My son has decided he does not want to attend Church anymore - how do I build our relationship without this?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, John L said:

At the age of 8, is it really their decision? I'm asking that with a sincere heart. 

Would you not agree making an eternal covenant with an eternal God is a huge life altering decision? 

Here's the nitty-gritty. When a couple are sealed together, and the children are sealed to the parents, right now in the church, we're taught any child that chooses to leave the church are rejecting an eternity with us in heaven. That sets up a scenario where the parents look down on the child that exercised their "free agency." What I'm trying to explain, maybe I'm doing a terrible job at it, but it's my opinion from years of experience, LDS parents almost never accept the "wayward" child as righteous compared to the child's siblings. They may outwardly accept them through invites, presents, babysitting and so on, but internally and spiritually, which matters the most, the wayward child almost always is looked upon with pity and disappointment. The feelings the parents have towards the wayward child will have lasting implications that will sometimes affect the relationship with grandchildren and great grandchildren. 

And although it's taken down there was a video of parents that would hold the children's inheritance over their heads if they don't stay in the church. It was on the LDS Philanthropies website. But it was taken down for good reason, IMO. 

https://archive.org/details/watchvpxa6nt-ydqc

[Bernard Gui]

57 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Would you ask the same child to commit to which college he/she was going to attend? Or which profession he/she was going to pursue. Why not ask them to commit to which spouse is best for them?

8 years old is too young to even vaguely understand what a baptismal covenant entails. All we are doing at that age is conditioning them. 

I would say we are teaching them how to survive in this world as best we know how, as do most parents all over the earth. To do otherwise is neglectful. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I can absolutely see this happening. I just spoke with my wife yesterday about our 21-yr old son who has left the faith. I don't want him to perceive my disappointment (and there is some) for fear that it will continue to drive him (along with his wife and potential children) away from a relationship not only with myself and my wife but also his two sisters (one is serving a mission) as well as nieces and nephews that will inevitably follow soon. It is a particularly difficult transition. I suspect he is not comfortable talking about it with me because he knows my activation and to some extent my disappointment. I had an enjoyable morning of pickleball and breakfast with him yesterday morning. I want this to be the norm though as has been said on this thread already, there is more work to be done behind my own eyeballs.   

You are one of the good ones Vanguard! Your son, I'm sure, is thankful! Also, kudos to your son for wanting a close relationship too, from the sound of it!

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I can absolutely see this happening. I just spoke with my wife yesterday about our 21-yr old son who has left the faith. I don't want him to perceive my disappointment (and there is some) for fear that it will continue to drive him (along with his wife and potential children) away from a relationship not only with myself and my wife but also his two sisters (one is serving a mission) as well as nieces and nephews that will inevitably follow soon. It is a particularly difficult transition. I suspect he is not comfortable talking about it with me because he knows my activation and to some extent my disappointment. I had an enjoyable morning of pickleball and breakfast with him yesterday morning. I want this to be the norm though as has been said on this thread already, there is more work to be done behind my own eyeballs.   

You are one of the good ones Vanguard! Your son, I'm sure, is thankful! Also, kudos to your son for wanting a close relationship too, from the sound of it!

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And although it's taken down there was a video of parents that would hold the children's inheritance over their heads if they don't stay in the church. It was on the LDS Philanthropies website. But it was taken down for good reason, IMO. 

https://archive.org/details/watchvpxa6nt-ydqc

Many rich people have serious concerns about leaving a lot of money to their children or they put qualifiers on their inheritances. 
 

Quote

Marie Osmond wants her seven kids to make their own fortunes, according to a new report.

The country singer believes individuals who are simply "handed money" often end up lacking drive and ambition, and she wants her children to discover their own interests on the road to forging meaningful careers. As a result, Osmond told Us Weekly she doesn't plan to leave her kids an inheritance.

"Honestly, why would you enable your child to not try to be something? I don't know anybody who becomes anything if they're just handed money," Osmond told the tabloid. "To me, the greatest gift you can give your child is a passion to search out who they are inside and to work. I mean, I've done so many things from designing dolls [and much more]. I love trying [and] I wanna try everything. I'm a finisher." 
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/marie-osmond-singer-inheritance-says-she-wont-give-her-children-money/

 

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would say we are teaching them how to survive in this world as best we know how, as do most parents all over the earth. To do otherwise is neglectful. 

