Family friendly?

[Anonymous]

I’ve thought about this idea of a family friendly church, and compared it to what is taught in the scriptures. From my reading, it seems like most of the stories in the scriptures are about individuals and not families. Maybe a father and son story here and there. Of the few stories with families, they are usually dysfunctional (Jacob and his four wives and their 12 son’s many misadventures, Lehi and Sariah’s sons, two of whom try to kill the others, Adam and Eve-another son killing son story). I don’t think there are any good models of what a family should be. Even the big family of Heavenly Father includes a missing mother and 1/3 of the children rebelled against him. So it seems like an ideal they teach, probably coming off the 1950’s ideal, but I don’t see much evidence of family focus in the ancient teachings. For me personally, I would believe their family emphasis more if they actually would let us talk about Our Mother and know ANYTHING about Her. The single father and son parenting method doesn’t really make sense to me. The vague Heavenly Parents phrase is a step there, but not being able to say Mother is so weird to me.

[Anonymous]

In our testimony meeting on Sunday, one of the members mentioned Heavenly Mother openly – and I have heard her mentioned in quite a few classes over the years. She was one of the focal points in the Sunday School lesson I taught two Sundays ago, since one of the students (a young man) asked directly about why we don’t know more about her.

I agree that it is frustrating not to have more, but “heavenly parents” is part of lots of our manuals and the GC talks over the years.

Since this thread started, I have been more aware of people mentioning how much the Church means to them as families. I have heard it quite often, which reinforces my belief that it is very family friendly – for those for whom it’s not unfriendly.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

It is extremely family-friendly for those families for whom it is friendly; it is extremely family-unfriendly for those families for whom it is unfriendly’; it is in the middle for a lot of families.

I mean that seriously, not facetiously. It really, really, really works for lots of families; only works for others; doesn’t work much for others; doesn’t work at all for others.

The theology is extremely family-friendly – when interpreted liberally. It is extremely family-unfriendly when interpreted conservatively and with hardcore exceptions – like when homosexuality is part of a family.

I am not sure the theology is family friendly at all. In Mormondom we have this concept of a tiered heaven where you go based on your earthly behavior. So with all the different levels it is inevitable that families will be broken apart and sent to different kingdoms. It is just something we never talk about at church how families will be torn apart in the eternities to satisfy this supposed law of justice. We talk like our whole family is going to the celestial kingdom but I know next to none that has every member on board obedience wise to earn it. So in reality we have a doctrine of splitting up families

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I am not sure the theology is family friendly at all. In Mormondom we have this concept of a tiered heaven where you go based on your earthly behavior. So with all the different levels it is inevitable that families will be broken apart and sent to different kingdoms. It is just something we never talk about at church how families will be torn apart in the eternities to satisfy this supposed law of justice. We talk like our whole family is going to the celestial kingdom but I know next to none that has every member on board obedience wise to earn it. So in reality we have a doctrine of splitting up families

As I ponder your comment I am thinking about the phrase “No Empty Chairs.” I know that the chairs are just a metaphor – but right now I feel strongly to reject that statement. Who cares about the %$@# chair?!?!? In my heaven, there will be no lonely children…even if we have to abandon the entire kitchen table and eat our dinners on the floor to make it so!

[Anonymous]

In fairness, Cadence, that theology needs to be put next to traditional Christian theology before it is called unfriendly to families.

The proper comparison would be to predestined results, which have nothing to do with family ties – and unbaptized children burning in Hell forever – and only those who accept Christ in this life being saved, with everyone else (literally billions of people) roasting eternally in a lake of fire and brimstone – etc.

Again, we are criticizing this theology from a standpoint of luxury. Really, as part of a theology, what is better – except for universal salvation and the continuation of loving relationships?

I can construct that last theology from Mormon theology quite easily, albeit in a heterodox way that is focused on the concept of eternal growth and divine patience. I can’t do that from other Christian theologies – and they are FAR more restrictive and condemning of FAR more people than Mormonism.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

In fairness, Cadence, that theology needs to be put next to traditional Christian theology before it is called unfriendly to families.

The proper comparison would be to predestined results, which have nothing to do with family ties – and unbaptized children burning in Hell forever – and only those who accept Christ in this life being saved, with everyone else (literally billions of people) roasting eternally in a lake of fire and brimstone – etc.

Again, we are criticizing this theology from a standpoint of luxury. Really, as part of a theology, what is better – except for universal salvation and the continuation of loving relationships?

I can construct that last theology from Mormon theology quite easily, albeit in a heterodox way that is focused on the concept of eternal growth and divine patience. I can’t do that from other Christian theologies – and they are FAR more restrictive and condemning of FAR more people than Mormonism.

