Advice on a recent family experience

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Mormon heaven sounds more like he'll to me - split families, such a small little group who turns their nose up at everyone else   - sounds like hell.

Unless one listens to the leaders’ counsel that says faithful parents will have their children with them, which implies that these children will in the CK or at least be in the same community***, which means they have become faithful themselves, which means their children will also be saved into their eternal family…and the ripples continue on down until it includes all descendants.  And since we are also sealed to our parents, why wouldn’t the ripples go up so as to include all ancestors as well.  Logically, the implication of those very Mormon teachings is with enough time (say 1000 years) everyone is in the Celestial Kingdom even if they aren’t exalted (because the CK is the only place family sealings are in effect) or at least existing together as a family.

As an aside, to me it makes more sense that the kingdoms are states of being/awareness rather than location, so everyone is together, they just experience life differently, similar to how a trained professional musician hears the same, identical piece of music as an amateur musician or even untrained listener and yet the experience is very different.  States of being are often symbolized as locations (the path of salvation for example) in scripture, so I don’t see the interpretation as a stretch.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" - not allowed to be united with anyone or anything outside of the group.  

That not how the vast majority of LDS interpret that.

We couldn’t send out missionaries if that was the actual standard, work with nonmembers, go to school with nonmembers.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Autonomous said:

If you loved people more than your church, you would reject the Mormon version of heaven.  

I love people tons more than my Church.  Just as Christ said the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath, the Church is made for humanity and not humanity for the Church.

That is one reason I am so grateful for the LDS belief that learning about God and other principles pertaining to our salvation continues after death (even for the most faithful, devout member) and God gives everyone a glorious, joyful outcome (all the kingdoms of heaven are places of God’s glory) except for the apparently very few who knew the joy and yet turned their backs on it and chose hate instead.

It’s impossible for me to think of how anyone would actually do that, especially if they hadn’t turn sour in the eons of existence before mortality, but I also know not everyone feels like I do or thinks about things in the same way, so I accept it may be possible to hate God that much for some reason even after all the truth is revealed and the vast majority of people around us have been purified of sin so we can recognize no one wants to harm us.

Edited May 15, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Autonomous said:

I can have friends outside my group - haha - I don't believe it.  

I have been a devout member all my life.  Up until my late forties, all my closest friends were nonmembers, except one family (though that was more of the husbands/kids really bonding first).  Even growing up in California where there were tons of LDS around (there were close to ten girls in my YW class at church, but none of them were into science as much as I was), I preferred hanging out with the nonmembers, though if any member had hung out in the science labs or library I probably wouldn’t be saying this as it wasn’t membership in the Church that mattered to me.  Friends that I made a real effort to get to know were all nonmembers (I admit these were few as I am an introvert).  Even when we were in Utah, my husband’s closest friends were half and half as a number of professors and staff at the university were nonmembers.  Because I am less mobile, my social life these days is limited to this board, FAIR, and family, so I lack opportunity to develop close in person relationships outside of the Church because we live in a neighborhood with a very high percentage of LDS (we moved here because it was the greenest part of the value, I didn’t have a clue it was so dense in members).  I have had a number of good friends in the Church, those who have gone out of their way to help when I need it even if I don’t show up in church much these days.

I believe it’s been the same for my sisters.  My brothers in their youth had scouts through the Church and I think my older brother picked up a good friend there, but my younger brother’s passion was baseball and there weren’t any members his age with the same obsession.  I don’t know about my brothers’ friends as adults, but my sisters have plenty of nonmember friends (one is a retired professor/elementary Ed teacher and her closest friends were typically from that group as far as I know, she did have some good friends in the Church who are practically like family to her as she is single and they help her out a lot, make sure she’s not alone on holidays).

Edited May 15, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Autonomous said:

I believe in Mormon theology, there is some kind of agreement members make about... bowing their heads and saying their president is "the only person on Earth" with authority kind of a thing?  Certainty in one person means not trusting or really listening to other people.  "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" - not allowed to be united with anyone or anything outside of the group.  

