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

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, gopher said:

Ok, now you are being silly.

Well, I wasn't trying to be silly. What was what I said, silly? Was it the brainwashing statement? Maybe I should have used a better word such as indoctrinate? ETA:

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.” -Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:499

Modern LDS teaching agrees:

"Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed Him stood for the former proposition—freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force."

-Ezra T. Benson

"Inappropriate attempts to force obedience... create difficulty in fostering companionable relationships with young children and teens. Coercion—physical or psychological—is not appropriate. Coercive behavior includes physical and verbal abuse, threats, shouting, manipulating, withdrawing love, and shaming. While coercion may lead to momentary obedience or compliance, it rarely results in a long-term solution."

-By Craig H. Hart, Lloyd D. Newell, and Julie H. Haupt

We need freedom to explore all ideas if we are to truly have the ability to choose.

"How can we have freedom of religion if we are not free to compare honestly, to choose wisely, and to worship according to the dictates of our own conscience? While searching for the truth, we must be free to change our mind—even to change our religion—in response to new information and inspiration… One’s religion is not imposed by others. It is not predetermined. It is a very personal and sacred choice, nestled at the very core of human dignity."

-Russell M. Nelson

Edited January 16, 2023 by Tacenda

[John L]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

free agency given them in the church

Free agency is given at birth, once we're baptized, our agency is to represent God, we're not free to choose anymore. That's why the hymn is titled CHOOSE THE RIGHT, not choose what you want.

[gopher]

4 minutes ago, John L said:

It's in my screenshot above. It says "when INDIVIDUALS or groups of people turn away from principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy." Pretty self explanatory in my opinion. 

I rarely hear the word apostate used anymore, but the handbook clarifies when it should be used.  I guess you aren't interested in that?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 minutes ago, John L said:

If his brain wasn't fully formed at sixteen, how was he mature enough to enter a spiritual contract at the age of 8? Accepting the baptismal covenant is probably the most important decision we will make in our life. Shouldn't we make that decision with a fully formed brain?

What has God said about the subject? 

If the D&C is true revelation from God, then God wants parents to teach their young children the gospel and have their children baptized at the age of 8. 

[gopher]

6 minutes ago, John L said:

If his brain wasn't fully formed at sixteen, how was he mature enough to enter a spiritual contract at the age of 8? Accepting the baptismal covenant is probably the most important decision we will make in our life. Shouldn't we make that decision with a fully formed brain?

Why are you asking me?  I'm not the creator of this church.  The person who did felt that 8 was the right age.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, John L said:

Free agency is given at birth, once we're baptized, our agency is to represent God, we're not free to choose anymore. That's why the hymn is titled CHOOSE THE RIGHT, not choose what you want.

Yes, I'll bet there's a word to describe it, but there are very contradictory teachings in the church. Please see my post before this, I found many quotes that are confounding. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, John L said:

If his brain wasn't fully formed at sixteen, how was he mature enough to enter a spiritual contract at the age of 8? Accepting the baptismal covenant is probably the most important decision we will make in our life. Shouldn't we make that decision with a fully formed brain?

And if the brain being fully formed is a standard (which doesn’t happen until mid to late twenties) but what right does the church allow endowments, missionaries and marriage before that age?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, gopher said:

I rarely hear the word apostate used anymore,

Sure, there is also “barking dogs”, “unruly children”, “taffy pullers”, “lazy learners” etc

[JAHS]

36 minutes ago, John L said:

Free agency is given at birth, once we're baptized, our agency is to represent God, we're not free to choose anymore. That's why the hymn is titled CHOOSE THE RIGHT, not choose what you want.

Not sure I understand.  Even after baptism we are still free to chose not to represent God.

[John L]

26 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Even after baptism we are still free to chose not to represent God

No we're not. Why are we given agency at birth? Over many many years, I've learned we were given agency to choose God so we could enter the baptismal covenant and return to him. That's his promise to us! But there's a trade off. In return, we covenant to obey the commandments at ALL TIMES, in ALL THINGS, no matter what. That's the only way we can effectively represent him while here on earth. Did you learn something different? 

