unixknight

I'd say generally her relationship with the parents is good, although I would assume it's been strained with all the recent goings on. I really don't know. I do know that they seemed very pleased when I called them to ask that they take the kids with them to church. In any case, I seriously doubt they'd intervene directly beyond whatever things they may have already said or done to try and get her back on the path.

I think you two really do agree with one another you're just getting caught up on phrasing. I think we'd all agree that judging people is the place of the Lord, not us. As for their actions, I think we'd also agree that we use discernment to determine whether or not those actions are in keeping with God's Will and whether or not they would be appropriate to emulate. One uses their good judgment as well as promptings from the Spirit to do this. In the case of my ex and her actions, I need to make clear to my kids what's acceptable and what's not, but I need to do it by walking that fine line between explaining to them that the actions are wrong, and badmouthing their mother. Mostly by emphasizing that their mom isn't being malicious or deliberately selfish, she's just lonely and/or feeling insecure and is trying to cope. A better way to cope would have been to talk to her Ward leadership and pray a LOT but we do have freewill and as humans we don't always use it to the best result. She will have to find her own way and that it's my kids' job, as people who love her, to be there and be supportive of her should she decide to return to the light.

So a couple of years ago I discovered that one of my ancestors was a Knight of the Order of Santiago in Spain. Such knights were similar to the Knights Templar only they answered to the King and were able to have wives and children. I later had a waking dream... maybe a vision... of a man in chain armor and a tabard bearing the insignia of the Knights of Santiago. he was looking at me, as if waiting. At about this same time I had another image, very vivid, of a gloved hand reaching up, clasping another hand which was bare. The arm below the gloved hand was protected by chain armor and the arm above the bare hand was covered by a modern dress shirt sleeve. I interpret this as a direct instruction to get the Temple work done for this brave an honorable man who lived centuries ago. It blows my mind a little to think of such a person relying upon me directly. I don't have a Temple recommend right now but I'm actively working to get one again so that I can perform this task. Has anyone else had such an experience?

I can see how someone could find truth in the Book of Mormon without necessarily having a testimony of its origin. Truth is truth, and while the person who wrote that article may not acknowledge the BoM as Scripture, he may very well regard it as being useful in the way a transcript of a Preacher's sermon would be. Maybe to him, that's basically what it is. As members of the Church we tie the BoM very closely with its origin because we DO regard it as Scripture and thus it MUST be the Word of God, but doesn't it make sense that the Word of God would resonate with any person who loves Jesus Christ?

It sounds like some serious prayer is needed at the Stake level. The Stake President should be made aware of what's going on if he doesn't know already.

Update: Well there's good and there's bad. The good: I've spoken with all 3 kids and they have expressed a desire to keep going to church on weekends when they're with their mom. I called their maternal grandfather and asked if he'd be willing to take them to church on Sunday and he said he'd be more than happy to, as long as they're up and ready to go. I'll do what I can from my end to keep them motivated. The bad: During a conversation with me yesterday my ex started to express feelings of resentment at the Bishop and her Visiting Teacher asking about her. She doesn't say 'The Church' now she refers to it as 'The Mormon Church' the way a non-member might. I told her she's beginning to sound like an anti. She said she doesn't appreciate being treated like a teenager. I think this is it, friends. I think she's laying the foundation for taking up a stand against the Church to excuse the inactivity. She *WILL* drag the kids down with her if she possibly can. I'm planning on meeting with my Bishop on Sunday to talk to him about some other stuff, but I think I'll tell him about this situation as well to see if he can offer any additional insights.

Hopefully it'll help clarify those events in a much more honest way than that ridiculous September Dawn movie...

Absolutely fabulous movie. ****************SPOILERS************************ The imagery in this movie was top notch. This is a movie about duality. We would expect Batman and Joker to be the light & dark but it was actually Batman and Harvey Dent. Consider that Harvey Dent was seen as "The White Knight." Idealism at its finest. Idealism at its most effective. He was bringing down the bad guys virtually en masse and succeeding. He doesn't want to be a symbol, he just wants to get the job done. He is, however, contrasted with: Batman. The Dark Knight. Idealism gone. He IS a symbol and on some level and deliberately. Batman is the one bringing bad guys to justice outside the law. They are two sides of the same coin. (Yet another symbol!) And yet they become ambiguous, borrowing traits from one another. When Harvey is tempted to kill Joker's minion after Gordon is believed to be dead, it's Batman who comes and stops him, saving the criminal's life and Harvey's soul. Later, when he has the chance to kill Joker in the street, he veers off at the last moment, crashing his bike and nearly losing everything. It's Batman who successfully withstands the Joker's attempt to corrupt him, while Harvey fails and descends into darkness. And did you notice at the end, after he and Dent fall from the platform, they're laying on the ground, side by side. The White Knight and the Dark Knight. Harvey has fallen, and Batman rises up, taking on Harvey's sins so that he can be remembered as the White Knight still, and Batman flees the police, taking on Harvey Dent's sins but as the Dark Knight. Other images of duality were the passengers on the two ferry boats. The inmates bore the situation quietly, and then when the warden(?) wanted to press the button but didn't couldn't do it, it was the huge inmate that had the courage to take the detonator and toss it out the window. Nobody, not a soul, complained. Meanwhile on the other boat many people, 2/3 in fact, agitated to blow up the other boat and it was only the fact that the loudmouth couldn't bring himself to hit the button that saved the convicts. So in a sense, both light and darkness are portrayed as good forces. Where was the villain? Chaos. "I am the agent of chaos." Said the Joker. The good guys are trying to impose order. The villain is trying to spread chaos as much as possible. "I'll kill until Batman reveals himself." "If this lawyer isn't dead in 60 minutes I'll blow up a hospital." "Give me my phone call [so I can blow up this building]" Essentially he spreads chaos by using other people to cause it. Contrast with Twoface, who does his own dirty work and uses a coin to make every decision. He's almost simplistic compared to the chaotic machinations of the Joker. So in essence, the character of Harvey Dent/Twoface is a contrast to both Batman AND the Joker in his dual incarnations.