I agree, but to pretend that decisions made at 8 are binding on an adult is silly. Calling a young adult an apostate simply because he/she decides they do not believe in the religion into which they were born, is silly.

Edited January 17, 2023 by CA Steve

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure. People are free to value their relationship with God (whatever that means to them) over maintaining earthly relationships. Such decisions have consequences though. 

Often a child who has left the Church will ask the parent to allow questionable behavior in their home or to participate with them in such things as take a drink or smoke a joint. Such requests are refused even if the refusal stresses their earthly relationship.

Quote

Except you are dealing with someone that STRONGLY disagrees with that. So strongly that they risked all their relationships to leave. If you lack the humility to grant everyone to choose a path that works for them, and lack the humility to acknowledge that their path might actually be better for them (based on their lived life experiences), you will have a subpar relationship with them at best. 

Well, no. Where do you get the idea that I don’t grant everyone the right to do as they please? Certainly not in this conversation. The only things I have ever insisted that my children must do are: 1) respect your mother, 2) play a musical instrument (as long as it has strings on it), 3) be kind to others. 

In talking about boundaries earlier, I noted that they are set to protect oneself, not to control others. For example, if a child who has left the Church turns to compulsive behaviors, as they often do, the parent might say, “Those things are not allowed in our home. If you do that you cannot stay here!” This is not a boundary that can be enforced. It would be better to say, “I am moving the computer into the kitchen.”
 

Quote

All made up stories (FWIW)

If you think so, but all are excellent examples from which everyone can learn valuable lessons. 

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I agree, but to pretend that decisions made at 8 are binding on an adult is silly. Calling a young adult an apostate simply because he/she decides they do not believe in the religion into which they were born, is silly.

Plenty of decisions made at a young age have serious impact when adulthood arrives. “Apostate” has negative overtones. It is more applicable to one who leaves the Church but turns to overt actions against the Church or its members. I know some who have done that.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

We have a recently converted family in our ward who were inactive Catholics, do we call them apostates or converts?

When we agree with a person's decision regarding religion we call it conversion, when we disagree with it, we call it apostasy.

 

Exactly.

If a Catholic priest were to join our church, we wouldn't be going on about the vows (covenants) that he broke when he left the priesthood and the Catholic faith, we'd be applauding him for doing what he believed was right despite the consequences.

There are times when someone leaves the church and the term apostate probably fits the bill, but most of the time I don't think it does.  Maybe the dictionary definition of the word but not the spirit of the word.   Let God be the judge.

 

[gopher]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Would you ask the same child to commit to which college he/she was going to attend? Or which profession he/she was going to pursue. Why not ask them to commit to which spouse is best for them?

8 years old is too young to even vaguely understand what a baptismal covenant entails. All we are doing at that age is conditioning them. 

An 8 year old can't have more than a vague understanding of this covenant?  "You promise to take upon yourself the name of Jesus Christ, keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end".  That's what you fear parents are "conditioning" their kids to promise to do?  They have been learning about it their entire lives.  Of course it will take on additional meaning as they get older, just like with everything else at their age (school, relationships, Scooby-Doo cartoons, etc)

If you feel your 8 year old isn't ready for baptism, then don't have them baptized.  How long do you think it takes for someone to fully understand what the baptismal covenant entails?  Some churches still baptize babies so we should get some credit for waiting until 8.

I don't trust anyone under 30 to commit to a spouse that will be best for them.  But that's just me.

[manol]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The talk and quote you used do not address betrayal, abuse, addiction, abandonment, etc.

The talk and quote were relevant to the topic of this thread, namely, how to deal with one's children leaving the LDS Church.  That may include "betrayal" in the minds of the parents, but usually not "abuse, addiction, abandonment, etc.". 

 

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Forgiveness and trust may take years of hard work, faith in the Lord, patience, prayer, and even counseling to restore. And even then, it may require severing relations to preserve one’s sanity or even one’s life. 

Agreed!  

In my experience we do not fully heal until we forgive.  In the meantime we may well have many excellent excuses to NOT forgive. But none of those excellent excuses offer the healing that forgiveness does.  So imo it is a mistake to value those excuses (no matter how valid they may be!) more than we value forgiveness. 

Our job is to bring as much light as we can into whatever circumstance we find ourselves in. We cannot be the light when we are focused on damning the darkness.