How can you represent yourself (using free agency to do what you want), and also represent God in everything you do? I don't think you can. That's the point of the baptismal covenant. In my opinion, most members don't understand what the baptismal covenant means and they definitely don't understand what is asked of them to do once they accept the terms.

Edited January 16, 2023 by John L

[Rain]

2 hours ago, John L said:

No matter the religion, there can be consequences a parent faces when they choose to baptize a child at a young age. Obviously, the parents feel like they're helping the child, but, if the child decides to walk his or her own path, the parents will almost always feel as if they're being rejected , especially if they have never really thought about a child leaving the faith.

I don't think it is almost always if we are talking about a child walking in their own path though I'm sure it happens sometimes. Unfortuantely, when a child does this it is often tied to other things such as wanting to spend time away from the family and that is what is more likely for a parent to feel rejected by.  More often a parent is just wanting the best for their child because they love them.  

2 hours ago, John L said:

The other dilemma parents who baptize young children find themselves in, is trying to explain why they thought it was a good idea to put the child into a spiritual contract when the child wasn't mentally capable to choose because of their young age. I have a friend who has blamed his parents for 30 years for baptizing him into a faith that labels him an apostate for a decision he supposedly made at the age of 8. He's been on the outside of the family looking in most of his life because the family can't deal with him wanting to speak his mind. They rather ignore him. 

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Rain

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, John L said:

No we're not. Why are we given agency at birth? Over many many years, I've learned we were given agency to choose God so we could enter the baptismal covenant and return to him. That's his promise to us! But there's a trade off. In return, we covenant to obey the commandments at ALL TIMES, in ALL THINGS, no matter what. That's the only way we can effectively represent him while here on earth. Did you learn something different? 

How can you represent yourself (using free agency to do what you want), and also represent God in everything you do? I don't think you can. That's the point of the baptismal covenant. In my opinion, most members don't understand what the baptismal covenant means and they definitely don't understand what is asked of them to do once they accept the terms.

I understand all that and we suffer the consequences if we don't represent God. But all of mankind was given agency to make choices, whether good or bad, right or wrong, to choose God or not choose God. That's the agency I am talking about. God is not forcing us to represent Him when we are baptized. We can still choose not to but will suffer the consequences. 

[John L]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I understand all that and we suffer the consequences if we don't represent God

You're close! Look at it this way. Once we covenant to represent God, it's more important to represent him in all things, that's what the church teaches. In contrast, the guy down the street that has never heard about the gospel, isn't a representative of God, he has never entered into a spiritual contract, which means he's free to do what he wants, he represents himself. You can't have it both ways. 

You gave up free agency when you decided to become God's representative. 

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, John L said:

No we're not. Why are we given agency at birth? Over many many years, I've learned we were given agency to choose God so we could enter the baptismal covenant and return to him. That's his promise to us! But there's a trade off. In return, we covenant to obey the commandments at ALL TIMES, in ALL THINGS, no matter what. That's the only way we can effectively represent him while here on earth. Did you learn something different? 

How can you represent yourself (using free agency to do what you want), and also represent God in everything you do? I don't think you can. That's the point of the baptismal covenant. In my opinion, most members don't understand what the baptismal covenant means and they definitely don't understand what is asked of them to do once they accept the terms.

The whole point of this life is to slowly change until what we want and what God wants is the same.

The point of the gospel is to become like Christ. It is not a change that happens quickly and neither does it happen without the grace of Christ and a lot of repentance.

Your interpretation of baptism and what it means is not what I was taught. The terminology is basically the same but the way you are interpreting and applying the terminology is foreign to me.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, John L said:

You're close! Look at it this way. Once we covenant to represent God, it's more important to represent him in all things, that's what the church teaches. In contrast, the guy down the street that has never heard about the gospel, isn't a representative of God, he has never entered into a spiritual contract, which means he's free to do what he wants, he represents himself. You can't have it both ways. 

