'Coming Home Early' article in Ensign

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Who said anything about Forcing?   You say you are not a parent...  Trust me when I say forcing stopped being an option when they got too big to pick up and carry.

As a parent you teach.. You set expectations.. you set guidelines... and yes you enforce rules with consequences...  And then when they are old enough they should understand that yes they can do what they want... but that actions have consequences and they need to take them into account as well before they decide on a course of action

No, I'm not a parent, Estradling. Like I said in my post, I'm just speaking from own experiences. That's it. Nothing more. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

Out of all the missionaries sent out by our ward in the past 6 years, only 2 returned home after serving a full mission.  Everybody else returned home early for one reason or the other.  2 of them were sons of bishops.  There's the usual curiousity... "what happened?"  "oh no!  I hope this doesn't affect our young men/women..." etc.  Many people in the ward just didn't know what to do - they wanted to know what happened but nobody was talking.  Nevertheless, the ward was very welcoming to these missionaries but it seems like everybody was walking on eggshells.

Then one sister came home early and she announced in the podium on testimony Sunday what happened - she had a back problem that had to be addressed - and she kept us posted on FB on her progress to better health and eventually she went back to the mission field.  Then a few weeks later came home again because she felt prompted by the Spirit to so.  She updated all of us through a letter that her mom shared with us.  That was such a great help to the ward that she was completely comfortable letting us know what's going on so the ward was also very open with her with their compassion and comfort and everything else that goes with it.  There was no nervousness in the ward, especially in the Youth Leadership, on how to handle it.

Yes, I understand, this is a very personal decision and one might say it is non of the ward's business.  But you know how it is with things that are confusing...

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Well obviously all I can speak from is my own personal experience. In my own view the more you force a child to do something the higher the odds are at them not doing it or worse, not being active in their religion as an adult. I don't speak to many childhood friends at all, but just judging from Facebook I'm guessing 75% of us left the church we grew up in. We all grew up the same too-orthodox Catholic, first communions, confirmations, Catholic school, everything. I've noticed it's the same with many protestant and Jewish kids too. For LDS it's true that the lifelong retention rate is generally higher but I'm sure there are many LDS kids who feel the same I do as adults. At eighteen you need to figure out if what your parents believed is really "true" or capital "T" true. 

Of course what amounts to the spoiled-brat nature of our society considers anything that doesn't give them completely free reign force. And with that in mind, I pretty much disagree. If you literally mean "force" (tied the child to the chair and force feed them their veggies) then you would have a point. If you mean "eat your veggies or you won't get any dessert" then baloney.

[Guest MormonGator]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That was such a great help to the ward that she was completely comfortable letting us know what's going on so the ward was also very open with her with their compassion and comfort and everything else that goes with it.  There was no nervousness in the ward, especially in the Youth Leadership, on how to handle it.

Yes, I understand, this is a very personal decision and one might say it is non of the ward's business.  But you know how it is with things that are confusing...

Sounds like she did the right thing. Very cool to see such courage in someone so young. 

People always gossip so it's best if you address the situation upfront sometimes 

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I think you raised a great point JAG. I walked away from my computer and thought of what I said earlier-that some people shouldn't have to be forced into going on a mission because they have other talents, like the ones you mentioned. 

I love sports but I'm not blind to the fact that athletes get preferential treatment in every religion, culture, you name it. If Gator was a lifelong member (I have NO athletic ability) I know I'd be pressured into going on one while Steve Young might not be. It speaks very well on Jabari Parker for opting to go on his, even though I don't think he has yet. 

But you shouldn't have to serve a mission (or be thought of as deficient in some way) if you feel like you can serve the Lord in other callings like the one you mentioned. 

Really liked your post JAG.

Thanks for the kind words; but I actually am inclined to agree with Estradling on this one, and I'd even word it a little stricter than he does:  It is the priesthood duty of every young man to serve a full-time mission, unless/until he has been duly excused by appropriate priesthood authority.  Part of priesthood ordination entails being held accountable for the sins of those around you unless you do all in your power to preach the truth to them.  Jacob and Moroni both understood that obligation, and wrote about it in the Book of Mormon; and it's notable that in the temple the priesthood holders--but not the women--must be declared clean from the blood and sins of their generation.

In hindsight, I was a terrible missionary.  I was (and to some degree, still am) socially awkward, inflexible, sheltered, judgmental, and frankly just didn't like people very much.  But, you know what?  I still did more good for the Lord and the Church and for other people individually during those two years, than I have ever accomplished at any time before or since.  I hated--not every minute of my mission, but easily a good 75% of 'em--but I recognize it for the necessary and beneficial experience that it was, and I realize that I wouldn't have done nearly as much good anywhere else.

