid directly to third parties) for education, missions, study abroad, musical instruments, training, (with a required match from the person to the extent they are capable of doing that), and maybe if there is enough money in any given year some help with down payment/business startup).   It will be spendthrift trust meaning no one will have any legal claim to anything.  I plan to create trustee for each branch of the family plus one financially savvy paid trustee, with a unanimous vote of the four family trustees being enough, and otherwise two plus the paid independent one, whose job will be to decide in favor of the purpose of the trust -- to help people who are helping themselves as much as they can become a better parent, citizen, human being for generations.)

Edited May 27, 2021 by rpn

[Teancum]

On 5/22/2021 at 1:08 PM, JamesBYoung said:

I have known several families who have left their entire 'fortunes' (in one case, I think very substantial) to the church instead of to children who were estranged from it.

 

How sad.

[Teancum]

On 5/22/2021 at 4:41 PM, Rain said:

Having a brother who was an addict and an alcoholic before he died last year and seeing what my parents went through as they decided what to do with the money they left behind I don't have any problem with the idea that if your kids don't live up to your beliefs then the money may go to the church.

Now what those required beliefs entail may be a problem.

For one thing the blessings are pretty much spiritual when you inherit from God.  Some might make the argument that you will have access to all temporal things, but if I understand God right material wealth just doesn't mean much in the celestial kingdom, at least in the way it does here.  

I think tying spiritual beliefs to material inheritance is a real problem though for a number of reasons.

But if your beliefs are that you want your children to be able to handle money and material wealth well then I have no problem tying those together.  

My parents figured it out by having a trust for my brother.  The inheritance would help him handle basic needs (he had many), but would not allow him to do further damage to himself.

If my children were not handling things well with their own money I would not leave money to them. There are a number of things people would look at and say, "you didn't leave them money because they didn't believe in the church the way you do!" For example if my child was drinking excessively I would be very careful if and how I left money because I am familiar with alcoholism, but others might blame it on the Word of Wisdom. 

Trusts are a wonderful way to at least have income for a troubled, wandering child without giving them a windfall.  And trusts can be fairly explicit on what the income from the assets in the trust are allowed to be used for and/or the corpus of the trust distributed.

[2BizE]

On 5/26/2021 at 1:22 PM, Calm said:

No doubt you can find evidence of the behaviour outside the video already discussed.  If there, it would have been screenshot or webarchived by someone...

So CFR please.

I found the discussion of the event on Reddit.  I did not originally learn about it on Reddit, but on another site.  I will not post the link here, but anyone interested can search and find it.  The discussion was of a video, similar to the one being discussed in the is thread in the gift section of the LDS Philanthropies website. It features an older gentleman explaining how some of his children no longer shared the same degree of faith as him and he explained how he was excluding them from his will and donating it to the church.  After a few days of this being discussed, the church removed the video from its website.  

[rodheadlee]

15 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I found the discussion of the event on Reddit.  I did not originally learn about it on Reddit, but on another site.  I will not post the link here, but anyone interested can search and find it.  The discussion was of a video, similar to the one being discussed in the is thread in the gift section of the LDS Philanthropies website. It features an older gentleman explaining how some of his children no longer shared the same degree of faith as him and he explained how he was excluding them from his will and donating it to the church.  After a few days of this being discussed, the church removed the video from its website.  

If you can't cite references you have to retract your statement. See the board rules. 

[Meadowchik]

On 5/22/2021 at 9:41 PM, Rain said:

Having a brother who was an addict and an alcoholic before he died last year and seeing what my parents went through as they decided what to do with the money they left behind I don't have any problem with the idea that if your kids don't live up to your beliefs then the money may go to the church.

Now what those required beliefs entail may be a problem.

For one thing the blessings are pretty much spiritual when you inherit from God.  Some might make the argument that you will have access to all temporal things, but if I understand God right material wealth just doesn't mean much in the celestial kingdom, at least in the way it does here.  

I think tying spiritual beliefs to material inheritance is a real problem though for a number of reasons.

But if your beliefs are that you want your children to be able to handle money and material wealth well then I have no problem tying those together.  

My parents figured it out by having a trust for my brother.  The inheritance would help him handle basic needs (he had many), but would not allow him to do further damage to himself.

If my children were not handling things well with their own money I would not leave money to them. There are a number of things people would look at and say, "you didn't leave them money because they didn't believe in the church the way you do!" For example if my child was drinking excessively I would be very careful if and how I left money because I am familiar with alcoholism, but others might blame it on the Word of Wisdom. 