You gave up free agency when you decided to become God's representative. 

Are you saying that people who haven’t been baptized are free to sin with no consequences?

[John L]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The terminology is basically the same but the way you are interpreting and applying the terminology is foreign to me

Here's a 2016 fireside with Elder Bednar explaining exactly what I've tried to in my last four or five post. If I'm misinterpreting what he's explaining, please explain it to me, if you wouldn't mind. 54:00 to 102:00

He says our agency is no longer ours.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by John L

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, John L said:

You're close! Look at it this way. Once we covenant to represent God, it's more important to represent him in all things, that's what the church teaches. In contrast, the guy down the street that has never heard about the gospel, isn't a representative of God, he has never entered into a spiritual contract, which means he's free to do what he wants, he represents himself. You can't have it both ways. 

You gave up free agency when you decided to become God's representative. 

Maybe you did but I didn't and most Church members didn't either. They do have it both ways. We try to represent God but because we are human sometimes we don't. Our agency allows us to choose not to sometimes.

[gopher]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I wasn't trying to be silly. What was what I said, silly? Was it the brainwashing statement? Maybe I should have used a better word such as indoctrinate? ETA:

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.” -Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:499

Modern LDS teaching agrees:

"Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed Him stood for the former proposition—freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force."

-Ezra T. Benson

"Inappropriate attempts to force obedience... create difficulty in fostering companionable relationships with young children and teens. Coercion—physical or psychological—is not appropriate. Coercive behavior includes physical and verbal abuse, threats, shouting, manipulating, withdrawing love, and shaming. While coercion may lead to momentary obedience or compliance, it rarely results in a long-term solution."

-By Craig H. Hart, Lloyd D. Newell, and Julie H. Haupt

We need freedom to explore all ideas if we are to truly have the ability to choose.

"How can we have freedom of religion if we are not free to compare honestly, to choose wisely, and to worship according to the dictates of our own conscience? While searching for the truth, we must be free to change our mind—even to change our religion—in response to new information and inspiration… One’s religion is not imposed by others. It is not predetermined. It is a very personal and sacred choice, nestled at the very core of human dignity."

-Russell M. Nelson

Those quotes do seem to contradict your admitted efforts to brainwash Primary kids with songs.  Ha, I'm just kidding.  Those quotes show what most sane members believe.  There's far less freedom of thought in schools and on TikTok.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And if the brain being fully formed is a standard (which doesn’t happen until mid to late twenties) but what right does the church allow endowments, missionaries and marriage before that age?

Very true, and even the Amish tell their children to go out into the world and decide for themselves, although could that be a mind game?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, gopher said:

Those quotes do seem to contradict your admitted efforts to brainwash Primary kids with songs.  Ha, I'm just kidding.  Those quotes show what most sane members believe.  There's far less freedom of thought in schools and on TikTok.

That's the darn problem, haha! 

[manol]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Trust is one of the first casualties of a betrayal or a failing relationship. It is usually the last thing to be restored. 

Elder Scott didn't say it would be easy, but he did say “find some way to trust them”.   Doing so may call upon us to go outside of our normal comfort zone.

I think part of “find[ing] some way to trust them”  would be that we not treasure our grievances. Our grievances offer us nothing of value no matter how “justified” they are. The price of treasuring our grievances is our happiness, and that price is the same whether or not our grievances are "justified".

Therefore, forgiveness is a gift we give to ourselves. 

Jesus did not say to forgive seventy times seven conditional upon the other person meeting our criteria for deserving forgiveness. He simply said to forgive seventy times seven, and I take that to mean “forgive without keeping score.” (He also said that we are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, so he's not telling us to be stupid either.)