That question was designed to catch people practicing plural marriage or some form of spiritual wifery or some other variant. The question originally included the full name of the Church to make it explicit that you were lying if you claimed to follow it and adhered to the beliefs of a different restorationist faith.

The description in practice is so broad that taken literally it keeps you from doing anything with almost everybody. Even joining a political party would be verboten. Some book clubs would be forbidden.

[Calm]

nvm

Edited May 15, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless one listens to the leaders’ counsel that says faithful parents will have their children with them, which implies that these children will in the CK or at least be in the same community***, which means they have become faithful themselves, which means their children will also be saved into their eternal family…and the ripples continue on down until it includes all descendants.  And since we are also sealed to our parents, why wouldn’t the ripples go up so as to include all ancestors as well.  Logically, the implication of those very Mormon teachings is with enough time (say 1000 years) everyone is in the Celestial Kingdom even if they aren’t exalted (because the CK is the only place family sealings are in effect) or at least existing together as a family.

As an aside, to me it makes more sense that the kingdoms are states of being/awareness rather than location, so everyone is together, they just experience life differently, similar to how a trained professional musician hears the same, identical piece of music as an amateur musician or even untrained listener and yet the experience is very different.  States of being are often symbolized as locations (the path of salvation for example) in scripture, so I don’t see the interpretation as a stretch.

This teaching has been partially repudiated.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2014/03/faithful-parents-and-wayward-children-sustaining-hope-while-overcoming-misunderstanding?lang=eng

I think it is a bit disingenuous for Elder Bednar to suggest that “some” have “misconstrued” the doctrine. The Church leadership were the ones pushing the teaching. Same thing they did by trying to make everyone think it was self-evident that women exercise priesthood power and suggesting it should have been known by all.

This kind of revisionism annoys me.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Heaven isn't heaven unless everyone is there. 

What if they don’t want to be?  Serious question, do you see it as heavenly if God forces people to want to be in heaven…as in changes their personality somehow so they no longer choose to hate or be arrogant to the point they don’t want to associate with anyone else (CS Lewis’ Great Divorce makes the most sense to me about why some might choose hell over Heaven, though it’s an intellectual recognition as I don’t understand that level of arrogance and I don’t understand hate—as in the desire to harm or even destroy another).

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This teaching has been partially repudiated.

I will wait for when it becomes a majority position.

Quote

This kind of revisionism annoys me.

I hope one day we are much more comfortable with ambiguity and fallible leaders.  I firmly believe in continuing revelation, so my expectation is past and present leaders will naturally be wrong about somethings since not all has been revealed yet and being human, much of the gap filling will be wrong.

Edited May 15, 2025 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 5/13/2025 at 9:07 AM, Maestrophil said:

• How much of what they are saying comes from what we are doing and saying, and how much is their own perceptions or interpretations based on their situation.

• How can we be better as parents in making them feel loved (other than never talking about our faith)?

• Is it wrong that we ask them not to drink in our home - we don't care or comment if they drink at restaurants or at home when we are present? (The girls said they are upset they can't have a glass of wine at Thanksgiving dinner etc.)

• Any idea why it's the girls who are upset with us, while the boys seem less so?

I don't fit into the category of non-lds/former. I do maintain a good relationship with family members that do fit those categories.... and I have seen both better and worse methods for engagement within family fairly close up who have varying degrees of religious engagement. 

on the first bullet point, it's hard to tell just from your description. I've seen it both ways. Where family members really were throwing some passive (or more overt) judgments and ones where the active family members became symbols for the religious organization as a whole and weren't a lot of the traits the other ascribed to them. Often it's a muddy mix of both. 

