Saintmichaeldefendthem1

Thank you for clarifying that. Having a better understanding of your situation, my observations are as follows. 1. Hostility toward your brother by your parents is only a symptom of what drove your brother from religion to begin with. They didn't suddenly become hostile, they've always been that way. 2. Your brother has no reason to value religion because the examples he's seen of it, his parents, lead him to conclude that one is no better off being religious. Since religion has been in his life a source of contention, he is seeking a life uncomplicated by it. 3. Your efforts to change your parents are futile. They are mentally ill. It's important that your brother come to understand that so that he learns to disassociate religion in general with the practitioners of it he grew up with. Helping him to see that will be far more fruitful for you. 4. With mental illness, it's important to not take anything personally. Be polite and respectful, never engaging them or getting upset at their behavior. Once your brother understands that their behavior is a result of a malady rather than religion, he may be open to giving religion a fresh look someday. I hope this helps.

It's no surprise that liberal media outlets are looking to take down Foxnews by using a time honored tactic, creating a rumor of a schism when in fact none exists. Glenn Beck I admire a lot because he does that which seems to have become politically incorrect, even on the right, by establishing unbroken continuity between religion and politics. Christianity has been the source of liberty ever since its beginning and it's the key ingredient in creating the most free and prosperous society in the history of mankind right here in America. If Glenn leaves Foxnews, I think it will likely be on his own volition. He is a very principled man and seems to me, looking for a hill to die on. Since Foxnews is ultimately a corporation with its own self interests, the opportunity for conflict between its interests and Beck's convictions is abundant. This is just how it appears to me and I could be very wrong on this. The question is, does somebody else present a challenge for his slot? Mark Levin is in ill health and cannot do a TV slot. Rush Limbaugh tried TV and found he didn't like it. Who else? Michael Savage is a loner with hardened personality traits that preclude him from joining any network. Rusty Humphries, Jerry Doyle, Michael Reagan, and Eric Harley and Gary McNamara on the Midnight Radio Network, all radio guys with no ambition to go to TV. Are they going to give this prized slot to a flaming liberal like Alan Colmes? Hah! I don't think anyone is going to dislodge Beck any time soon.

Seekingadvice, I'm trying to glean from your posts whether your brother has ceased believing in God and Christianity or just the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints. These are two, I think, very different problems. Some are hostile to religion altogether because they reject their upbringing, but in the case of the LDS, I can see rejecting LDS but not Christianity. The LDS have historical claims and a 3rd testament that are either true or untrue which make them unique in the Christian family. My own parents used to be RLDS and they left, citing biblical errors in doctrine. But they didn't leave Christianity and now my father pastors a pentacostal church. The question further is, if your brother is still a Christian, is that enough? You see, my parents are unconcerned that I became Catholic because they both know I'm still saved. I believe the same way toward Mormons and will not expend any effort to draw anyone out of the LDS church. If anyone has embraced Christ by any means then I can only rejoice and not seek to fix that which isn't broken.

The movie is my favorite movie and the book has much more to offer. One thing you won't see in the movie is how Scout helps Mrs. Dubois kick her morphine addiction before she dies, another life lesson I plan to write about. One of the most painful things about this book is that racial injustice is allowed to prevail. Atticus Finch successfully demonstrates not only the innocence of Tom Robinson, but also the most likely culprit in the beating of Miss Mayella. Against his compelling defense, the jury convicts Tom anyway and Tom later loses hope and dies in an attempt to escape custody. The man and his daughter who pressed this foul and false accusation that got Tom killed get away with their crime. The book challenges us to look for goodness even when evil triumphs and holds the field. Arthur Radley comes out of seclusion and becomes a hero and the children befriend the monster they once feared. Mr. Ewell, uncontent with having murdered an innocent black man, attempts to visit violence upon Jem and Scout. Although God allowed the former injustice, he intervenes and stops the second. Mr. Ewell is finally stopped and loses his life. The death of Tom Robinson is such a gross offense that we want it to be met with swift justice. But real justice is slower, playing out according to a divine plan. For those of us who have faith and patience, it becomes evident that God is watching and very much involved after all. This book is a rich treasure for those willing to dig for it. It is prolific with life lessons that I intend to explore and write about.