Let me give an example. When I was ten years old, one day some things happened to me that would have landed two people in prison if there had been witnesses. For many years the memory of these events was almost like re-living them, and would pull me into a spiral of negative thoughts, all of which were "fully justified" of course. Those memories and the ensuing negative spiral intruded upon my thoughts almost constantly and needless to say took a toll on me and on my relationship with the two people involved. Over time there was some lessening of the frequency but still my own private hell was just a thought away.

Then one day instead of once again churning the same painful mix over and over I decided to try something different. I decided that, more than anything else, I wanted to see those events differently. I made my best prayerful effort to do so, and it worked. ALL of the pain, sense of betrayal, humiliation, and outrage were gone, and in their place was peace. I can remember the events and how I used to feel about them, but now there is no more pain nor condemnation towards the other two people. I have empathy for them because of what they must have been going through.

Paraphrasing Elder Scott, I “found some way to forgive them.”  Briefly, I chose to value peace over my grievances.  And it worked far beyond my highest hopes.

My current perception of those events is, they were simply part of the path that led me to where I am now. I have zero interest in indulging in condemnation or righteous indignation or whatever other grievance thoughts I might be FULLY JUSTIFIED in, at least by normal standards. Doing so offers me NOTHING of value.

So my opinion is that if we genuinely SEEK "some way to forgive them”, and value that more than we value all the excuses in the world to NOT forgive, then we will FIND "some way to forgive them.”  And that transformational peace is a gift we can give to ourselves without being at the mercy of the other person choosing to make amends.

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by manol

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, manol said:

Briefly, I chose to value peace over my grievances.  And it worked far beyond my highest hopes.

The power of reframe.  Good for you to have arrived at that conclusion.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Would you ask the same child to commit to which college he/she was going to attend? Or which profession he/she was going to pursue. Why not ask them to commit to which spouse is best for them?

8 years old is too young to even vaguely understand what a baptismal covenant entails. All we are doing at that age is conditioning them. 

As long as it is understood as a process and that change will happen and how we fulfill our promise made at eight may change as well and different choices will get made over a lifetime, I don’t see a huge issue.  An eight year old often knows what they want to be as an adult and it is not a bad idea to use that desire to motivate them to try new things and develop good habits and to learn new knowledge and skills….and as their desires about what they are going to be change with more experience, there is new motivation to continue to learn and try new behaviours and to push themselves to develop in new ways.  I think asking them to make a commitment only becomes a problem when one looks on that commitment as a business/legal contract rather than a goal, which can be a useful tool for personal growth.

You can talk to an eight year old about the importance of school and working hard and mostly trying to do their best (understanding that doesn’t mean the best they can do with their current skills if they were focused on one single thing, but the best they can do with the juggling act that is life) with the goal of college in mind, even a particular college as concrete goals are better motivators than vague, abstract ones (I think that is why the gospel focuses so much on eternal families as that image is a very concrete one for most people).  It is important though we as parents or teachers/leaders don’t assume the talking is finished, a one and done decision.  Talking and making commitments and working at them and adjusting as circumstances and needs change is an essential part of growth.  

God is much better at dealing with the fluctuations of childish and childlike desires as well as more mentally and spiritually mature choices we will make over our existence since he is the truly perfect parent.

An eight year old who has been taught about Jesus their whole life has a pretty good idea of what taking on his name means if that is seen as trying to be like Jesus, acting towards others as he would act if he were here to the best we can do…which is how “taking on his name” is generally taught in Primary in my experience (I taught junior Primary for 20ish years, starting at age 18).

There may come a time where the commitment to college morphs into a commitment to learning itself, particular learning something that rings them joy and satisfaction in their life and therefore a child may choose a path of learning that doesn’t include college.  A parent can choose to focus on the constructive side of that change, the expansion of the goal of going to college into the broader, more fundamental commitment to learn the good things wherever they are and be supportive and joyful in the personal growth or they can choose to focus on the rejection of college as the best path for learning and feel like their child is choosing second best and get disappointed, etc.  There may come a time when the commitment to be like Jesus morphs into thinking of Jesus not as a being, not as God but as a symbol of love, caring and all that is good and a parent can view it as a positive that their child  commits to being or becoming a good person because they see it as the person they want to be or the parent can be disappointed of their child’s loss in faith of Jesus as their God and be so focused on that they lose sight that gospel principles of love and righteousness can be learnt outside of the Church or even religion.

. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Breaking the previous post into two because it is two topics really…

I think the fear of loss comes in because of previous and some current teachings that there are no second chances in accepting or rejecting the Gospel once the boundary of death is crossed, but that doesn’t make sense in the full context of the gospel where we accept those who have left for rebaptism and all blessings are fully restored and we don’t look on them as somehow having lost their inheritance just because they took a different path for a time to get to the final destination of being part of the eternal family of God (which is what exaltation appears to be to me).  When we (humanity) didn’t know about the learning part of the afterlife, it made sense to think of death as the line where choice becomes final, set in stone, but the restored Gospel has taught us about how we continue to learn and grow after death and are able to even accept ordinances done on our behalf.  I think a lot of fear of loss of family could be lessened if one believes choice continues after death as well as before.  We know it does for those who have never heard the Gospel, why wouldn’t it for those who had heard it, but didn’t comprehend it?  Surely both a just and merciful God would judge by understanding and not just simple exposure.  We know he does in fact do just that at one level because he does not hold accountable those who may sit in all the same primary and Sunday school classes, but do not have the mentality to comprehend what they heard.  He does not even require them to be baptized until they are able to begin to comprehend more complex choices.  
 

Why would a just and merciful God remove the opportunity for choice as long as there is any lack of comprehension of what that choice means?  And what mortal can truly comprehend an eternal/infinite choice?  We first have to understand the infinite sacrifice of Christ and the infinite effects of the Atonement before we can truly reject them.  Prior to that understanding we are not rejecting the actual sacrifice and the actual Atonement, but the caricatures we have created in our limited brains.

As Joseph said, we don’t finish climbing the ladder until a long time after death because it will take time to comprehend exaltation.  There is a logical  corollary to that of we can reject exaltation until long after death either because we can’t truly reject something we don’t comprehend, we are only rejecting something we think is exaltation up to that point.

So while there is loss in this life of many things, eternal loss isn’t one of those in my understanding. 

I think God as a loving and fundamentally good parent understands quite well a sense of urgency tends to increase efforts towards a goal (some of us need deadlines to move at all in fact) and as a loving and fundamentally good parent he doesn’t want us to suffer unnecessarily or waste time in mediocrity when we could be experiencing joy, so he allows incorrect views to continue at times just as a mortal parent will not typically force a young child to recognize the parent can’t protect them in every way because the parent recognizes the child isn’t ready to handle fear of the unknown yet and it could be crippling if the child is exposed to it too soon.

But like anything a sense of urgency can be taken to the extreme and fear becomes crippling at that intensity.  I think this can be best countered by focusing on a truth many of us can learn even as mortals and that is the infinite love of God (infinite meaning for mortals in the case as all that we will ever need or want) can overcome anything that brings us fear.  It is a matter of trusting God to be who we know him to be.  I believe this is the fundamental principle of the Gospel, expressed as “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ”.
 

PS:  I know this is not a universal option, to trust in God that way.  Some have circumstances that prevent them from trusting others and this may include God.  There is no doubt in my mind those in this situation are judged by God to be as without law or at least what I view as the law of faith or trust.  There may be other laws of the Gospel they comprehend in this life…though full comprehension of all God’s law waits for us in the next life.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Calm

[Buckwheat]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

An 8 year old can't have more than a vague understanding of this covenant?  "You promise to take upon yourself the name of Jesus Christ, keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end".  That's what you fear parents are "conditioning" their kids to promise to do?  They have been learning about it their entire lives.  Of course it will take on additional meaning as they get older, just like with everything else at their age (school, relationships, Scooby-Doo cartoons, etc)

If you feel your 8 year old isn't ready for baptism, then don't have them baptized.  How long do you think it takes for someone to fully understand what the baptismal covenant entails?  Some churches still baptize babies so we should get some credit for waiting until 8.

I don't trust anyone under 30 to commit to a spouse that will be best for them.  But that's just me.

I'm a new member of the church and was wandering if to baptise my daughter when she be 8 in a few years. Are young members given a choice to baptise in church? I get scared when learning scientology make young people sign contracts and parents have no questions. This threadmakes me wonder if I should baptise. You help me understand?

 

 

[Calm]

Young children are given a choice, it is not supposed to be just automatic when they hit eight, but often the child may make that choice because they don’t realize that it is a choice or they may do it because everyone expects them to or because friends are doing it, but often they may make it for the right reason, because they believe God loves them and wants them as part of his Church and therefore they want to be a member and they want to become more like Jesus as they grow and be a representative of him in doing good to others as well.
 