If it were me, I probably wouldn't have given them a book of mormon wholesale. I think it's sweet that you guys personalized it as much as possible and tried to share it kindly. There's a reason 3 out of 6 didn't take it poorly and 1 wasn't as strongly effected negatively as the other 2 who had stronger reactions. Each child is different and in different places with their comfort with differences of faith and faith experiences. To me, understanding well where they're at in their experiences is prelude to deciding how I talk (or don't talk) about faith with those who've left or aren't members. Some have left but still have faith in something or aspects of the religion in general. With them I talk more frankly about faith...scriptures I find comfort it, experiences, thoughts etc....in a way that invites them to share their differing experiences if they want to and doesn't expect them to immediately defer to mine. I have one sibling that I know triggers me more, and when he states something from his faith I try to take a curiosity stance to mitigate a potential confrontational one. Some do not share much value in faith-practice, but there's space to talk about it fairly casually. My other bro fits this more. I still engage with sharing something spiritual carefully, as I know there's still tones and postures that can trigger him. I usually preempt it in a way that gives him space to shoot me down if he wants to. In a number that I know religion plays a bigger sore spot, I don't engage at all on the religion/spiritual front, with only the barest of references given (things like giving context to some rando event that happened to happen in say a church activity or something). 

In all of these my posture is aiming to share with instead of share at. As in I want to have whatever I'm sharing be part of an open conversation and be relevant to how we communicate in general. I rarely talk the exact same way to any given person. And I don't share spiritual thoughts until I know that I have a good handle as to where they're at. I also make sure the basis of my relationship is not simply religion-sharing.  That goes for someone I do share a religious affiliation with as those who don't. 

In all these relationships I have the benefit of not being a parent to any of the people I'm close to. I think its easier to tack personal concerns and angst about a religious experience onto someone who most represented the religion in their daily life. And the relationship with parents rarely fully shifts to one of peer. There's often still a degree of deference and caution in how much/what you share that isn't there as much with a peer, sibling, cousin, etc. It would probably take more direct facilitation to give them more space to express their frustration, empathize with it, explain your intent, and find a way to find a healthier middle more collaboratively.

 

Lastly I don't think it's necessarily wrong that you don't want alcohol in your house. It may be something to contemplate if it's worth the emotional toll to maintain that rule or if there's other reasons that you may not want alcohol served that's not simply faith-practice that you can share with them. Some people may take it more easily when they know there's other reasons you're not a fan of the drink in your home. For example, I have several negative associations with alcohol ranging from a bad past relationship where alcohol was involved to a grandparent being killed when I was young by a drunk driver. I don't enjoy being around drinking. I'd also personally feel concerned about the space being dry for the son whose working on sobriety. I know having spaces free from reminders can be a needed reprieve when they're still working things out. But I don't expect a person at a meal to bend to my associations.... I just also don't expect me to bend to theirs in my spaces. It's your personal space, though. So at the end of the day, it's your decision on what you want in your house.

 

hope some of that was helpful.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 15, 2025 by BlueDreams

[Maestrophil]

I have been away due to work, and have not been able to read these responses and reply yet - I will get on it!  Thank you in advance to all who replied!

 

Edited to add - I have now read them all - whew!  Lots of great things to contemplate.  I will reply as I can - but know I am reading each comment thoughtfully. Thank you all!

Edited May 15, 2025 by Maestrophil

[The Nehor]

On 5/13/2025 at 10:07 AM, Maestrophil said:

Hopefully I can write this in a way that makes sense.I feel there is a lot of nuance here that could be lost, but I am hoping I can convey it enough for some helpful feedback.

I especially am interested in the perspective of non-active and/or ex-members. I would ask in the mormon reddit because I know there are many there, but they tend to be the ones who react with spite rather than kindness. I know there are those here that have great insights and tend the respond in a kinder way.

I have 6 adult children. All of them are disaffiliated with the Church to some extent. 3 are mine by birth, and three are my wife's, since we are a blended family. We married when the kids were between 6-14 years old. Both of their other birth parents are very vocally against the LDS faith.

Recently, my wife, sho is an artist, wanted to paint Books of Mormon with her art, and give them as gifts to each of our kids. I wrote my testimony in the ones that went to my birth kiddos, and she to hers. My testimony in each one stated that I loved my kids for the good people they are, and that I respect the paths they choose on their own journeys. I also testified that my strength in hard times comes from Jesus and told them that my belief was that if they ever needed to search for help in struggles, they could always turn to my, and to God. Then re-affirmed that I respected them regardless of if they ever feel that way or not. I believe my wife's testimony was similar.