Others might blame it on the word of wisdom, I guess, but in cultures where drinking is not verboten, there tends to be a better understanding the difference between drinking sometimes, and alcoholism. 

Maybe it's harder for someone straddling the verboten/non-verboten cultures to differentiate, thereby oversimplifying?

 

[AtlanticMike]

On 5/22/2021 at 4:41 PM, Rain said:

If my children were not handling things well with their own money I would not leave money to them

Hi Rain, I really like your post so I'm using it to ask a few questions because tell ya the truth I haven't put to much thought into a Will or what I'll leave for my kids. 

    Right now where I'm at is, If I  brought these kids into the world and spent my whole life trying my best to treat them equally, why when I die, I base what I leave to my kids on how they are living their life? I guess I can't get past the fact that when I die my kids will still be here for 30 or so years and if my final act is to split up my assets based on how they lived their lives, well, am I not trying to reward the ones who followed in my footsteps more than the ones who didn't? For me, I can only see that tearing my kids apart for the 30 years they still live on Earth after I'm dead. 

    Let's say when I die I have $100,000 and I'm splitting it up between 5 kids. I leave $25,000 to the three temple recommend holders, $5000 to the one kid who doesn't handle money well and $20,000 to the church, leaving the one kid who has a drinking problem with nothing, how will the next 30 or so years on Earth play out for them? Will there be any family dinners or get togethers? Or is it more likely they will go there separate ways and let jealousy push them apart? That's what worries me, does that make sense?

[Rain]

On 5/28/2021 at 5:04 AM, AtlanticMike said:

Hi Rain, I really like your post so I'm using it to ask a few questions because tell ya the truth I haven't put to much thought into a Will or what I'll leave for my kids. 

    Right now where I'm at is, If I  brought these kids into the world and spent my whole life trying my best to treat them equally, why when I die, I base what I leave to my kids on how they are living their life?

I have never tried to tried to treat my children equally. I don't think most parents actually do because children are different than each other. 

I don't feel Heavenly Father has done that either.  Monetarily and peacewise I am so much more blessed than the Rohinga in Burma running for their lives.  

Rather, I try to treat and bless them according to the circumstances in their lives.  

That doesn't mean that I will force punishments on just some of my children, but it does mean I will spend a lot more time working on speech therapy with my youngest than with my other two.  It means the book I give to my teen at Christmas may be more expensive than the book I give to my kindergartener.  I try to give according to their needs.

Overall as a child just for basic needs of food, water and clothing parents will generally end up spending more on their youngest children because of inflation and the parents ability to pay.

So I don't look at giving to children equally in most things.  It just rarely makes sense. There are only a few times where it does make sense.

Quote

I guess I can't get past the fact that when I die my kids will still be here for 30 or so years and if my final act is to split up my assets based on how they lived their lives, well, am I not trying to reward the ones who followed in my footsteps more than the ones who didn't? For me, I can only see that tearing my kids apart for the 30 years they still live on Earth after I'm dead. 

And it very well could, which is why it is important to look at circumstances. 

Quote

    Let's say when I die I have $100,000 and I'm splitting it up between 5 kids. I leave $25,000 to the three temple recommend holders, $5000 to the one kid who doesn't handle money well and $20,000 to the church, leaving the one kid who has a drinking problem with nothing, how will the next 30 or so years on Earth play out for them? 

You are not looking at it like my parents or I do.  

For one thing we would never base it on a temple recommend or current activity or whether they went on a mission.  Like I said I don't think it wise to base it on spiritual things.

The way my parents had it differently was based entirely on his abilities.  In the end my brother just could not do it on his own.  Because of all the ravages on his body with alcohol and drug use and schizo effective disorder he was considered disabled and received state funding. He wasn't able to work and was barely making it in so many ways.  

It would have caused him complete harm to just leave him the money like they would have for us and we all, including him, knew it.  The other 4 of us would also have been ok if my parents left more in his trust than to the rest of us without a trust.

Also, my parents have really helped my other 3 siblings financially in different ways.  Some have mentioned that their parents took that into account with their wills.  In specific circumstances I think that is good. Three of my siblings have lived with my parents as adults.  My brother because of all his problems, another sibing with spouse and children while the sibling went back to school  and another sibling and the last after a divorce.  How do you make lack of rent pay equal with the will?

Last year my father-in-law died.  My brother-in-law took up the major bulk of caring for him for the last several years because he lived far closer.  He used my father-in-laws money for all the expences, but his time commitment was far beyond what it was for the rest of his siblings.  If all of my husband's share of the estate went to him we would have been fine with it - our circumstances are different.

