Mormon teachings are that Elohim is our spiritual father, and that we are made in His image.
So, as parents, should we do as Elohim does?
Only love our children if they worship us and do as we tell them to do and not do?
Cut them out of our wills if they do not? ("No eternal life for you, buckeroo!")
Ask them--indirectly through others--not to use their minds, but just act on how they feel?
Hide from them visually, physically, audibly and in every other sensory way?
Tell--indirectly through others--them to follow others blindly, even when those others are wrong?
Have them sacrifice 10% of their increase to us even if we are filthy rich?
"Apologists try to shill an explanation to questioning members as though science and reason really explain and buttress their professed faith. It [sic] does not. ...faith is the antithesis of science and reason." Critic as quoted by Peterson, Daniel C. (2010) FARMS Review, Intro., v22:2,2.
LDS philanthropy put out a video a few years back called A Journey to Become. The video was about a wealthy man and his requirement that all his children have and maintain a temple recommend in order to recieve their inheritance. Here is some excerpts from the video.
If you look at our Heavenly Father's plan, he desires to give his children all that he has, but to qualify for those blessings, we have to become what he has become. I don't pretend to be like my Heavenly Father, but for my children, for them to inherit my estate, they will need to become what I am trying to become.
[They created a foundation, kids are on board of directors and decide where the money should go] That way it gives them an opportunity to learn correct principals, to grow and develop and IF they are worthy of their priesthood, they can then handle the inheritance and continue to do good. If they decide to exercise their agency contrary to my beliefs, then the option is that the entire inheritance can still go to the church.
This kind of conditional love is a direct consequence of Mormonism’s tiered level of obligations. Church is first and foremost even if it means sending your family into abject unnecessary poverty. On the flip side Marie Osmond said her kids get nothing. She claims it breeds apathy despite her nepotism rise to fame.
LDS philanthropy put out a video a few years back called A Journey to Become. The video was about a wealthy man and his requirement that all his children have and maintain a temple recommend in order to recieve their inheritance. Here is some excerpts from the video.
If you look at our Heavenly Father's plan, he desires to give his children all that he has, but to qualify for those blessings, we have to become what he has become. I don't pretend to be like my Heavenly Father, but for my children, for them to inherit my estate, they will need to become what I am trying to become.
[They created a foundation, kids are on board of directors and decide where the money should go] That way it gives them an opportunity to learn correct principals, to grow and develop and IF they are worthy of their priesthood, they can then handle the inheritance and continue to do good. If they decide to exercise their agency contrary to my beliefs, then the option is that the entire inheritance can still go to the church.
This kind of conditional love is a direct consequence of Mormonism’s tiered level of obligations. Church is first and foremost even if it means sending your family into abject unnecessary poverty. On the flip side Marie Osmond said her kids get nothing. She claims it breeds apathy despite her nepotism rise to fame.
Rivendale, how many of the 6 bulleted attributes of Elohim do you use in your parenting?
"Apologists try to shill an explanation to questioning members as though science and reason really explain and buttress their professed faith. It [sic] does not. ...faith is the antithesis of science and reason." Critic as quoted by Peterson, Daniel C. (2010) FARMS Review, Intro., v22:2,2.
LDS philanthropy put out a video a few years back called A Journey to Become. The video was about a wealthy man and his requirement that all his children have and maintain a temple recommend in order to recieve their inheritance. Here is some excerpts from the video.
If you look at our Heavenly Father's plan, he desires to give his children all that he has, but to qualify for those blessings, we have to become what he has become. I don't pretend to be like my Heavenly Father, but for my children, for them to inherit my estate, they will need to become what I am trying to become.
[They created a foundation, kids are on board of directors and decide where the money should go] That way it gives them an opportunity to learn correct principals, to grow and develop and IF they are worthy of their priesthood, they can then handle the inheritance and continue to do good. If they decide to exercise their agency contrary to my beliefs, then the option is that the entire inheritance can still go to the church.
This kind of conditional love is a direct consequence of Mormonism’s tiered level of obligations. Church is first and foremost even if it means sending your family into abject unnecessary poverty. On the flip side Marie Osmond said her kids get nothing. She claims it breeds apathy despite her nepotism rise to fame.
That goes to the conditional love and inheritance. What I find striking, is (a) that would be the part the Church emphasizes about Elohim's parenting example--obedience and inheritance--and (b) rather than the parents giving the disobedient child's share to the obedient ones (upping their shares), then their inheritance "can still go to the church." Ka-ching!!!
"Apologists try to shill an explanation to questioning members as though science and reason really explain and buttress their professed faith. It [sic] does not. ...faith is the antithesis of science and reason." Critic as quoted by Peterson, Daniel C. (2010) FARMS Review, Intro., v22:2,2.
Rivendale, how many of the 6 bulleted attributes of Elohim do you use in your parenting?
None. And these points are an example of how bizarre this system is set up. It is distinguishable from the Deistic god or no god. I can hear the apologetic engine starting up. Parenting is a series of strategies based on age and understanding. These points are taken out of context and are a caricature of what the supreme Kolobian primate demands from us.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Don't have a clue why, other than he's a jealous god.
"Apologists try to shill an explanation to questioning members as though science and reason really explain and buttress their professed faith. It [sic] does not. ...faith is the antithesis of science and reason." Critic as quoted by Peterson, Daniel C. (2010) FARMS Review, Intro., v22:2,2.
And another check mark in the column of - does not compute - when presented with the theory that the hereafter and heretofore are - just like today in every way. Only with indestructible body suits.
Nobody gets to be a cowboy forever. - Lee Marvin/Monte Walsh
Mormon teachings are that Elohim is our spiritual father, and that we are made in His image.
So, as parents, should we do as Elohim does?
Only love our children if they worship us and do as we tell them to do and not do?
Cut them out of our wills if they do not? ("No eternal life for you, buckeroo!")
Ask them--indirectly through others--not to use their minds, but just act on how they feel?
Hide from them visually, physically, audibly and in every other sensory way?
Tell--indirectly through others--them to follow others blindly, even when those others are wrong?
Have them sacrifice 10% of their increase to us even if we are filthy rich?
You forgot a classic one:
If they anger you greatly, drown them, burn them, or have the earth swallow them. You could just stop their hearts and they die quickly, but you want them to suffer.
If your kids upset their teacher at Church set bears on them.
1. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is a type of evidence that is notoriously unreliable.