BIC children who stray.

[_karl61]

I agree with not challenging people with simple ideas and simple faith, but when you come here and at time, taunt people then you are fair game.

[_Roger Morrison]

What happened to a child who was seen as "straying" in another extreme case of religious fundamental fanaticalism. In degree it obviously differs, in principle it is a duplicate. Generational belief induced irrational response to choosing contrary to authoritarian ediction, and the unjustified ensuing 'guilt'.

A Mississauga, Ont. teenager was killed in a family dispute over her choice not to wear traditional Muslim clothing, her friends say.

toronto.ctv.ca

Aqsa Parvez is seen on the left without a hijab and on the right with a hijab. The teenager was allegedly killed over her choice not to wear traditional Muslim clothing.
Aqsa Parvez, 16, was taken to hospital with life-threatening injuries on Monday after police said a man claiming to be the girl's father called them and said he had killed his daughter. Parvez succumbed to her injuries on Monday night

That such a simple piece of woven material can be seen to have such significance as to warrant physical-death, is totally beyond my acceptance as a necessity to bridge this life with another.

While i'm not aware of any LDS murders commited for not wearing LDS Garments, there is little doubt of wearing/not-wearing them, being issues that lead to much agonizing in families. That such is the case in numberless homes, raises the same question as wearing the hijab: How can any man-made item of clothing have such super-natural powers that they will be key to entry into another life beyond this one?

Your answers will be of great interest. (Maybe this should be a New-Topic?) Roger

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Roger! Why would someones socks and underwear state how holy they are?

Pirate.

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger! Why would someones socks and underwear state how holy they are?

Pirate.

Ya count the number of holes :-)

[_charity]

WOW!!!! Well let me tell you all, and Charity as well......there are a heck of a lot of members who you think by looking at their outward acts of righteousness-temple attendance, paying tithes, grooming, saying testimonies, even having a pretty good testimony... that are really doing a lot of sin and making lots of mistakes. What does that make them???? Human! But they have issues and guess what Charity...they ain't really all that much holier then the next guy. I know because I spent hours with members in counseling when I held a calling to do just that. Mormons have all sorts of problems

Of course we do. I know that there are people in high places who fall and sin. And a lot of them repent, come back and will eventually make it. And of course, I know people who attend sacrament meeting every week and go to the temple can still sin. But, by and large, those who do aren't going to have nearly the problems overcoming temptations than those who don't.

by the way, can you clarify your "If the parents are faithful the wayward child will return" Are you referring to this life or Orson Whitney's famous wuote that they will come back in this life or the next because the sealing power will draw them.

The latest instructions were that it is not just this life, but can be in the spirit world, after the person undergoes whatever process there that is needed.

[_charity]

charity wrote:
I have had long talks with my inactive children and grandchildren on their feelings. They are open with me. They know my love for them is not dependent on activity in the Church.

And faithful parents have been promised that their actions can help their wayward children.

If the parents remain faithful, the child will return eventually.


If you were my mother or grandmother I would see right through this.

You lay it on thick to them. Based on your claims that they are "open with you," I'd say it is because they love you in spite of your inconsistency.

What inconsistency?

Heh. I think I've the shortest conversation I ever had with my grandmother concerned religion. In fact I can't think of one thing I'd rather not talk about with a grandparent than religion. (What person wants to have a discussion about religion with someone 50some odd years older than them? You really think the grandkid gives a shizzle?)

I can give you several examples. My oldest grandson, who considers himself an atheist, discusses with me the role that religion or non-religious beliefs play in decision making. My oldest granddaughter, who is in a difficult family situation, talks to me frequently about her religious struggles. I have very deep philosophical discussions about religious topics with my next oldest granddaughter, who is a junior at BYU. My second oldest grandson is on a mission right now, and we have discussions about different topics. Right now, by letter, we are discussing joy as taught in the Book of Mormon. Just last week, my 11 year old granddaughter and I talked about the story of the Wise Men, and how we have the common perception there were three, legends around them, and what it really says about them in the scriptures.

I don't know about you, but my grandkids are a smart bunch.

On further reflection, though, charity's grandchildren are probably "open with her" because they are told they are supposed to be and are told that they don't "love her" unless they listen.

They probably would rather crawl under a rock than talk about this stuff with their grandma.

Ah, but maybe I'm wrong.

What kind of questions do they ask you, grandma?

You are wrong. No one ever tells my kids or grandkids any specific behavior will mean somebody "doesn't love" somebody else. If this was the way you were raised, it explains a lot. It explains why you can't understand an honest and open relationship with anyone.

Abinadi's Fire wrote:

They probably would rather crawl under a rock than talk about this stuff with their grandma.

Well of course. And who wants to disappoint their grandma by telling them they disagree with them over something as absolute and (supposedly) important as eternal salvation? It's easy to disappoint parents, kids were born to do that. But who doesn't love their grandma, that paradigm of family love who a person's first memories of seem to consist only to consist of gifts, love, and tasty meals.

Please note, the convesations I have with my grandson who is an atheist. All my grandkids, at least the adults ones, know that Grandma loves them no matter what. And they also know I am not some fragile, sit and crochet little old lady. They know I taught human sexuality for 10 years, which is not your typical little old lady activity. But yes, love, gifts, and mashed potatoes.

Reminds me of the conversations I've had with my parents about religion. I don't volunteer anything and answer only in the most generic ways.