Life Lessons From "To Kill A Mockingbird" Part 1: Spiritual Warfare By: Saintmichaeldefendthem Posted: LDS.NET, The-Highway.com, Bible-discussion.com A good lesson on true spiritual warfare, how God used a sweet innocent little girl to stay the hand of evil. I'm going to use this scene from the movie rather than the book. Here is the backdrop. Tom Robinson, a negro, had just been arrested and charged with raping a white woman in a poor Southern town in the 1930's. Atticus Finch, a lawyer and single father, was appointed to defend him. Many in town were of the mind that Tom's guilt was not in question and that a trial would be perfunctory and there were some still who had no desire that Tom even make it to trial. So when Tom was transferred to the county jail, Atticus knew there would be trouble that night. In an effort to head it off, he waited until his children were in bed and then drove to the jail. He set up a chair, a lamp powered by an extension cord, and a good book to help him keep vigil through the night. Unbeknownst to Atticus, his children Jem and Scout had followed him on foot and were concealed in the bushes watching their father read by the light of the lamp. If one could look with different eyes, they might have also seen an angelic sentry standing next to Atticus. Heaven was their to protect Atticus as Atticus was there to protect Tom. Predictably, several vehicle drove up filled with armed men who were up to no good. They filed out of the vehicles and approached as a mob, every one of them toting a rifle. Atticus was unarmed as he became surrounded by the hastily marshalled posse. These were not strangers; every one of them were local townsmen who Atticus knew, good men possessed by a bad idea. Looking with different eyes, one might detect something else that possessed the crowd, a gaggle of demons frothing the men with murderous intent. "Step aside, Mr. Finch, you know what we're here for," Mr. Cunningham said. "I suggest you all just go home," Atticus responded. But the posse came with bloodlust on their minds and would not be shaken of it so easily. Jem, afraid for his father, ran out from his hiding place, his sister in tow, and positioned himself between his father and the posse. Only 10 years old, but they would have to get through him to get to his father. The posse immediately demanded Atticus send his children home. Atticus told Jem to take his sister home. Jem, furtively glancing at the menacing posse, responded "No Sir." Though far from being a defiant child, there was no way Jem was going to leave his father to face this threat alone. During this standoff, however, Scout recognized one of the faces in the crowd. "Hello Mr. Cunningham." Mr. Cunningham didn't respond. "Don't you remember me? I go to school with your boy. I go to school with Walter. Will you say 'hey' for me when you see him?" The posse, including Mr. Cunningham, remained silent. Scout, sensing the awkwardness, became crestfallen and said, "I sure didn't mean any harm." "No harm, little lady," Mr. Cunningham replied, "And I'll tell Walter you said 'hey'". Then he turned to the crowd, and said, "Let's get on out of here." And nobody argued with Mr. Cunningham, a man who had gained exceptional prestige in the community. The tide had shifted, the demons withering at the sound of a child's voice, and the men now bereft of their resolve to lynch Tom Robinson. The posse packed up and motored off into the night, never to return. "Mr. Finch, are they gone?" Asked a terrified Tom Robinson through the jail cell bars. "Yes, Tom, they won't bother you anymore," Atticus said. During this exchange, no demons were bound or rebuked in the name of Jesus. In fact, the name of Jesus wasn't even used. There wasn't even a prayer. There is a time and a place for those weapons of spiritual warfare, but in this case, an even mightier weapon was brought to bare. A sweet, innocent little girl shamed several strong and well armed men into relenting from their impious errand and cowared the demonic realm, her tender words piercing into the night and undoing the forces of wickedness. This is spiritual warfare at its finest and an example of how God uses innocence and meekness to cause good to prevail against evil. It's a lesson for us all. In the Sacred Heart of Christ.

You are on to something, my friend. I've heard this discussed before, the profuse use of profanity being a symptom of a limited vocabulary. This is especially true for those who use the F word at least once in every sentence. Their ability to communicate is stunted, their brains trained to use a profane word to fill every hiatus of thought instead of thinking about what they want to say and saying it. I really get irked when profanity is referred to as "strong language" because nothing could be further from the truth; it actually weakens one's ability to communicate effectively. I constantly work on my vocabulary, adding new words and using it as a deft tool to get my point across. Those with an expanded vocabulary are like a carpenter with a large tool box and the craft to apply the right tool to every job.

Yes. The Golden Rule. And no it doesn't appear from my previous question and Lizzy's response that this question was dealt with in a direct manner. It was not clarified that the parents were informed and agreeable to this, an indication that this important step was bypassed.

Some examples of failed predictions: "It will be years --not in my time-- before a woman will become Prime Minister." --Margaret Thatcher, October 26th, 1969. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943. “That virus [HIV] is a pussycat.” --Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, 1988, "Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." --Associates of Edwin L. Drake refusing his suggestion to drill for oil in 1859. “A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” --New York Times, 1936. "Reagan doesn’t have that presidential look." --United Artists Executive, rejecting Reagan as lead in 1964 film The Best Man “Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” --Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859) “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” --Lord Kelvin, 1895. "There will never be a bigger plane built." --A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people. "Ours has been the first [expedition], and doubtless to be the last, to visit this profitless locality." ---- Lt. Joseph Ives, after visiting the Grand Canyon in 1861. "If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one." --W.C. Heuper, National Cancer Institute, 1954. source: 15 Failed Predictions about the Future - Oddee.com (failed future predictions)

Lizzy, how do you know this boy's parents don't mind your efforts to prosyletize him? Did they tell you directly or did Luke assure you that they don't care? We were all teenagers once. How often did we assume that our parents didn't care about something when in fact they cared very much? Are they really informed this exchange is going on? It seems this question is being glossed over far too quickly and we're falling into the trap of situational ethics in that we are eager to do something that would enrage us if it were our children somebody was trying to convert to another faith. The religious upbringing of children is near and dear an issue to most parents.