Okay, I had to ruminate a bit on this before I could respond intelligently as to why it came across badly to me. I am not trying to be mean but trying to deconstruct some of the likely emotions.

When you put caveats and compliments around something while hinting that you want something more for someone it comes across as insincere. Stating that you love them for being “good” but implying they need more undercuts the compliment. Then you felt the need to say that you would respect them no matter if they went along with it or not. In other words you knew that there was a message that could offend and tried to acknowledge it to try to disarm it. It would be hard for many to feel good about this gift. It is laced with an appeal for them to change. That might be needed in many contexts but it is not a gift. It is a hook.

It is hard to believe the compliments. They sound like you are buttering them up or preemptively using them so they will feel bad if they respond negatively. It is hard to take compliments that come that way as sincere. “You are good people living good lives and I have nothing but respect for you BUT………” That kind of appeal is emotionally exhausting when you are the target. You end up annoyed but it is hard to articulate exactly why. There are landmines throughout that the giver can use to try to rebut any expressions of frustration.

On 5/13/2025 at 10:07 AM, Maestrophil said:

My children all accepted the gift. My wife's oldest (who is just now at 33 trying to get sober and has always been very opposed to the church) said he would accept the book with an open heart.

Her two daughters, however got very upset and said they would not take the book - then went off on how much 'religious trauma' they have and how poorly they felt they were treated in the church, and how dumb the word of wisdom is, and most hurtfully, how 'greasy' and judged they feel when they come to our home. When my wife asked for examples of what makes them feel that way - they said they didn't have any, they just said things like 'the way you look at us like you are disappointed.' or, 'The way we can hear in your voice that you disapprove of us and think we would be better people if we were in the church." and similar things. My wife was relieved they finally talked about it, but understandably hurt and sad that her daughters feel that way. She is now searching very hard to see what she can do better.

Your wife is hurt and sad that they feel this way after giving them a gift that made them feel hurt and sad. She fired the shot and her daughters feel like they have been under fire for a long time. They are probably minimizing time around you if that is how they feel. People don’t react well to people trying to change them. It also means they are less likely to confide their problems or seek help or emotional support when things go wrong.

On 5/13/2025 at 10:07 AM, Maestrophil said:

Because of this reaction I reached out to my three kids and asked them to honestly tell me if they ever feel judged by me, and if the BOM we ge them was offensive, and how I can be better in making them feel loved and accepted. My two sons both enthusiastically told me that they never feel judged by me, they know I love and accept them, and they know my testimony comes from an honest place and not out of judgement. yay!

I hope that wasn’t just a dodge to avoid having an awkward conversation.

On 5/13/2025 at 10:07 AM, Maestrophil said:

My youngest, a girl, like her sisters, said that while she could not think of specific examples either, that 'it’s just little comments, and i don’t even know if you realize you’re making them.. but like, bringing the aspect of god or religion into a lot of conversations in some way, like i know you probably don’t do that on purpose at all but it can sometimes feel like it’s kinda… passive aggressive i guess if that’s the right word? like it feels like a “i attribute everything to god so you should too” kind of thing?'

I would ask yourself how deliberately you are doing this. Is it something that just pops out or are you looking for opportunities to give backhanded appeals to their seeking out God for help.

On 5/13/2025 at 10:07 AM, Maestrophil said:

 

So my questions, especially for those who might be in the amenities boat as my (adult) kids are:

1. How much of what they are saying comes from what we are doing and saying, and how much is their own perceptions or interpretations based on their situation.

2. How can we be better as parents in making them feel loved (other than never talking about our faith)?

3. Is it wrong that we ask them not to drink in our home - we don't care or comment if they drink at restaurants or at home when we are present? (The girls said they are upset they can't have a glass of wine at Thanksgiving dinner etc.)

4. Any idea why it's the girls who are upset with us, while the boys seem less so?

Any other insights are welcome, and if you have read this far in this voluminous post - thank you!

We love our kids and want to do all we can to allow them and us to be our full selves around each other,

1. This is impossible for anyone to answer who is not around the interactions. I don’t know if they are jumping at shadows assuming things that aren’t there or if they genuinely feel like they are being regularly judged or are under siege.

