I think my wife feels that the best way "to ensure the children are raised LDS" is to stay married to me and control what I can and cannot tell them about the church. If we got divorced, she knows I would be free to tell them anything I wanted, anytime I wanted. That really scares her.
Sounds like she's making quite a sacrifice. If the LDS God exists, then salvation and eternal life are more important than a family relationship that won't survive mortality.
bcspace - does Mormonism teach the principle that family ties on earth should be ditched if it jeopardises eternal life of the individual? Because I'd really like to see some kind of explicit reference that this is the Church's position and not just more of your made up doctrine.
CFR please - remember, it has to be official AND explicit.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
bcspace wrote:If the LDS God exists, should one love God more than spouse? And since eternal life is the goal, should a spouse take steps to ensure the children are raised LDS despite the objections of the other spouse?
After my wife found out I don't believe in the church all that much, she told me that she wished she and our four children would get in a car accident that would kill them all so that they would be guaranteed to live in the celestial kingdom and wouldn't be at risk of accepting my apostate views. I found that very disturbing.
I think my wife feels that the best way "to ensure the children are raised LDS" is to stay married to me and control what I can and cannot tell them about the church. If we got divorced, she knows I would be free to tell them anything I wanted, anytime I wanted. That really scares her.
Mormonism is a bad influence on people, for sure. The LDS church is probably, on balance, the most anti-family organization I know of.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I don't think i've ever seen official doctrine that says you should love the organization more than yourself, but many people simply believe that if one spouse isn't faithful, that jeopardizes the eternal progression of the other spouse.
It's not as bad for the men, who apparently, will take other wives in eternity, but for the women, it seems like a deal-breaker.
I had a priesthood leader tell this story to my wife after he cornered her to pump her about my apparent lessening of commitment (not activity -- commitment).
She expressed some concerns I had, against my prior advice that all questions about by activity/commitment, go through myself. Well, she caved and spilled the beans anyway. This priesthood holder's response was that staying at a level of uber-commitment was "better than going to hell".
Then he told a story about how he was less active earlier in his marriage. His wife said "Look I've done everything right, and I'm going to the celestial kingdom. And if it's not with you, it'll be with someone else".
Basically, she threatened him with a divorce if he didn't shape up.
I have deep concerns with priesthood leaders sharing stories like these. They put ideas into the heads of women in the Church and put service in the Church ahead of even a person's marriage, financial situation, and sometimes, their inner peace and mental health.
jon wrote:bcspace - does Mormonism teach the principle that family ties on earth should be ditched if it jeopardises eternal life of the individual? Because I'd really like to see some kind of explicit reference that this is the Church's position and not just more of your made up doctrine.
CFR please - remember, it has to be official AND explicit.
UnicornMan wrote:I I have deep concerns with priesthood leaders sharing stories like these. They put ideas into the heads of women in the Church and put service in the Church ahead of even a person's marriage, financial situation, and sometimes, their inner peace and mental health. Shame on them.
You realize, of course, that that is exactly what is covenanted in the endowment. It's called the Law of Consecration.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
UnicornMan wrote:I I have deep concerns with priesthood leaders sharing stories like these. They put ideas into the heads of women in the Church and put service in the Church ahead of even a person's marriage, financial situation, and sometimes, their inner peace and mental health. Shame on them.
You realize, of course, that that is exactly what is covenanted in the endowment. It's called the Law of Consecration.
Further to that Harmony, you don't find out that is what you are covenanting until the actual moment you make the covenant. And you don't get the opportunity to understand the full implication of the law of consecration until AFTER you've signed up to it. Coercion anyone?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
harmony wrote:You realize, of course, that that is exactly what is covenanted in the endowment. It's called the Law of Consecration.
Further to that Harmony, you don't find out that is what you are covenanting until the actual moment you make the covenant. And you don't get the opportunity to understand the full implication of the law of consecration until AFTER you've signed up to it. Coercion anyone?
Not coercion. Bait and switch maybe, though. And any covenant entered into based on an illegal concept doesn't have much standing. It would seem helpful to establish the authority of the covenanting entity... and no one can seem to find that particular revelation. So standing and authority are both questionable.
There is no power taken where there is no power given.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
I remember reading some delusional LDS girls online dating ad and she said she wants a guy that will put the church above everything, including her! I wonder if she ever got what she asked for.
UnicornMan wrote:I I have deep concerns with priesthood leaders sharing stories like these. They put ideas into the heads of women in the Church and put service in the Church ahead of even a person's marriage, financial situation, and sometimes, their inner peace and mental health. Shame on them.
You realize, of course, that that is exactly what is covenanted in the endowment. It's called the Law of Consecration.
Yeah, but we also promise not to laugh too loudly. Everyone just ignores that one.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.