What possible reason would I have for explaining to my father why I don't attend regularly and more importantly why I don't believe in Mormonism?

Honesty? Of course, if your father is fragile, you would be a considerate son and not cause him hurt. But maye you are cutting off an important avenue of communication with your dad, too. I wouldn't advise you to hit him in the face with your level of unbelief, because I don't know him.

Bond...James Bond wrote:
And who wants to disappoint their grandma

Exactly.

Breaking such an innocent trust would be shameful.

Back to the little old lady in the rocking chair? You don't know this grandma.

Do you realize how heretical a concept that is to mainstream Christians ?

The thought a righteous parent can save a child??

Maybe it’s a bit like the guy living in the double wide trailer making fun of the guy living in the single wide, but its little wonder why mainstream Christians think Mormons are not a Christian church.

Just shows how far off the mark mainstream Christianity is. We don't care a fig what apostate doctrine mainstream Christianity teaches. Truth is the truth. And before all the mainstream Christians go getting in a twist about this, the concept of vicarious salvation started with Christ. A righteous "Parent" has saved all of His children.

Jason, you are, "...our hope for years to come..." Bro! You have to be an asset in whatever Branch/Ward/Stake you attend. A guy once said, "if ya wann'a know how holy someone is, look at their socks and underwear." This "holiness" stuff belongs in the era it came from.

I can see the meaning of that zipped right over your head. It has to do with knowing what can't be seen, unlike the outer wear.

Someone above alluded to the fact Charity can't help herself. I tend to agree... She is a product of someone's/some-thing's doing. They'll be held accountable, as will she for the good, and not-good left in her wake.

After all folks, she's nearly as old as me. Ya can't expect tooooo much :-) Roger

Nice put down. But you are right about accountabliity. We will all be held accountable for what we think and do.

Re: BIC children who stray.
charity wrote:
Maxrep wrote:
'Love the sinner, but hate the sin' - lets be clear, its sin that precedes the loss of testimony.


Let's be clear. It isn't sin that precedes the loss of testimony. The loss of testimony precedes sin. The man who has a testimony of celestial marriage isn't gonig to cheat on his wife. He loses the testimony, he cheats.


Wow, Wow...your naivity knows no bounds. In my life-time I've seen equally faithful/faithless scumbags betray their spouses. Just because someone has TR/goes church/Synagog every Sunday will not prevent him/her to screw her neighbor's spouse.

In my case loss of faith strengthened my loyalty to my family, my loyalty to my environment, I treat people much better with my own judgement. I only need a working brain, which served me well so far. The average of the laws speak well in this matter

I don't know what motivated you to "live your religion" better after the you left the Church. Someone is taught in church to love and support their family, be a good steward of what God has given them, love their neighbor as themselves, but you can't do that until you leave the religion that taught it all to you? Go figure.

Quote:
A Mississauga, Ont. teenager was killed in a family dispute over her choice not to wear traditional Muslim clothing, her friends say.

That such a simple piece of woven material can be seen to have such significance as to warrant physical-death, is totally beyond my acceptance as a necessity to bridge this life with another.

While I'm not aware of any LDS murders commited for not wearing LDS Garments, there is little doubt of wearing/not-wearing them, being issues that lead to much agonizing in families. That such is the case in numberless homes, raises the same question as wearing the hijab: How can any man-made item of clothing have such super-natural powers that they will be key to entry into another life beyond this one?

Your answers will be of great interest. (Maybe this should be a New-Topic?) Roger

Of course, I don't believe anyone should be killed for not wearing any religious piece of clothing.

And in LDS circles, the temple garment does not have any magical powers which will be a key to entry into another life beyond this one. Wearing the temple garment is a symbol of committment to covenants made. Just as wearing a wedding ring will not guarantee fidelity in marraige, it is an outward symbol that the person (at least at one time) made vows of fidelity. And if in a situation of temptation, maybe they will see or feel the ring on their finger and that might call that committment to their mind and strengthen them to resist.

[_Runtu]

Honesty? Of course, if your father is fragile, you would be a considerate son and not cause him hurt. But maye you are cutting off an important avenue of communication with your dad, too. I wouldn't advise you to hit him in the face with your level of unbelief, because I don't know him.

As I said, my father already knows I am not a believer. I see no need to pick at scabs. Every time we have ever discussed specifics, it gets kind of heated and emotional, so why bother? Is it somehow dishonest to avoid subjects that cause pain for both of us?

[_charity]

Is it somehow dishonest to avoid subjects that cause pain for both of us?

Not at all. Except if discussing it would be like surgery, and end up it a kind of healing. Sometimes we have to go t hrough pain to heal. I am not saying this is the case here, though.

[_Runtu]

Is it somehow dishonest to avoid subjects that cause pain for both of us?

Not at all. Except if discussing it would be like surgery, and end up it a kind of healing. Sometimes we have to go t hrough pain to heal. I am not saying this is the case here, though.

My father and I had a conversation that lasted perhaps 6 hours the last time he visited our home in Texas. I aired out all my concerns in detail, and his response was consistently, "You know the church is right, and you just need to stick with the program. Everything will work out." I'm not sure what else I would accomplish in bringing it up again. He knows where I stand and why. And I know where he stands and why.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

No one ever tells my kids or grandkids any specific behavior will mean somebody "doesn't love" somebody else.

You probably don't have to come right out and say it - they probably get the gist of the eternal consequences of their actions.