2. Definitely stop attaching proclamations of love or support to appeals to get them to change something. It makes them duck and cover when you want to express love.

3. It is not wrong but I would weigh the costs of the rule. If this is primarily a way of planting the religious ‘flag’ when they are present I would consider dumping this rule.

4. Probably has to do with how we socialize men to just ignore stuff like this that might offend them and socialize women to express feelings more openly. Could also be the way you approach religious topics with them. You might be showing more respect to the sons in a way they understand but not to the daughters. Is there a difference in your approach? In how you bring it up? It is also possible your sons are irked at this too and just don’t consider it worth discussing so just accepted it and processed their emotions about it in some other way.

 

I think you are trying to help but I think the way you are going about it is alienating at least some of your children. The ‘playbook’ LDS use on disaffected family members isn’t nearly as subtle as many members believe.

Edited May 15, 2025 by The Nehor

[Autonomous]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That question was designed to catch people practicing plural marriage or some form of spiritual wifery or some other variant. The question originally included the full name of the Church to make it explicit that you were lying if you claimed to follow it and adhered to the beliefs of a different restorationist faith.

The description in practice is so broad that taken literally it keeps you from doing anything with almost everybody. Even joining a political party would be verboten. Some book clubs would be forbidden.

 

"Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Contrary; opposed, differing, not in agreement, 

I left the church, had my records removed, after disagreeing with who God supposedly "revealed" (and whom congregation all raised their hands and sustained) as leadership in a certain ward.  For those who do not raise their hand to sustain, who do not support who other church leaders firmly believed was revealed to lead..... but then I suppose God did call Judas?  so perhaps God also calls pedophiles, and we should have all just gone along with it (most did) - everyone raised their hands, felt the *spirit* - gushed over what a great decision it was to call that pedophile - patted the kids on their heads, testified to those kids what a wonderful thing the priesthood is....   one of those kids no longer talks, is now considered autistic.  He's in jail.  40 years without probation, thanks to those outside of the church (no one inside the church would help convict - but they do visit him in jail.... not the kids, but they visit him, and support him.... not the kids... they still just support and sustain him)

 

Support of leaders - that question wasn't designed to catch people practicing child abuse .... 

 

[Autonomous]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

What if they don’t want to be?  Serious question, do you see it as heavenly if God forces people to want to be in heaven…as in changes their personality somehow so they no longer choose to hate or be arrogant to the point they don’t want to associate with anyone else (CS Lewis’ Great Divorce makes the most sense to me about why some might choose hell over Heaven, though it’s an intellectual recognition as I don’t understand that level of arrogance and I don’t understand hate—as in the desire to harm or even destroy another).

 

Nature/nurture, we are products of our environment.  

Do you have an explanation on why an all-powerful supposedly loving God would place some... or most of humanity into environments that does not lead a person to embrace the LDS church?

 

This is a thread about difficulties around forming meaningful relationships with as many diverse people as possible - having close families no matter the backgrounds or beliefs... so, by their fruits.  How many members in each ward are active?  what percentage are active?  what percentage of families have all chosen to stay in the church?  This is not some one-off rare situation we're talking about, not some oddball - that one individual who just doesn't want to be at church.... 

What percentage in your ward are currently not active?  ... hmmmm.... I knew the percentage in my old ward.  The majority of the members were not active.

Edited May 15, 2025 by Autonomous

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I have been away due to work, and have not been able to read these responses and reply yet - I will get on it!  Thank you in advance to all who replied!

 

Edited to add - I have now read them all - whew!  Lots of great things to contemplate.  I will reply as I can - but know I am reading each comment thoughtfully. Thank you all!

I look forward to your thoughts. 