Now I'm remembering my wife asking me not to talk about the family on these forums and the last few posts remind me why. It's difficult to talk generically about child rearing methods without citing what has worked and not worked with my own and so maybe this thread was not the best idea. The inferrences that in parenting, I am controlling, abusive, and ruling by fear only underscore my wife's concerns; my family should not be subject to the often judgemental scrutiny of the public. From here on out, I am renewing my effort to exercise discretion and modesty where my wife and children are concerned.

This is an all too frequent senario where a workplace is filled with profanity. One notable exception for me is when I worked for an oil change company owned by a Christian. In all facilities profanity was strictly banned and enforced at every level. It was truly a joy to work there. Profanity seems to me an unpleasant background noise, a sort of irking buzz. I get used to hearing it. One thing I never get used to hearing is having the name of the Lord taken in vain. This slams against my spirit and when it happens, I have no choice but to speak up and request a refrain from that behavior. I find people are more amicable to my request the Lord's name not be taken in vain if they believe I'm not trying to control ALL filthy language and that I'm picking my battles. One thing I learned as a Catholic that I can do is to pray a reparation when the Lord's name is used in vain. If I pray silently, "Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ, King of endless glory," or perform an act of kindness, I can reverse the damage inflicted in the spiritual realm when that precious Name is abused. Even better still, one does not have to be Catholic to minister reparations. Any baptized Christian can do so.

You're comparing thousands of illegals coming into our country, going on welfare, using emergency room medical care, sending their kids to taxpayer funded schools and populating our jails and infesting our streets with crime with Americans going across the border, buying something and then going home? Really? You have to be kidding!

I wonder how you Canadians would feel if it were thousands of illegals breaking into YOUR country and burdening YOUR social systems. Eh?

I don't see the connection. Are you suggesting that a lie to avoid hurting your wife's feelings is as bad as lying about entering this country illegally? The former is not a lie at all but an attempt to put the best face on things. Looking to the positive is a loving act. Breaking the law and then going to the bishop with the intent to deceive in hopes of not being disqualified is impious.

EDIT: Uncharitable response removed

Let's take this conversation on a different path. What if this was your son and you were trying to raise him a certain way, but somebody putting forth a stout effort to steal him from you and convert him to another religion? What if that person sent your son a package full of prescribed literature with the intent to convert him to a faith other than your own. Would you not view this as a hostile intrusion and interference upon the upbringing of your child? You need to give this some serious thought. This is not only outrageously offensive, it's immoral.

This is just an exercise in absurdity to pretend that fear of consequences isn't used as a tool to raise children. While we would like obedience because it's the right thing, we'll also accept obedience because the child is afraid of the consequences of disobedience. We all live with fears. If I do the wrong thing, I might lose my job, or get arrested, or lose my home, or even my life. The head-in-the-sand "there is no fear" thinking is a swift departure from logic and sanity. Children need to be made aware that there are consequences for their actions, and that when they grow up, the consequences are even steeper. As Wednesday Addams once said, "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

We Americans still bristle at this proverb. When Hillary Clinton said loudly and repeatedly "It takes a village to raise a child," it alarmed quite a few parents who are all too keen on how Democrats want to raise our children. Some even got bumperstickers that said, "I've seen the Village and I don't want it raising my child." I understand what you're saying, but there's a frightfully thin line between the village offering their help and the village pushing the parents out of the way to raise the child themselves. Which has led to a waning state of discipline in schools. Teachers don't know if parents are their allies anymore. You're on to something here, especially in regard to single mothers. I was watching the movie "About A Boy" where the 12 year old befriends a man and when the mother finds out about it automatically assumes the man to be a pedophile and even accused him of it openly. I realized the trend is, Mother has a Boy, Boy needs a Father, no Father is present because Mother did away with him, Boy seeks out male role model on his own. Mother finds out and becomes afraid because any Man who would be interested in her Boy must be a pedophile. Mother "protects" her Boy from perceived predator. Mother becomes Boy's worst enemy confounding his efforts to become a Man. I am. A return to "that old time religion" would certainly go a long way to returning us to sanity. I think everyone needs Jesus in their life.

Thanks for the clarification. If I understand what I've been told, baptism removes all sin and if somebody willingly sins on the eve of baptism knowing that the slate will be wiped clean, then it's cheating. Is that a valid point?