Telling funny stories about your kids is one of the benefits of being a parent. But there's other times... Recently, my 12 year old confided in his mom (my ex) something deeply personal and she promptly shared it with her boyfriend, which has had a devastating impact on their relationship. She refuses to see it, but it's there, and he tells me what he's feeling and confides it in me. He asked me not to say anything to her and I haven't, but it breaks my heart to see him in need of someone to talk to and not being able to trust his own mom.

I suspect he doesn't go into the origin of the book because it's really beside the point. He's saying it contains many truths but where it came from doesn't impact those truths. To get into whether it was divinely inspired/translated or not distracts from the point he's making, which is that there's a great deal of truth to be found there whether you're a Mormon or not.

Thought this might interest some of you. It's a pretty interesting read no matter where you go to church.

I think what I'd say to them is something along the lines of: "Hey, I appreciate where you're coming from but have you talked to X about this? I think you'd be better off starting there." And be firm about it unless they're asking you for advice on how to go about doing that. If they're willing to do that, it'll take all the fun out of filling your ear with it later, and if they aren't, you've saved yourself from hearing gossip.

Good question... My inclination is to say it isn't gossip because at least they're consistent... Rude maybe.. mean spirited maybe... but consistent... It it any better than gossip? Probably not, since on some level by being willing to sit and listen to it, one provides encouragement to the person being rude by giving them an audience.

It becomes gossip when the person would be unwilling to say it in the presence of the subject person.

On the Washington DC Temple there's s set of doors on the East that are never used as far as I know, but they're maintained as if to be ready at any moment. When one enters that Temple, they do so through a causeway on the north side.

The differences between each category of disciplinary action are pretty much arbitrary. I'm sure there are general guidelines but when the Disciplinary Council convenes to decide what to do, they act by the inspiration from the Lord. Sometimes a lesser transgression is punished more severely than someone else who does something more severe but is given a more merciful punishment. I think there are a LOT of factors that go into it and the attitude of the member is probably the biggest. Somebody who walks into that DC with a chip on their shoulder is much more likely, I'd think, to be excommunicated than somebody who is contrite and humble.

The problem is, if they lose their enthusiasm for the church due to their mother's lack of it, then they're giving up their best chance at true happiness.

You know, on a recent visit when the kids were over for about a week, all 3 of them sat down with me to vent their frustrations about their mom. It seems each one has his or her own reasons to be frustrated with home life, and all of them feel shunted ever since the boyfriend entered the picture. Now, I know it's perfectly normal for kids to feel a little competitive when a new romantic interest enters mom's or dad's life, but during this same conversation the kids commended me on how I'd handled bringing my new wife into the picture. They suddenly started commending me for a lot of things and it felt really good... But maybe too good. I don't want it to go to my head that my kids seem to be far more comfortable coming to talk to me about things than their mom. (She already blew my 12 year old's confidence by taking a very personal thing he told her and sharing it with the boyfriend.) I have to struggle not to feel vindicated at these things but man... It's hard.

Since I'll be picking up my eldest tomorrow morning for a brief weekend visit I'll have plenty of time with him on the long drive back and forth to talk about these issues. Now if I can get similar 1 on 1 time with the ot hers on a regular basis, I think we'll be alright.

Just a side note: If you want to know what my new baby daughter looks like, take a look at Dolly-Mama's avatar on the Help with Baby thread

That's exactly the scenario I want to avoid. I have a pretty strong influence over my sons, but my daughter is her mommy's girl (Although that has suffered as the new boyfriend's daughter has come into the picture and supplanted my daughter a the favorite, at least from her perspective.) I've already had to sit down with her (she's 8) and reassure her that I love her as much as ever and that I'm incredibly proud of her. The reason: My wife and I have a new baby daughter and I anticipated possible jealousy issues. What didn't help was the day my ex dropped our daughter off, pointed to the new baby and whispered to her "There's your competition." I tell that story because it seems like I may be facing an active effort on her part to drive a wedge between the kids and me, even as her own relationship with them erodes. I will take the advice I've been given here and hopefully I can report back later that all is well. Incidentally, since my son isn't going to Youth Conference he's coming here for the weekend. (I can't take him realistically to YC because they live in another state)

Woohoo! And this was well timed... I just got a call from my eldest and apparently due to complaining on the part of his mom, he's now option out of going to Youth Conference... He assures me that the decision was his, but I know in my heart he did it to try and appease his mom. This is an area in which I have absolutely no control whatsoever and I want to talk to him about it this weekend when he comes down to visit, but I feel I have to walk a very fine line... I want him to stand up for what is the best thing to do but at the same time I don't want to be effectively encouraging him to disregard his mother's authority. Time for lots and lots of prayer.

Roger that.

See, that's the sort of thing I'd like to have happening, but it seems like my ex's relationship with our kids is being systematically disassembled and I feel like I either have to step in and make excuses for her, or somehow try to distract the kids. I've already tried talking to her directly about this, but my words carry no weight whatsoever so I got nowhere. I've been thinking about talking to her parents for the kids' sake, but I have little hope that they'd do anything because it might be seen as "getting involved" which they have never done.

Great suggestions. I will, thanks!