[CV75]

On 5/13/2025 at 4:07 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As a non-believer, can I ask why you thought this would be an appropriate gift? Or why you are calling it a gift? My parents (who are as devout as its possible to be), watched my kids while my wife and I went to Spain for business / pleasure. We bought them a hand made expensive nativity music box as a gift and thank you. I want nothing to do with Christianity, but they love it. So I bought it and gave it to them. As a gift. My parents on the other hand routinely gave me nativity ornaments, Christian children books etc (I'm using the past tense here because I'm currently taking a break from them!). Are these "gifts" or not so subtle attempts to fulfill their missionary obligations as taught by your church? Are they attempting to manipulate me (I'm sure they would say hoping that the spirit moves me)? I sure think so. A gift should be something that the giver wants and appreciates. Not an attempt to manipulate. 

This is interesting to me as an example if the evolving currency or language of love within a family as members grow up and develop their own lives. It is hard for everyone to keep up with everyone else's terms, whether they are old terms or new ones.

You seem to identify with the girls in Maestrophil's life, and perhaps your skepticism of motive and love mirrors theirs. This I beleive runs deeper than the wrong gift being given and has to do with grace. Of course, determining just the right gift requires some grace also. So everyone can use some grace, as givers and receivers of it. Why the sense of hurt would arise in women more than men has been addressed in many of the posts.

I think much of this religiously-themed gift giving is cultural, and hasn't much to do with genuine missionary work or spiritual abuse toward family members. It is the language of love for that culture. 

I find that many offended parties can rise above any lack of love displayed by family members.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I find that many offended parties can rise above any lack of love displayed by family members.

This is a fine attitude to have but you are facing the wrong way in my opinion. Sure they “can” rise above but why should they? Why are you focused on them rising above the lack of love rather than the careless individual not showing love? Especially when it becomes a repeated pattern?

Edited May 15, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a fine attitude to have but you are facing the wrong way in my opinion. Sure they “can” rise above but why should they? Why are you focused on them rising above the lack of love rather than the careless individual not showing love? Especially when it becomes a repeated pattern?

I identified "they" as either party since both express hurt of some kind, regardless of your having taken a "side". Why are you focused on placing me on a "side" when I have not taken one? I think the lack of grace which would otherwise offset this tendency is a common problem and the principle if grace could help Maestrophil and his family members find resolution and peace in their expectations and relationships. It isn't always about who us right and wrong.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I identified "they" as either party since both express hurt of some kind, regardless of your having taken a "side". Why are you focused on placing me on a "side" when I have not taken one? I think the lack of grace which would otherwise offset this tendency is a common problem and the principle if grace could help Maestrophil and his family members find resolution and peace in their expectations and relationships. It isn't always about who us right and wrong.

It’s reasonable for seeking to identify the daughters as the offended since that was the topic of the entire thread. 

[JVW]

On 5/13/2025 at 6:19 PM, california boy said:

I know that quite a few of you know my struggles with my family over the years.  For 13 years they wanted nothing to do with me.  Never invited to a baptism or ordination, or family reunion, or family dinner.  Nothing.  That all changed when my father finally met my partner.  It seemed like he was giving permission for my siblings to have some kind of relationship with me.  And for the past number of years, I have been invited to family events.  Sadly my father passed away at 100.  

Recently my siblings organized a sibling/spouse trip to Florida.  They rented a. big house and all stayed together for a week doing various activities around the area.  Every single sibling and their spouses went.  I was not invited, nor was my partner.  Some, not all, really objected to me being included.  Now I know that these past 10 years that I have been invited to family events, there were some who really didn't want me there.  

So knowing that not all my siblings want me around, I feel like I don't really want to go to family events.  I am exhausted trying to make them happy.  I really can't live my life trying to make other people happy with who they want me to be rather than who I actually am.  And I have plenty of friends in my life who actually like me the way I am.  They aren't looking for me to change before they can have me a part of their lives.

Maybe my situation will help others see how we on the outside feel.  Maybe you have some suggestions on how I should handle my siblings.  Cause I got no more answers to that question,.

 

Give them the bird and/or get into a screaming argument with the crappy siblings one at a time. In other words, don't let them get away with it. If you care about them, then confronting them is loving. If you don't care about them, then don't spend the energy. But they are making terrible decisions, and whether they are aware of it or not, if you let them know about it it will help you. Yelling at someone for a valid reason and letting it all out is a really therapeutic experience, and when done with vulnerability it can actually heal relationships. It would be a shame for your heart to be unheard by those who hurt you deeply for no good reason.