A parent can make it clear to their child it is a real choice and can ask the child if they understand what baptism is for and hopefully they will be able to tell if the child is just repeating what they have been told or the child actually understands what they are choosing to do.  A parent’s permission is required, so if you don’t feel good about it, you don’t have to give permission, but if your child wants to be baptized and you don’t think they are ready, please make it clear that you aren’t withholding permission because you think they aren’t good enough, obedient enough, or smart enough to be ready.

There is no even legal in appearance only type of contract that is signed (btw, a ten year old can’t be legally held to any contract they signed, even when they become an adult).

I know many people teach that covenants are contracts, but I believe there is too much legal and business connotations attached to the word “contract” it would be better to not use that word.  I prefer “promise” because pretty much everyone has experiences where a promise has to be modified or even can’t be reasonably fulfilled and no one believes a penalty should be given for failing to fill that promise where a business/legal contract may not have that option included.  Expectations are therefore different for a promise than they are for a contract.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

11 hours ago, John L said:

Because we baptize 8 year olds. I don't know about you, but I don't trust an 8 year old to be able to do much of anything, especially when it comes to signing or promising to make lifelong or eternal commitments. Here's the situation as I see it. We baptize 8 year olds, expect them to understand the eternal consequences they're promising, expect them to keep the promises for life, but when they grow older and more mature and want to explore and use their "so called freedom" and leave the church, we slap the label APOSTATE on them because they dishonor the spiritual contract made at the age of 8.  How does that makes sense? 

When I was eight I actually did have a basic understanding of the church's core beliefs and what I was committing, too. Then as I grew older I learned more and gained an even better understanding and a stronger testimony. Had I decided to leave the church as a teen, and especially as an adult, I would definitely have fit the definition of being an apostate who renounced my former religious beliefs. 

Also, eight year olds use to work full-time jobs back in the day and overall had a lot more responsibility than most do today. So I'm not buying the helpless, mindless eight year old who is incapable of having a basic understanding of their religion and the baptismal covenant. I think they are much more aware and capable than you give them credit for. 

Plus, I don't know of anyone who would call preteen or even a young teen an apostate for going inactive because their parents did. But an older teen or an adult who renounces their former beliefs is a different story. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

10 hours ago, John L said:

 

What about it? The word apostate and the meaning it has inside the church, has everything to do with the opening post. Maj explained his or her son doesn't want to attend church anymore so there's a good chance his or her son will be labeled an apostate from some of the LDS members in their area. The way leaders of our church have defined what an apostate is, has ruined more than one relationship between LDS parents and a LDS child. My early years in the church, I looked at members who left the church as weak individuals who did not have a strong enough testimony to hold back the evil temptation Satan and his soldiers were trying to persuade them with on a daily basis. Seeing them leave the church filled me with pride. I was happy God loved me so much, he would never let me fall to the temptation like the weak apostates all around me. In a very sick way, seeing my fellow saints leave the church strengthened my testimony when I was young. 

Here's two screen shots from our official website. You can find them under "How to prevent personal apostasy." How do you feel about how Brigham Young explains what an apostate is? 

So basically, in your opinion the church needs to ditch the word apostate, because some individuals who fit the definition of apostate to a T, don't like the term and the implication that believing members consider their decision to renounce their former beliefs as a mistake and a tragedy? 

I also have no problem with how Brigham described apostates. What he said isn't PC today, but I think his overall rundown is pretty accurate in most cases. 

[Calm]

I think we should limit apostate to those who actively reject and accuse the Church rather than just walk off because of disbelief in some things the Church teaches because that is how a goodly number of members view apostasy and so when they hear someone called an apostate, they misunderstand and think they are essentially an anti-Mormon.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think we should limit apostate to those who actively reject and accuse the Church rather than just walk off because of disbelief in some things the Church teaches because that is how a goodly number of members view apostasy and so when they hear someone called an apostate, they misunderstand and think they are essentially an anti-Mormon.

But that's not what the word apostate means. It doesn't mean your now an enemy of the church or an anti-Mormon. It means that you have renounced your former beliefs, which is exactly what those who don't like this term being applied to them have done.

I don't think that it's a good idea to stop using the correct term for something just because people have a misunderstanding of what it means or don't like it. Of course we shouldn't throw around the word apostate as a derogatory term, but I see nothing wrong with using it correctly with no pejorative connotation. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

I'm a new member of the church and was wandering if to baptise my daughter when she be 8 in a few years. Are young members given a choice to baptise in church? I get scared when learning scientology make young people sign contracts and parents have no questions. This threadmakes me wonder if I should baptise. You help me understand?