 

Quote

Will there be any family dinners or get togethers? Or is it more likely they will go there separate ways and let jealousy push them apart? That's what worries me, does that make sense?

It does make sense.  That is why it can be so hard to figure things out some times.  You want to leave things so there is good blood between your children.  The problem is circumstances can be so very different and need to be looked at.  

Today with all of our children as legal adults it makes complete sense for us to leave equal amounts to them should we die, and I think generally that should be the case for all people, but I can't say what the future holds. Things might change.  

But overall for this topic I think basing financial benefits of a will on spiritual circumstances of a child's heart would not be right.  It's a form of trying to control someone else's agency.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Rain

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

leaving the one kid who has a drinking problem with nothing

I am not accusing you of this but the term "drinking problem" can have very different connotations for some LDS members as opposed to how others view the term. My mother approached me one day and expressed her concern for my younger brother saying she thought he had a "drinking problem". I knew my brother would drink beer on occasion but in no way did he have a problem with alcohol. I asked my mom why she thought that and she replied; "because I can smell coffee on his breath".

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by CA Steve

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

I am not accusing you of this but the term "drinking problem" can have very different connotations for some LDS members as opposed to how others view the term. My mother approached me one day and expressed her concern for my younger brother saying she thought he had a "drinking problem". I knew my brother would drink beer on occasion but in no way did he have a problem with alcohol. I asked my mom why she thought that and she replied; "because I can smell coffee on his breath".

I always knew he was a bad seed. 🤣

[Rain]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Others might blame it on the word of wisdom, I guess, but in cultures where drinking is not verboten, there tends to be a better understanding the difference between drinking sometimes, and alcoholism. 

Maybe it's harder for someone straddling the verboten/non-verboten cultures to differentiate, thereby oversimplifying?

 

I simplified my post because it would become unwieldy if I listed all the things people "might" say.  I figured giving one example would show it can be looked at in different ways.

Given the heavy drinking in Europe that has been written about as a problem I don't think that not verboten cultures necessarily have an easier time figuring that out.  I think it has to do more with an individual's ability to think and judge the matter.  Yes, culture could make that harder, but I think it goes both ways.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Rain

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

there tends to be a better understanding the difference between drinking sometimes, and alcoholism. 

I think that actually might be debatable since the science itself is still in flux on alcohol and its dangers. 
 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/19/health/alcohol-brain-health-intl-scli-wellness/index.html

Quote

London (CNN)There is no such thing as a "safe" level of drinking, with increased consumption of alcohol associated with poorer brain health, according to a new study. 

In an observational study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, researchers from the University of Oxford studied the relationship between the self-reported alcohol intake of some 25,000 people in the UK, and their brain scans. 

The researchers noted that drinking had an effect on the brain's gray matter -- regions in the brain that make up "important bits where information is processed," according to lead author Anya Topiwala, a senior clinical researcher at Oxford.

"The more people drank, the less the volume of their gray matter," Topiwala said via email.

"Brain volume reduces with age and more severely with dementia. Smaller brain volume also predicts worse performance on memory testing," she explained

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think that actually might be debatable since the science itself is still in flux on alcohol and its dangers. 
 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/19/health/alcohol-brain-health-intl-scli-wellness/index.html

 

Not sure what you're trying to say. My point is that drinking does not automatically mean alcoholism.

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My point is that drinking does not automatically mean alcoholism.

True, but what if drinking automatically means brain damage...wouldn’t the non verboten cultures have as screwed up paradigm of drinking if they think it mostly harmless as any culture that equates drinking with alcoholism?  In the long run, less harm may come from the verboten cultures even if there is over reaction to any drinking from them. 

The over simplification of views on the effects of drinking  may be worse in the non verboten cultures than some of the verboten.

Having walked down the streets of Moscow where drunks are littering the sidewalk, sometimes sitting in a pool of their own urine and reading of the rampant alcoholism in their military where soldiers are drinking anything with alcohol to relieve boredom and misery...it is hard for me to see much harm in a culture that promotes avoidance of what may actually be considered a mind killer. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

True, but what if drinking automatically means brain damage...wouldn’t the non verboten cultures have as screwed up paradigm of drinking if they think it mostly harmless as any culture that equates drinking with alcoholism?  In the long run, less harm may come from the verboten cultures even if there is over reaction to any drinking from them. 

The over simplification of views on the effects of drinking  may be worse in the non verboten cultures than some of the verboten.

Having walked down the streets of Moscow where drunks are littering the sidewalk, sometimes sitting in a pool of their own urine and reading of the rampant alcoholism in their military where soldiers are drinking anything with alcohol to relieve boredom and misery...it is hard for me to see much harm in a culture that promotes avoidance of what may actually be considered a mind killer. 