What would it feel like to let go of all sense of having been betrayed? Wouldn't it feel wonderful to lay that cumbersome burden aside? Doing so is a choice that can be made without having to wait for any change in the other person. 

Imo we won't get to bring our litany of grievances (including betrayals) into heaven with us, so we might as well set down that baggage now. 

Edited January 16, 2023 by manol

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, John L said:

Here's a 2016 fireside with Elder Bednar explaining exactly what I've tried to in my last four or five post. If I'm misinterpreting what he's explaining, please explain it to me, if you wouldn't mind. 54:00 to 102:00

He says our agency is no longer ours.

 

 

We actually discussed this talk a while back on here.  If you'd like to read that discussion, here's the link:  https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74734-the-death-of-free-agency/

It seems obvious to me that Elder Bednar is talking about the difference between the choice to act and the ability to choose the consequences of those actions.  When we enter a covenant, we do not have the choice to break the covenant and continue to receive the blessings of it.  If we want the blessings, we must continue to choose to do what the covenant requires us to do.

Also, once baptized moral agency (the agency to do what is moral) demands that we remain in the covenant.  We can still choose to break the covenant at anytime, but then we are not using our agency morally (though we are still using it).

Also, we do not have to do everything that God dictates to remain in the covenant.  Repenting when we screw up is a part of that covenant.  To remain in the covenant we have to continue to have faith, continue to repent when we do something wrong, and continue to do our best at following Christ, repenting when we don't.  If we do those things, we remain in a covenant relationship with Christ.  

 

[teddyaware]

25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Maybe you did but I didn't and most Church members didn't either. They do have it both ways. We try to represent God but because we are human sometimes we don't. Our agency allows us to choose not to sometimes.

Christ wrought his atoning sacrifice of infinite and eternal suffering in order to provide God’s children with the opportunity to make the choice to put off the fallen nature and obtain eternal life.  When we make choices that lead us away from the covenant path and the precious gift of eternal life, we do so as an act in defiance against the actual purpose of agency.

Christ didn’t descend in suffering below all things in order to give us the right to commit sin; rather he suffered for sin to enable his disciples to proactively conquer sin. Choosing wickedness is an act of rebellion against the very purpose of agency, not an affirmation of agency. Each time a sin is committed, either Christ or the sinners themselves will have to pay a price by suffering for that sin. Just because we have the freedom to choose doesn’t mean there will be no consequences when we choose to break the law. In other words, freedom isn’t free.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, John L said:

Here's a 2016 fireside with Elder Bednar explaining exactly what I've tried to in my last four or five post. If I'm misinterpreting what he's explaining, please explain it to me, if you wouldn't mind. 54:00 to 102:00

He says our agency is no longer ours.

 

 

I think we can assume he is talking in terms of agency is no longer ours IF we want to reap the blessings of being faithful baptized followers and representatives of Christ. We need to choose to do what is right if we want the blessings of that choice and become spiritually self-reliant. In that case we cannot choose to do whatever we want if what we want is wrong and leads us down a false path.

Edited January 16, 2023 by JAHS

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Christ wrought his atoning sacrifice of infinite and eternal suffering in order to provide God’s children with the opportunity to make the choice to put off the fallen nature and obtain eternal life.  When we make choices that lead us away from the covenant path and the precious gift of eternal life, we do so as an act in defiance against the actual purpose of agency.

Christ didn’t descend in suffering below all things in order to give us the right to commit sin; rather he suffered for sin to enable his disciples to proactively conquer sin. Choosing wickedness is an act of rebellion against the very purpose of agency, not an affirmation of agency. Each time a sin is committed, either Christ or the sinners themselves will have to pay a price by suffering for that sin. Just because we have the freedom to choose doesn’t mean there will be no consequences when we choose to break the law. In other words, freedom isn’t free.

Of course there will be consequences when we choose to break the law, but we are still free to choose to break the law. God is not forcing us to choose the right'. That was Satan's plan.