spirettedotter

Does this thread seem to be turning into something other than doctrine discussion? Should I move to a different category to get more response, perhaps? Patiently waiting . . .

Thanks for your comment, too, Traveler. That's an interesting perspective, written concisely, & similar to my initial thoughts.

Thank you much for the responses, Finrock, Dravin, & Loudmouth! I'm glad I got feedback before I responded or dismissed the suggestion. I'm not sure why my initial response was resistance, but I agree with all your comments completely. I think I was just concerned it didn't fit with LDS gospel & didn't want to get off track. And maybe there's a blemish in my faith at the moment which I need to work on. I do cherish having the eternal perspective and that's always been what get's me through my trials. I do pray for His Will in all things, and help in knowing what is my footwork to do each day. I try to give up my own will, control, and agenda and trust the Lord fully and humbly. My biggest difficulty is discerning the guidance and hearing answers so that I also know what's my responsibility to DO, and when to let go and let God (completely without other action on my part). The particular situation involves a small child in my family who I love dearly and is neglected, at risk, and has no voice in the care of an addict. Since I've been the majority relative caregiver for 20 months until January and am still very closely involved, I'm the only one in a position to document, talk, & take action. I carefully try to discern what and when to act, without getting myself kicked out of the baby's life, which would cause more harm. My friend's attitude has come across to me as mostly suggesting I do nothing, hand it all over to God, and stay out of it. She encourages more charity toward the addict. But my feeling is that if everyone minded their own business, nothing bad would likely change. Help and generosity often enables an addict to continue destructive behavior. I'm trying to find a balance of taking responsibility to help in the whole big picture, showing kindness and empathy to the adult addict without enabling. It's a rotten position to be in, witnessing the suffering of a child at the hands of a addict parent. I've been using prayer, priesthood blessings, and Alanon to help me get through this hardship, but I'm so glad I thought to post here for some LDS perspective. I hope to get more responses today and appreciate all of you who have and will post back. Thank you all so much. <3 xo

A non-Christian supportive friend/Alanon sponsor told me in person to try to see the world through God's eyes. A few days later, she emailed, "Let me know when God has helped you see the world through his eyes, even if it only lasts for moments, it will be trans-formative." While I understand the positive spirit in which she meant it, my first thought is that I can't possibly. I'm not knowledgeable, experienced, powerful, wise, or qualified to even come close to His infinite way of viewing & interpreting the world, let alone regarding the complex trials which triggered the conversation. I can do my best to discern how He might see things, based on my limited knowledge of good and evil. But . . . To ask for such vision, test faith by trying, based on a pretense that I might understand as He does, or imagine I can judge anything on an equal level with God--seems to me to be the opposite of having a humble spirit and a contrite heart. I believe I need to trust that he sees and knows all, infinitely beyond my capacity. I don't think it's my place to question His reason, knowledge, wisdom and will. Those mysteries are not mine to understand in this life. Instead, I think I must trust that He holds the keys, and the details are none of my business. I Googled the phrase & found it to be used in the Evangelical revival population. Can anyone comment with suggestions about how I might best reply on this topic--by sharing gospel principles, without offending or arguing religion? Or am I taking it too literal over-analyzing? Hope to get replies soon. Thanks!

Thanks for the comments and discussion. I find the creativity of such a situation fascinating, yet wonder if the reality of such an arrangement could blow up into disaster. I've imagined myself in her place with such an option, wondering if I could, or would do it. Caring for and helping a frail 80 year old man nearing the end of life is no doubt difficult work. To me marriage is a sacred covenant, and is only warranted if there's love. I certainly wouldn't judge them, but going into a financial arrangement like that--waiting for the husband to pass away--seems like an awkward position to be in, especially if she were young enough that she might want to marry again afterward. Then again, if it's honest, respectful, and beneficial to both the husband and wife, it could work out nicely and become an example of sharing Christlike love. I wonder if entering into a temporary civil marriage like that might dissuade future priesthood holders from being interested in her later? Seems like those would be valid considerations. The responses so far aren't what I expected. Guess we're a very open-minded group. Comments appreciated :)

My first thoughts are that it's just wrong. But the circumstances are interesting, if nothing else. The arrangement the woman was presented with doesn't include expectations of physcial intimacy, so she wouldn't be selling herself. They are virtually strangers, meeting only for consideration of the benefits described below. The man is wheelchair bound, elderly (in 80's with lots of health issues, not expected to live long), and has professional and veteran pensions plus an insurance policy that would set her up with income for life, after he passes. He paid into the policy for years intending for his late wife to receive financial security, but she passed before him. The beneficiary must be a spouse only, so his children aren't eligible, and he doesn't want to waste the money. The woman (in her 50's) is 30 years younger than he, raised her family as a single mom, has struggled and been single most of her life (first husband deceased before church membership, then sealed briefly to an abuser). She triumphed over her own critical health issues, is unable to work because of residual health, and lives on an inadequately low fixed income, unable to afford needed health care. The insurance requirements states the wife must live with him 6 to 12 months to receive the benefits, unless he passes sooner after entering the [civil] marriage. He'd appreciate help and companionship, and the opportunity to help someone; she'd enjoy serving, being needed, and financial security. Back in the day of plural and/or arranged marriages, this scenario would have been acceptable for mutual benefit and survival. With an LDS perspective today, is this wrong or personal choice? Would love to see opinions and discussion.