You are right Christian theology is no better and even worse I would say. Which even proves my point more. For all the talk about family values Christians do not seem to be able to hold to a theology that keeps all family relationships intact in heaven.

Of course it is all speculation at best. But it goes back to my original OP what makes the church family friendly? It does not seem to be the doctrine.

I think family friendly is just a slogan. Not that the church is against families but I am not sure they are any more family friendly than most similar organizations maybe even less in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

…that theology needs to be put next to traditional Christian theology before it is called unfriendly to families…The proper comparison would be to predestined results, which have nothing to do with family ties – and unbaptized children burning in Hell forever – and only those who accept Christ in this life being saved, with everyone else (literally billions of people) roasting eternally in a lake of fire and brimstone – etc…Really, as part of a theology, what is better – except for universal salvation and the continuation of loving relationships?…I can construct that last theology from Mormon theology quite easily, albeit in a heterodox way that is focused on the concept of eternal growth and divine patience. I can’t do that from other Christian theologies – and they are FAR more restrictive and condemning of FAR more people than Mormonism.

Maybe in theory but in practice the problem is that the Church has been putting so much emphasis on a very narrow and restrictive profile of exactly who is supposedly worthy versus the majority that aren’t for one reason or another that devout Mormons don’t need to wait for any afterlife to find out what actually happens; they will already start judging people left and right in a harsh and disrespectful way. You could imagine 50 different kingdoms and/or levels of heaven in addition to Outer Darkness and it still wouldn’t really help the situation as long as anything less than the top one is just not good enough for most active Mormons. So now we have Church members that feel like they have basically failed as parents simply because some of their children fell away from the Church or seriously questioning the long-term status of their marriage simply because their spouse isn’t a very faithful or obedient Mormon anymore.

So the reality is that many of these doctrines are currently very divisive and polarizing for families in many cases. All for what, mostly over a long list of “sins” that don’t do any real harm and hypothetical future rewards that can never be directly verified to actually exist? Also, I doubt that very many Christians actually believe that they or most of the people they care about are going to hell. It seems like hell is typically reserved for murderers and the like so that the worst of the worst will supposedly get their just dues if average Christians even take some of the theology they hear at church all that seriously to begin with. Even if there actually are many judgmental and self-righteous Christians that doesn’t really help the Church’s cause anyway because at this point it is mostly losing ground to secularism and having many members simply prefer to do something else on Sundays rather than attend Church meetings for various practical and easily understandable reasons.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

In fairness, Cadence, that theology needs to be put next to traditional Christian theology before it is called unfriendly to families.

The proper comparison would be to predestined results, which have nothing to do with family ties – and unbaptized children burning in Hell forever – and only those who accept Christ in this life being saved, with everyone else (literally billions of people) roasting eternally in a lake of fire and brimstone – etc.

Again, we are criticizing this theology from a standpoint of luxury. Really, as part of a theology, what is better – except for universal salvation and the continuation of loving relationships?

I can construct that last theology from Mormon theology quite easily, albeit in a heterodox way that is focused on the concept of eternal growth and divine patience. I can’t do that from other Christian theologies – and they are FAR more restrictive and condemning of FAR more people than Mormonism.

Love wins – as it should! Just incase people miss the reference – I am refering to the book “Love Wins” wich I see as an attempt to overcome the general Christian exclusiveness. It was quite controversial in its openness with push back at multiple levels of the Protestant Christian community. Perhaps Mormon Christians and Protestant Christians aren’t so different after all, the tendency for exclusiveness seems to be a human trait.

[Anonymous]

Would it be appropriate to put remarks that appeared in another thread here from what the current pope was telling catholics that Jesus died even to save the athiests and they should be loved too as well as the saved in “the church?” If this is the case, this type of belief lends itself to a more “family friendly” and “people are good people” frame of reference that everyone can build on, even secularists and evangelists, TBM’s and ex-mo’s, to see “PEOPLE” as the focus of what is good, no matter what flavor or packaging they come in from different religions, cultures, or countries around the world.

[Anonymous]

Yes, wjclerk, that would be appropriate – and we actually have a thread about that statement from the Pope.

The link to the thread, which has a link to an article about it, is:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4273&hilit=pope

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

[Maybe in theory but in practice the problem is that the Church has been putting so much emphasis on a very narrow and restrictive profile of exactly who is supposedly worthy versus the majority that aren’t for one reason or another that devout Mormons don’t need to wait for any afterlife to find out what actually happens; they will already start judging people left and right in a harsh and disrespectful way. You could imagine 50 different kingdoms and/or levels of heaven in addition to Outer Darkness and it still wouldn’t really help the situation as long as anything less than the top one is just not good enough for most active Mormons. So now we have Church members that feel like they have basically failed as parents simply because some of their children fell away from the Church or seriously questioning the long-term status of their marriage simply because their spouse isn’t a very faithful or obedient Mormon anymore.

