Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How to answer/address a comment made by my Daughter-in-law


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

............................. 

This weekend, I had the good fortune to spend time with all my kids and have some good conversations.  My DIL, who is the wife in the last couple I mentioned was talking about how she has a 'strong testimony the gospel is true' but doesn't like the 'culture'.

I was born and raised in California, so did not have much liking for Utah culture.  I always considered Utah backward and stuffy, and have generally agreed with those who argued that the real Church can only be found outside Utah.  Back in the 80s when I was living in Utah for a few years before returning to California, a friend and I visited an unfamiliar LDS ward on fast Sunday.  I chuckled when one female member of that ward got up and asked those of us not from Utah not to allow the Utah members to drive them out of the Church -- a very perceptive comment.  We need to fully respect cultural differences.  They are real.

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

 I mentioned we all struggle with various aspects of the culture, and then felt to ask her if they ever saw themselves choosing to be sealed int he temple.  She said she didn't think so - when I asked why, she said it was because she "doesn't feel bad about having chosen to live with André (my son) before they were married."  She said she feels that was the right choice for them, and that because of this, she doesn't think she would be able to get a recommend.  ........................

She is wrong, of course.  There is nothing for her to regret.  For most of human history there was no marriage ceremony.  A man would pay the bride-price to the father and the two would begin living together.  They have the strongest pair-bond of all:  Love.  It is several years too late to start worrying about modern rules.  The horse got out of the barn years ago.

However, a person can be a member in good standing without ever going to a temple or even paying tithing.  These are actually only options.  We ought to be happy just to see our children go to Church each Sunday, where they will have a chance to hear the Gospel preached.

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

I never said be silent. In fact, just the opposite. The way we live our lives everyday can speak volumes about the gospel without ever having to actually have a discussion. I’m saying live loud and proud! Let the gospel shine. Soon or a later, if they’re actually interested in why you seem so happy and content, you can tell them how the gospel has helped you understand why we are here. It’s been my experience that trying to push or persuade someone you love into believing the gospel never works. Trust the gospel and you’ll speak volumes through your actions.

 

Gordon B Hinckley said, “ The lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore the symbol of our worship.”

I don't see how inviting your kids to attend FHE is "pushing" anything on anybody.  If they want to attend, great.  If not, no harm, no foul.   Like I said, it is working in my family.  My sister may never attend again, but I think it makes an impression on her. 

Gordong B Hinckly also said, "open your mouth".

One can open their mouth without being overbearing.  We should respect the boundaries of our children, but again, unless my have explicitly stated that they don't want me to ever talk about gospel related subjects around them, then I will continue to have an open relationship with my children where we each feel free to share personal things about us in open and respectful ways.

Just curious, do you think all missionary reactivation work should be performed this way, or just when they are your kids?     

On my mission, 15% of what we did was reactivation work.  If I never opened my mouth to share my beliefs and invite, I would have missed out on so many fruitful opportunities.  I think it unwise to make a blanket assumption that it is unsafe to discuss religion with your kids if they are not interested in attending church anymore, or stopped believing, or have serious doubts. 

Edited by pogi
Posted
1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

A good Dad will not stay out of it, though.  He will know what to say and when to say it even if what he says is not well received. His input is vital, just as much as the input of the good Mom.  You haven't lived well until you get deep into every emotion.

 

Posted
4 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

So I have shared before that of all my 6 kids, we have 4 that want nothing to do with the church, one that has been sealed in the temple, but seem to struggle with activity, WOW, garments, etc. and one couple that talks as if they have a testimony, but have never chosen to attend the temple, or church since being married.  

This weekend, I had the good fortune to spend time with all my kids and have some good conversations.  My DIL, who is the wife in the last couple I mentioned was talking about how she has a 'strong testimony the gospel is true' but doesn't like the 'culture'.  I mentioned we all struggle with various aspects of the culture, and then felt to ask her if they ever saw themselves choosing to be sealed int he temple.  She said she didn't think so - when I asked why, she said it was because she "doesn't feel bad about having chosen to live with André (my son) before they were married."  She said she feels that was the right choice for them, and that because of this, she doesn't think she would be able to get a recommend.  