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s reasonable for seeking to identify the daughters as the offended since that was the topic of the entire thread. 

That us one interpreation of "the topic of the entire thread" but the OP points out that the gift givers are hurt also, and not just on the point of the gifts. So, in giving Maestrophil the advice he graciously seeks, all involved should be considered. From the emotional tenor of some of the replies in this this thread, there is more than just transactional facts at play. We can aee how bias influences our approaches to the advice given and received.

Assuming that all the parties are adults in the OP description, each owns a piece of what is going on and can contribute in ways other than pointing out how they are right and the other is wrong (period). Coming out of the gate defending one "side" is not a constructive way to accomplish that. I prefer to answer a person's request for advice from their perspective and then drill down from there rather than attacking their perspective outright. 

The OP is asking for help within the constraints of his assumptions (and who can help that?), and after that need is covered, more challenging advice can be given. When someone identifies with the daughters, they will lead out with that (they cannot help it), but the daughters are not seeking advice.

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That us one interpreation of "the topic of the entire thread" but the OP points out that the gift givers are hurt also, and not just on the point of the gifts. So, in giving Maestrophil the advice he graciously seeks, all involved should be considered. From the emotional tenor of some of the replies in this this thread, there is more than just transactional facts at play. We can aee how bias influences our approaches to the advice given and received.

Assuming that all the parties are adults in the OP description, each owns a piece of what is going on and can contribute in ways other than pointing out how they are right and the other is wrong (period). Coming out of the gate defending one "side" is not a constructive way to accomplish that. I prefer to answer a person's request for advice from their perspective and then drill down from there rather than attacking their perspective outright. 

The OP is asking for help within the constraints of his assumptions (and who can help that?), and after that need is covered, more challenging advice can be given. When someone identifies with the daughters, they will lead out with that (they cannot help it), but the daughters are not seeking advice.

Ok. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Do you have an explanation on why an all-powerful supposedly loving God would place some... or most of humanity into environments that does not lead a person to embrace the LDS church?

Because being a member of the LDS Church in mortality is not necessary to achieve exaltation.  This should be obvious given the vast majority of humanity that has lived has had no contact with the faith while living and will only have access after death.  But this still works because God provides for all to have a full opportunity to embrace the faith and embrace the Atonement by receiving the required ordinances in the next stage of eternal life.  One needs to look at not only this life, but the post death, prejudgment existence as our time of learning and choice to accept Christ as our Saviour and embrace the Atonement.

Imo, the primary purpose of mortality after receiving bodies is to experience existence away from the overpowering presence of God just as most of us need to leave home and distance ourselves somewhat from our earthly parents to fully understand what our own desires and needs are rather than simply looking to our parents to see what they would have us do.  How can we truly know to the core of our being without any wondering of “what if?” that we want to accept God and even become like him if we never get a chance to experience what life would be like without him?

I see mortality as more preschool and elementary school which only sets the foundation for the much greater learning and ability to make informed choices to come.  Certain things must be done in mortality for some reason to maximize opportunity for progress, but they can be done on our behalf with us accepting them later when ready just as our parents and friends and extended family might set up a college fund on our behalf while others may have the opportunity to earn enough beforehand they can cover the costs themselves.

Everyone gets a chance to embrace the pure form of God’s eternal Church (which I think may be his family that our “Brother” and “Sisters” refer to, but am not settle on this).  The LDS faith is not that form yet, it too has to learn greater truths and progress by making good choices to become fully what the Lord intends it to be even if it is enough to fulfill God’s purposes at the time.

Edited May 15, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a fine attitude to have but you are facing the wrong way in my opinion. Sure they “can” rise above but why should they? Why are you focused on them rising above the lack of love rather than the careless individual not showing love? Especially when it becomes a repeated pattern?

It is strange how victims are often given this advice but it is rarely given to bullies.

Not saying that dynamic maps neatly onto this specific situation but the person doing the hurtful thing should be the one getting the correction. The reality is only the victim will ever take the advice.