Protocol is the beginning and backbone of respect. That is the argument in my OP. Feel free to disagree, but I've seen this concept in action and it works. Growing up, I knew and befriended a lot of older folk who lived in my neighborhood, in the 55+ community nearby, and in convalescent hospitals. My parents didn't have to try to get me to respect old people because it came naturally to me. I've heard it said that children fear older people because they fear death and the elderly are courting death. This may be expressed as disrespect as well. Like Boo Radley, children cease to fear what they come to understand and this may be a surefire cure for your friend's son to be exposed to more old people. Our upbringing has a lot of influence on how we view things like this, doesn't it? Anatess, I hope you don't mean that. Would you really take it out on my children. I know others who also have their own children under this rule and it's not a matter of not caring, it's a matter of what we believe to be appropriate. In defense of these children, they are calling you by your name, so they've done nothing wrong. I know it's a matter of conflicting interests. You prefer to be called by your first name and I prefer that my children call adults by their proper title. I've actually never had an adult object once it's been made clear this is how I am raising my children. This is actually an ongoing family debate and I'll readily confess I may buckle under my wife's pressure to get our 8 year old one of those controlled cell phones that doesn't text and can only call a few numbers, just so she can get in touch with him when needed and vice versa. I'm resisting the idea but since my objections are largely about sexting and having a distraction in class, which won't be an issue here, I predict I'll probably cave in. Children need to show respect to everyone and a special amount of respect to adults and the elderly. The hierarchy of vintage is ingrained in every aspect of society, in the military, in the workplace, in sports, and most especially in families. This isn't about making children feel small, it's about reminding them of their station in life when dealing with those who have graced this earth much longer than they have. I hear everything you're saying and it seems that the teaching of respect is as important to you as it is to me, even if we're teaching it differently. Perhaps we are strenuously agreeing with each other?

If the leadership of the LDS joined the "social justice" cult, then Beck would either leave it as he's counseled others to do, or he would stay and do all he could to fight it.

The LDS believes that baptism removes all sins including original sin. In that way they are not unlike the Catholic Church. I think it's cheating to willingly sin right before baptism knowing that sin will be removed.

The 1408 law was passed as a result of John Wycliff's horribly twisted translation. That's why there is an imprimatur process and a penalty for violating it. As an armchair historian, you can second guess the methods the Catholic Church used to keep the holy Scriptures pure from error and corruption. I cannot. An "overall" apostacy? That's painting in some mighty broad strokes. The accusation of apostacy confers scandal not upon the Church but upon Christ himself who promised to preserve His church lest the gates of hell prevail against it. Pointing to a few examples of corruption while ignoring the centuries of Christian piety with many faithful saints who defended and spread the gospel and even lost their lives for it is a butchering of history to promote an agenda. In order to sustain this revision of history, some Mormons have become in league with Catholic haters who twist and malign history. The stench of hypocricy is nausiating since this is the very thing Mormons hate to have done to them.

Nowadays kids are so much more fortunate. They'll have no problem getting a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD. Now there's a profit motive for chemically lobotomizing children. I'm more in the school of thought that children have varying degrees of attention and focus and are crammed into one-size-fits-all schools that are more accomodating to the learning habits of girls than boys. It's small wonder boys are diagnosed 3 times more often than girls with attention span problems. I'm sorry about how hard your childhood was. There are all too many children that become casualties in the social experiments ran to try to discover and help children with this condition.

I think it needs to be reinforced that children are at a different and lower station in life than their elders. This isn't an issue of who is more important or valuable, but rather the status one attains. Scripture says that grey hair is a crown of glory and emphasizes the honor due to adults and especially the elderly. My own kids are not allowed to be on a first name basis with any adult and are well drilled on how to speak to adults. They know that if an adult says, "Just call me Agnus" they are to respond, "I'm sorry, but my parents don't allow me to call adults by their first name." You see, Anatess, respect to me is not having adults undermine what I'm trying to teach them, and a polite reminder goes along way to accomplish this without conflict. I don't think it's a matter of people being uncomfortable with their proper title, but rather that people have become unaccustomed to it. The adults do get used to being referred to by their proper title and I enjoy getting compliments on how respectful my children are. I agree with you that respect is about actions, but it's also a language conveyed by body and verbal communications. In regard to cell phone use, your generation and mine got along quite well without cell phones. It's too much responsibility, danger, and cause for distraction for children. Kids are texting when they need to be paying attention to more important things and I believe there is harm in having kids learn to associate with others through electronic media instead of forming real relationships. How does this have to do with respect? Again, it's a status thing. I tell my kids I have a cell phone because I'm an adult with a job and I pay for it. When they achieve the same, they can have one to. Nowadays teachers have to deal with cell phones on top of the normal array of misbehaviors adding an unneeded task to their already overwhelming workload. I applaud any school that doesn't allow them at all.