I know that they are faithful to each other, so chastity is not a current issue, but it got me to thinking - how would a bishop respond if such a young woman came in asking for a recommend, admitted that she lived with her husband before they married, but have now been married for a few years.  Would the issue of regret come up if she didn't bring it up?  What if it did and she said she didn't regret the choice?  I'm glad I am not a bishop. 😉  Of course, I know the mantle and the spirit are with bishops so they are fit for the task.

So, is there any advice I could or should offer my son and DIL?  Should I not follow up on the conversation at all?  It's hard with adult kids to know where to draw the line between being a parent and giving them a wide enough birth to be free-agents and adults.  

 

 

Definitely a wide birth to be free agents and adults or they will avoid conversation for fear something is going to be brought up. If they want something bad enough they'll get it. 

Posted
4 hours ago, bOObOO said:

She may not need to mention what happened before she was married.  "Did you have sexual relations with your spouse before you were married" is not one of the questions involved in a temple recommend interview.  It's an over and done with type thing and she has made it right by marrying him, as he did with her.  There is nothing to feel bad about now except for not being able to wait until she was married but now that they are married all in that regard is right now.  

I remember being asked if there is something needs to be cleared up by previous bishop's before getting a recommend to get sealed and married. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Mike Drop said:

His first sentence tells us 4 of the 6 kids want nothing to do with the church. A zoom FHE is probably a terrible idea. If Maestrophil is actually interested in trying to convince his/her children the church and its teachings would be beneficial in their lives, the best thing to do would be to live a happy and positive lifestyle for all 6 children to see. Push absolutely nothing on them. Never bring up any subject about the church unless asked. Shower them with unconditional love and make sure you’re always in a position to answer questions when asked. 

💯👍

Posted
5 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

So, is there any advice I could or should offer my son and DIL?  Should I not follow up on the conversation at all?

THe Savior has paid the price and ideally His servants would welcome them back with open arms.

Posted
7 hours ago, Fether said:

We decided to stop believing that she wants what she is saying.

She probably wants what she says she wants, but there are other things she wants or needs more. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

She probably wants what she says she wants, but there are other things she wants or needs more. 

I believe this to be true. But it was too much energy and stress to keep treating her like this.

We moved our efforts to her kids. Showing them we love them and that our home is a safe place.

Posted
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The former Bishop in me thinks that since she has "repented" by marrying, and it has been a period of time, and now wants to progress and is now living the law of Chastity and has been, she would qualify for a recommend. ( Assuming of course all else is in order- BUT she might be hiding more factors from her FIL.)

That is the real question here.

The other- be careful. Should you be involved in this at all?

Has she repented though, if she still believes it was a good choice?

Posted
14 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

In my opinion, it's something that the both people in the relationship should clear up before they go for their temple recommend interview.

Why?

Posted
15 hours ago, pogi said:

unless my have explicitly stated that they don't want me to ever talk about gospel related subjects around them, then I will continue to have an open relationship with my children where we each feel free to share personal things about us in open and respectful ways.

I understand where you’re coming from, I really do. But, it’s been my experience, a lot of the time inactive children don’t want to tell the parents to stop talking about the gospel because they fear the parents will cut them off emotionally and also financially (out of the will). So a lot of the time the child will inadvertently pull away juuust enough from a healthy adult child/parent relationship to try to protect everyone involved including grand children etc. And once that happens, there’s dozens of outcomes and most of them aren’t good long term. 
 

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Just curious, do you think all missionary reactivation work should be performed this way, or just when they are your kids?   

I do believe our missionary reactivating work is completely outdated and needs to be completely overhauled. 
 