 

 

No the church doesn't force an 8 year old to be baptized, no worries there. The child might feel the need to be, with lessons learned in Primary class and his peers getting baptized at 8. But it's always up to the child, no pressure should be put upon the child, it should be their decision. And if they choose to wait until older the only stipulation the church has is for the missionaries to teach the child or what ever age they may be. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Tacenda

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

But that's not what the word apostate means. It doesn't mean your now an enemy of the church or an anti-Mormon. It means that you have renounced your former beliefs, which is exactly what those who don't like this term being applied to them have done.

I don't think that it's a good idea to stop using the correct term for something just because people have a misunderstanding of what it means or don't like it. Of course we shouldn't throw around the word apostate as a derogatory term, but I see nothing wrong with using it correctly with no pejorative connotation. 

But I think that's the point - IMO it is thrown around as a derogatory term too often and indeed it is laden with too much negative baggage. I have too many family members who have left the faith to feel comfortable calling them 'apostates'. There are other more neutral terms that can be used. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

But I think that's the point - IMO it is thrown around as a derogatory term too often and indeed it is laden with too much negative baggage. I have too many family members who have left the faith to feel comfortable calling them 'apostates'.

I really don't think this is the case at all. I think people who are correctly labeled as apostates feel that it is derogatory, when it actually isn't. I think the cases where active members legitimately use the term "apostate" as an insult are few and far between. 

 

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

There are other more neutral terms that can be used. 

Such as?

[manol]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

So while there is loss in this life of many things, eternal loss isn’t one of those in my understanding. 

Agreed!

5 hours ago, Calm said:

... a sense of urgency can be taken to the extreme and fear becomes crippling at that intensity.  

It may seem trite, but I firmly believe that perfect love casts out fear, and therefore any belief or paradigm or analysis or interpretation which leads to a fearful conclusion falls short of perfect love, and therefore is not the highest and most complete truth on the subject.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I think this can be best countered by focusing on a truth many of us can learn even as mortals and that is the infinite love of God (infinite meaning for mortals in the case as all that we will ever need or want) can overcome anything that brings us fear.  It is a matter of trusting God to be who we know him to be.  I believe this is the fundamental principle of the Gospel, expressed as “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ”.

Yes!  If our current paradigm falls short of perfect love, then let us at least focus on light instead of darkness as often and as completely as we can in the moment.  I believe that we have every reason to trust God to be who we know him to be, and that "this is the fundamental principle of the Good News". 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I know this is not a universal option, to trust in God that way.  Some have circumstances that prevent them from trusting others and this may include God.  There is no doubt in my mind those in this situation are judged by God to be as without law or at least what I view as the law of faith or trust.  There may be other laws of the Gospel they comprehend in this life…though full comprehension of all God’s law waits for us in the next life.

Imo some people may have deliberately chosen an Earth life which "includes circumstances that prevent them from trusting others and this may include God."  Yet even with greater barriers in place, and with an even thicker veil in place, how often these people are doing their best to bring as much light into whatever their circumstance may be!  I am absolutely confident that many, many, many atheists and others often consigned to the "naughty" list will go into Heaven well ahead of me, because they have done a better job of following the highest they know. 

*  *  *

@Vanguard, I appreciate you sticking up for those of us who would be labelled "apostates".  Speaking only for myself personally, you need not die on this hill.  If that's the term that fits some people's paradigm, I'm okay with them being true to their beliefs.

Again only speaking for myself, I did not "apostatize" from following the highest that I know or believe (take your pick); rather, what constitutes "the highest that I know (or believe)" evolved in an unexpected direction, and I followed where I believe that evolution led me.  I do not believe that I apostatized against the light.  And of course I could be mistaken.

Edited January 18, 2023 by manol

[Vanguard]

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I really don't think this is the case at all. I think people who are correctly labeled as apostates feel that it is derogatory, when it actually isn't. I think the cases where active members legitimately use the term "apostate" as an insult are few and far between

To each his own. I would not feel comfortable calling my loved ones who have left the faith and wish no ill will against the Church, apostates. And especially not to their faces. It appears your loved ones in similar circumstances might appreciate you using such accurate descriptors of their leaving the faith or if they were too sensitive about the term, you could at least clarify you use the term solely for informational purposes. ;o

10 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Such as?

Former members?