Thanks for this. This is what was on my mind in the recent Three Degrees of Glory lesson. The discussion doesn’t tend to focus on the good news. We skip over it and go straight to what-you-(or your neighbor)-are-doing-wrong-now.

[Anonymous]

As much as some would prefer to think otherwise, the church is not McChapels and steel chairs, lesson manuals and pulpits. It’s not the COB and not the BOM. It’s not programs and assignments, conferences or temple trips. None of those things are capable of loving another.

Christ taught that the church is human beings, unified in him. If I am going to sustain and defend the human beings in my family, I will uphold boundaries and limits on the constructs of administration, otherwise it will run rampant, unchecked, and unchallenged.

The administration of the church only has as much power over you as you allow it to have.

[Anonymous]

Reflexzero wrote:

As much as some would prefer to think otherwise, the church is not McChapels and steel chairs, lesson manuals and pulpits. It’s not the COB and not the BOM. It’s not programs and assignments, conferences or temple trips. None of those things are capable of loving another.

Christ taught that the church is human beings, unified in him. If I am going to sustain and defend the human beings in my family, I will uphold boundaries and limits on the constructs of administration, otherwise it will run rampant, unchecked, and unchallenged.

The administration of the church only has as much power over you as you allow it to have.

“And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it – In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives and our children – and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.”

I am beginning to entertain the possibility that what’s happening with me and so many others isnt’ a “crisis” at all, but necessary and right.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I am beginning to entertain the possibility that what’s happening with me and so many others isn’t a “crisis” at all, but necessary and right.

Yup. 🙂

The Church (all churches, really) is set up quite well to serve “spiritual children” – of all ages. No church can make someone an adult of God; it only can put them on the path to do that on their own. Learning to walk independently can be scary and painful – but it’s worth it. Helping others learn to walk independently is incredibly rewarding – and I believe it’s at the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For me, that can’t happen fully if I abandon the children of my own tribe – of all ages. Paul said we will reach a point where we put away childish things – but he didn’t say we ever would put away the children.

I’m willing to lose my life, in that way, to help them find theirs.

[Anonymous]

My childhood family had some issues that could be due to church-related influences. I come from a large family – too large. My dad had to work three jobs to make enough money to support us. My mom was overwhelmed with small children and was somewhat oppressed.

I do believe the church is unique in some ways regarding teachings on the family. As far as I know, this is the only Christian church that believes in eternal families. Family-friendly teachings go way back:

Quote:

It was Joseph Smith who taught me how to prize the endearing relationships of father and mother, husband and wife; of brother and sister, son and daughter. It was from him that I learned that the wife of my bosom might be secured to me for time and all eternity; and that the refined sympathies and affections which endeared us to each other emanated from the fountain of divine eternal love.

(Parley Pratt, Teachings: Joseph Smith)

We have good stuff in the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote:

Every new child should be welcomed into the family with gladness. Each is a child of God. We should take time to enjoy our children, to play with them, and to teach them.

President David O. McKay said, “With all my heart I believe that the best place to prepare for … eternal life is in the home.” At home, with our families, we can learn self-control, sacrifice, loyalty, and the value of work. We can learn to love, to share, and to serve one another…

Husbands and wives should be thoughtful and kind to each other. They should never do or say anything to hurt each other’s feelings. They should also try to do everything possible to make each other happy.

I really, really like those teachings, but I dislike other things. There is simply no good reason to make a couple wait a year to be sealed after being married civily. Isn’t it bizarre that a couple can get married civily, have temple recommends, and do proxy sealings for others but they can’t be sealed to each other during that year-long probation (punishment)? If a couple could have a civil wedding (which would be much more fun) and then get sealed soon thereafter, much family heartache, strife, and misunderstanding could be avoided. My wife’s siblings who were in their late-teens and many other family members who were left out could have witnessed our marriage!

Stories of family members being shunned for any reason are heartbreaking. Shunning others like that is not Christian, but I can see how some people have been duped by church-related influences. Recent General Conference talks have mentioned love, tolerance (to a degree), and getting along with others, but some members just don’t get it. Perhaps the brethren need to be clearer in teaching about not being jerks. I have many extended-family members who have ditched the church and my childhood family is actually good about being nice – my mom especially is very loving and accepting and that has rubbed off on others.

In short, I do believe the church is family-focused and -friendly, but improvements need to be made.

[Author]

Posts