As far as family, Especially your children, once they’re adults no matter if they are living in your house or not, learning how to transition from a parent who disciplines and persuades to a parent who listens and supports is key to maintaining a healthy lifelong relationship. One of the easiest ways to screw up a relationship is to tell your child you’re worried they won’t be with you in the Celestial Kingdom. And it’s my opinion, setting up a FHE over zoom with your adult children who don’t attend church anymore screams “ you’re screwing your life up, please change so I feel better” which probably won’t strengthen the relationship. 
 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Has she repented though, if she still believes it was a good choice?

She got married didn't she? Maybe it was a good choice for her.  Had you repented of every "wrong" doing before you want to the temple.  What is the difference between a big sin or little sin if allegedly any sin keeps you out of the presence of God?  It seems there is a great deal of shame creation built into the LDS repentance system.  My guess is this is a big reason why especially many younger people are not willing to participate.  The carrot and stick method is not as effective with them.

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

I understand where you’re coming from, I really do. But, it’s been my experience, a lot of the time inactive children don’t want to tell the parents to stop talking about the gospel because they fear the parents will cut them off emotionally and also financially (out of the will). So a lot of the time the child will inadvertently pull away juuust enough from a healthy adult child/parent relationship to try to protect everyone involved including grand children etc. And once that happens, there’s dozens of outcomes and most of them aren’t good long term. 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  To me this screams unhealthy family dynamics.  In a healthy family, children will not be afraid of their parents cutting them off emotionally or financially because they know from experience that their parents are better than that.  They know their parents would never emotionally or financially manipulate them over the gospel like that.   I think you are approaching this from the worst case family dynamic and not from a healthy open family dynamic. 

53 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

As far as family, Especially your children, once they’re adults no matter if they are living in your house or not, learning how to transition from a parent who disciplines and persuades to a parent who listens and supports is key to maintaining a healthy lifelong relationship. One of the easiest ways to screw up a relationship is to tell your child you’re worried they won’t be with you in the Celestial Kingdom. And it’s my opinion, setting up a FHE over zoom with your adult children who don’t attend church anymore screams “ you’re screwing your life up, please change so I feel better” which probably won’t strengthen the relationship. 

I agree, that is an easy way to screw up a relationship.  I don't condone that approach and that certainly is not what I am suggesting.  Again, you are approaching this from the assumption that the parents are emotionally manipulative.  You are also relying on a lot of unhealthy assumptions from the child's perspective too that requires reading between the lines and non-open/unhealthy communication skills.

I know that there are a lot of parents and families out there like the one you describe above.  I have seen it.  But I think you need to accept that there are people who do have healthy family dynamics who can and do talk about personal religious things with their inactive children in a supportive, non-threatening, non-manipulative, no pressure way - where both child and parent feel safe to share openly how they feel and what they believe and what is important to them. 

It's a sad day when grown children think that all they need from their parents is support in whatever life choices they make and pridefully reject "gentle persuasion with love unfeigned" from their parents and elders.  I get it that children need to cut the umbilical chord and fly with their own wings, but that doesn't mean that their parents should no longer have a role in persuasion in their lives.  There is nothing unhealthy about a parent persuading their adult children in what they feel is right.  The unhealthy dynamic only comes when that persuasion is manipulative, non-supportive, forceful, shaming, etc.  Disagreement and difference of opinion doesn't need to ruin a relationship.   I know it can be approached in a healthy way. 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

She got married didn't she? Maybe it was a good choice for her.  Had you repented of every "wrong" doing before you want to the temple.  What is the difference between a big sin or little sin if allegedly any sin keeps you out of the presence of God?

I know you don’t care, and that your only intention is to hurl half baked criticisms at the church, but I’ll make a comment.

It had a lot more to do with the desires of your heart than your action. A person who is living the LOC only because they are married and feels zero guilt for prior sexual sins is not ready for the temple.

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It seems there is a great deal of shame creation built into the LDS repentance system.

Can you share with us where in the “system” the shame is built in? References? Links? I would love to leave the church if they are promoting systematic shame.

Edited by Fether
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Has she repented though, if she still believes it was a good choice?

Surprised at your response.

It's none of our business, and maybe it was a good thing.