I think I see what you're saying. The practice of total abstinence benefits from the total absence of risk. Yes?

Consider the person who drinks alcohol and there's a less likely chance that they don't do so responsibly. They might be very careful moderating themselves but there's still a risk that they don't. What, then, is the impact of a third party to the person who drinks if the third party holds the expectation that:

1) all drinking is wrong and there is no such think as acceptable moderation?

Or

2) drinking can interfere with ability to function especially when done in excess?

 

 

 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Consider the person who drinks alcohol and there's a less likely chance that they don't do so responsibly.

Is a behaviour that is certain to cause brain damage every time it is used ever acting responsibly?  I am referring to in daily recreational or social (essentially unnecessary) activity as there are some activities that result in total brain damage that could be said to be responsible if intended to save others’ lives.

Quote

What, then, is the impact of a third party to the person who drinks if the third party holds the expectation that:

You need to explain your scenario better. 
 

Person A:  never drinks, never gets brain damage from recreational alcohol (might encounter alcohol in other ways, like medicine), Person’s A is not impacted by Person C

Person B:  the usually moderate drinker

Person C :  the “third person” who holds one of two views...

x view is all drinking is wrong

y view is drinking can screws up living, even really screw it up

——

I think I followed you to there, but what is the point of impact?

And in speaking of impact, what is the interaction...are they passersby on a street, sitting in the same bar, siblings?  Patient, doctor, voter and politician?

Edited May 29, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is a behaviour that is certain to cause brain damage every time it is used ever acting responsibly?  I am referring to in daily recreational or social (essentially unnecessary) activity as there are some activities that result in total brain damage that could be said to be responsible if intended to save others’ lives.

You need to explain your scenario better. 
 

Person A:  never drinks, never gets brain damage from recreational alcohol (might encounter alcohol in other ways, like medicine), Person’s A is not impacted by Person C

Person B:  the usually moderate drinker

Person C :  the “third person” who holds one of two views...

x view is all drinking is wrong

y view is drinking can screws up living, even really screw it up

——

I think I followed you to there, but what is the point of impact?

And in speaking of impact, what is the interaction...are they passersby on a street, sitting in the same bar, siblings?  Patient, doctor, voter and politician?

The original topic is third-party influence, specifically parental influence on children. 

My response to rain was about differentiating between drinking and alcoholism. Then you introduced a different aspect, the physical harm of drinking regardless of alcoholism.

In this context "responsible drinking" does not refer to abstinence. It refers to drinking that isn't habit-forming, that doesn't result in driving incapacitated, nor getting blackout drunk.

So my scenario is how the third party's attitude can impact someone's experience with alcohol. 

A demand for total abstinence avoids risk entirely if the person never drinks. But does a demand for total abstinence help a person who drinks? 

I think that there is probably some links between shame cycles and less-managed drinking. And if a parent's solution to alcohol risks is abstinence, they will be less likely to build the skills and knowledge needed to reduce risks of drinking while drinking.

[Calm]

May I ask why you are using the term “third party”, I may have missed it...

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

May I ask why you are using the term “third party”, I may have missed it...

Sure! I use it because the topic is generally about how a third party can influence others, specifically how parents influence their children, particularly their adult children.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure! I use it because the topic is generally about how a third party can influence others, specifically how parents influence their children, particularly their adult children.

I just don’t think I have seen that usage for “third party” before. I am trying to think how a parent is a “third party” in the parent child relationship. Third party as far as I know refers to a literal additional party (so three people minimum involved) or at times to an outsider or minor party. 

[Stargazer]

On 5/22/2021 at 5:18 PM, secondclasscitizen said:

kinda messed up if you ask me. Of course my parents promised me a car and to pay for college if I went on a mission so perhaps it’s a Mormon cultural thing. 

My parents promised me a car and to pay for college if I didn't go on a mission! But if I did, I was on my own for both. So I went anyway.

 

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I just don’t think I have seen that usage for “third party” before. I am trying to think how a parent is a “third party” in the parent child relationship. Third party as far as I know refers to a literal additional party (so three people minimum involved) or at times to an outsider or minor party. 

It just refers to the nature of the  relationship between the parents and their adult child's alcohol use.

The child has a direct relationship with alcohol, be it drinking to some extent or total abstinence. But the parent's role in that interaction is indirect.

To me that is a significant logistic and moral distinction. I can decide for myself how I will drink or not, but my influence on my adult children's behaviour is less direct. My ability to control the situation is much more limited in that case.