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think much of this religiously-themed gift giving is cultural, and hasn't much to do with genuine missionary work or spiritual abuse toward family members. It is the language of love for that culture. 

Oh, come on. No one would write that ‘I respect your choices BUT’ suggestion into a gift to a ‘faithful’ child. If that truly is our language of love we have much bigger problems.

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I find that many offended parties can rise above any lack of love displayed by family members.

They often do this by disconnecting and getting some distance and then get to deal with complaints about not ever showing up. This reinforces the idea that the reason for the chasm is their disaffection from religion. The being if they weren’t disaffected they would be around more. Quite possibly true but the disaffection isn’t the reason they are withdrawing.

[Autonomous]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Because being a member of the LDS Church in mortality is not necessary to achieve exaltation.  This should be obvious given the vast majority of humanity that has lived has had no contact with the faith while living and will only have access after death.  But this still works because God provides for all to have a full opportunity to embrace the faith and embrace the Atonement by receiving the required ordinances in the next stage of eternal life.  One needs to look at not only this life, but the post death, prejudgment existence as our time of learning and choice to accept Christ as our Saviour and embrace the Atonement.

Imo, the primary purpose of mortality after receiving bodies is to experience existence away from the overpowering presence of God just as most of us need to leave home and distance ourselves somewhat from our earthly parents to fully understand what our own desires and needs are rather than simply looking to our parents to see what they would have us do.  How can we truly know to the core of our being without any wondering of “what if?” that we want to accept God and even become like him if we never get a chance to experience what life would be like without him?

I see mortality as more preschool and elementary school which only sets the foundation for the much greater learning and ability to make informed choices to come.  Certain things must be done in mortality for some reason to maximize opportunity for progress, but they can be done on our behalf with us accepting them later when ready just as our parents and friends and extended family might set up a college fund on our behalf while others may have the opportunity to earn enough beforehand they can cover the costs themselves.

Everyone gets a chance to embrace the pure form of God’s eternal Church (which I think may be his family that our “Brother” and “Sisters” refer to, but am not settle on this).  The LDS faith is not that form yet, it too has to learn greater truths and progress by making good choices to become fully what the Lord intends it to be even if it is enough to fulfill God’s purposes at the time.

 

This is similar to Catholics purgatory, Buddhist Bardo intermediate state, new age Astral realms, Kamaloka etc. etc.  Many Christian groups hold the point of the Millennium is bringing the rest of humanity to their various belief systems (like JW's, 7th day, pentacostal, even Messianic Jewish groups).  

Everyone  - all the grouos believe Jesus will come, then every knee will bow and every tongue confess that xyz was the "true" group all along haha, with ideas like 144,000 chosen who will have special privileges and eternally rule over everyone else.  

I'll have no part in any heirarchies  -  follow no man or woman.  

I ask my students  "what is the difference between plagiarism and research?"

Answer - plagiarism uses only one source.

The best paths do not follow a single person or a single group.  Where agreement is found between many independent groups, that's the closest we can get, and even that's not certain.  

Healthy relashionships are like healthy research - diverse sources, no heirarchy, no one pridefully thinking their opinions are the only authority, everyone willing to completely change their mind on everything.  

Life is like a mystery novel - you get yourself convinced of one scenario, but then some new piece of info pops up that changes everything.  

Has anyone else here experienced a change in belief?  Example:  I used to believe my grandmother was a control freak, always telling grampy what to do, what food to order, who to vote for, bills, schedules - grampy never said anything, nodded his head and did as told... then grandmother went blind.  She wasn't controlling him, she was covering for him.  No one knew grampy was illiterate until granny went blind.  He didn't order his own food at restaurants because he couldn't read the menu.  He couldn't read the cards we sent, or figure out household bills... 

new piece of info can often change everything.  Best to be agnostic, open to new info, really listen to other groups - better research, deeper understanding and appreciation of all. -  closer more meaningful relashionships with all.

 

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." - Einstein 

 

Certainty in beliefs divide.  Deeper understanding and human connections lie within agnostic mindsets.  Blind describing elephants.  

Edited May 15, 2025 by Autonomous