Remember Eve and her fortunate Fall?  Who knows God's plan for someone else.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Fether said:

I know you don’t care, and that your only intention is to hurl half baked criticisms at the church, but I’ll make a comment.

It had a lot more to do with the desires of your heart than your action. A person who is living the LOC only because they are married and feels zero guilt for prior sexual sins is not ready for the temple.

Can you share with us where in the “system” the shame is built in? References? Links? I would love to leave the church if they are promoting systematic shame.

Read the Miracle of Forgiveness.  Then come back and talk to me.  Oh and the biannual interrogation for a temple recommend, and annual yout interviews, and the need to confess certain "grievous" sins.  As for what I care or don't care about you really don't know.  Nor do you know my intentions. You don't know me at all, I have been on this board much longer than you and transitioned through a number of phases in my life.  I was a full blown believer and apologist for most of my adult life. Been on both sides.  Have you?

 

 Sin is a man made concept anyway and is used by religion to control people.  And the LDS Church does that very well.  Your comment reflects.  But your eyes are not yet open so I actually feel bad for you.

Edited by Teancum
Posted
23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Surprised at your response.

It's none of our business, and maybe it was a good thing.

Remember Eve and her fortunate Fall?  Who knows God's plan for someone else.

 

See I can agree with that.  

Posted
2 hours ago, Fether said:

A person who is living the LOC only because they are married and feels zero guilt for prior sexual sins is not ready for the temple.

That’s a pretty bold statement. Are you saying someone who finds the church later in life needs to feel guilty about the way they lived prior to finding the gospel? If so, only sexual sin or all sin. For instance, cussing, tattoos, drinking, smoking, gambling, etc? 

Posted
17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I remember being asked if there is something needs to be cleared up by previous bishop's before getting a recommend to get sealed and married. 

Things that need to be cleared up are things we have not repented from, and when someone marries someone who they had sexual relations with without being married, that is in effect repenting from having sexual relations without being married. It is a change of course, from having unmarried sexual relations to married sexual relations.  And if this is all between a man and a woman, it is then resolved and acceptable. The past behavior is not counted because it has been accounted for and no longer applies.

Put another way, the bishop was asking if you had anything you needed to repent from, if you were then doing anything the Lord and his Church teach is wrong.  If you weren't, because you had already repented of doing anything that is wrong, then everything was already cleared up by the fact that you had repented from doing anything that is wrong.  And that is what any good bishop would tell you if you were to confess to something you had already repented (turned away) from.

Posted
3 hours ago, Fether said:

A person who is living the LOC only because they are married and feels zero guilt for prior sexual sins is not ready for the temple.

So we should carry guilt for things we had no idea were wrong?

In today's world outside of religious beliefs, sexual "sins" don't exist, except  for rape.  People kill babies not knowing that is "wrong", except for wacko religionists.

So yes we must know we did wrong, and have repented.

But "carrying guilt" for sins taken away by the atonement is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ 

Posted
4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So we should carry guilt for things we had no idea were wrong?

In today's world outside of religious beliefs, sexual "sins" don't exist, except  for rape.  People kill babies not knowing that is "wrong", except for wacko religionists.

So yes we must know we did wrong, and have repented.

But "carrying guilt" for sins taken away by the atonement is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ 

👏👏👏

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

That’s a pretty bold statement. Are you saying someone who finds the church later in life needs to feel guilty about the way they lived prior to finding the gospel? If so, only sexual sin or all sin. For instance, cussing, tattoos, drinking, smoking, gambling, etc? 

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So we should carry guilt for things we had no idea were wrong?

In today's world outside of religious beliefs, sexual "sins" don't exist, except  for rape.  People kill babies not knowing that is "wrong", except for wacko religionists.

So yes we must know we did wrong, and have repented.

But "carrying guilt" for sins taken away by the atonement is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ 

Lets say they grew up in the church, and were baptized members (which sounds like is the case we are talking about).  Is repentance needed?  If not, why not?

My guess is that different bishops would approach this scenario very differently. 

Edited by pogi
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...