Generally speaking, I think people aren't going to do as much good missionary work on the sports field, or on the stage, or in the courtroom or the newsroom or the trading floor or the campaign stump, as they would do as a duly ordained missionary; and the (implied) thrust of my post was that we should probably be considering fewer, not more, young men to be "honorably excused" from missionary service.  Certainly there will always be exceptions; but I think it's far more likely for a hormonal, self-interested, short-sighted teenager to think he's an exception than it is for him to actually be an exception.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Thanks for the kind words; but I actually am inclined to agree with Estradling on this one, and I'd even word it a little stricter than he does:  It is the priesthood duty of every young man to serve a full-time mission, unless/until he has been duly excused by appropriate priesthood authority.

It doesn't matter who you agree with at all my friend. 

I don't think there is any way I would have served a mission if I was LDS at age 18. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

It doesn't matter who you agree with at all my friend. 

I don't think there is any way I would have served a mission if I was LDS at age 18. 

You would have been a radically different person had you been LDS at age 18.

Its not really a fair comparison to take your 18 year old self stamp him with the label LDS and then watch as he fails to get anywhere close to the standard, because he wouldn't really be LDS just externally labelled as such.

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You would have been a radically different person had you been LDS at age 18.

Its not really a fair comparison to take your 18 year old self stamp him with the label LDS and then watch as he fails to get anywhere close to the standard, because he wouldn't really be LDS just externally labelled as such.

I think I have a very good grasp of who I was/would have been at 18 no matter what. 

You are aware that I am complimenting people who go on missions, right? I think it's a good thing. I love the missionaries, as anyone who has seen my Facebook knows. Actually I have to leave in about 15 minutes because I'm going out with them today for groceries because their car broke down!

Edited June 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think I have a very good grasp of who I was/would have been at 18 no matter what. 

You are aware that I am complimenting people who go on missions, right? I think it's a good thing.

I understand that,,,  I also understand that a lot of people spend a lot time regretting past choices (and maybe you are and maybe you aren't) But unless that regret is actively helping a person make better choices now it really isn't all that useful. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I understand that,,,  I also understand that a lot of people spend a lot time regretting past choices (and maybe you are and maybe you aren't) But unless that regret is actively helping a person make better choices now it really isn't all that useful. 

We agree. Of course I have regrets in my life-like every one of us. The best people I know are the ones who have regrets and change their actions. The worst people I know are the ones who think they are "good people". 

[mordorbund]

On 6/27/2016 at 11:07 AM, MormonGator said:

Well obviously all I can speak from is my own personal experience. In my own view the more you force a child to do something the higher the odds are at them not doing it or worse, not being active in their religion as an adult. I don't speak to many childhood friends at all, but just judging from Facebook I'm guessing 75% of us left the church we grew up in. We all grew up the same too-orthodox Catholic, first communions, confirmations, Catholic school, everything. I've noticed it's the same with many protestant and Jewish kids too. For LDS it's true that the lifelong retention rate is generally higher but I'm sure there are many LDS kids who feel the same I do as adults. At eighteen you need to figure out if what your parents believed is really "true" or capital "T" true. 

Way to poison the whole barrel (j/k).

Your anecdata is either localized or has some confirmation bias. Regardless, it doesn't match with the larger statistics in America. Unless of course, by "75%" you mean "66%" and by "Catholic" you mean "Jehovah's Witness" and by "Jewish" you mean "Buddhist" and by "Protestant" you mean "mainline, not Evangelical Protestant".

[Vort]

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Way to poison the whole barrel (j/k).

Your anecdata is either localized or has some confirmation bias. Regardless, it doesn't match with the larger statistics in America. Unless of course, by "75%" you mean "66%" and by "Catholic" you mean "Jehovah's Witness" and by "Jewish" you mean "Buddhist" and by "Protestant" you mean "mainline, not Evangelical Protestant".

Fascinating table. I find it sad that fully a third part (hhos) of Latter-day Saint youth fall away as adults. I would be very interested to see how activity rates correspond with this falling away. If a child is raised as an active churchgoer, using some reasonable metric, how likely is s/he to identify as LDS as an adult? For my own family (siblings), it's 83%. I'm working and hoping for 100% with my own children.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Way to poison the whole barrel (j/k).

Your anecdata is either localized or has some confirmation bias. Regardless, it doesn't match with the larger statistics in America. Unless of course, by "75%" you mean "66%" and by "Catholic" you mean "Jehovah's Witness" and by "Jewish" you mean "Buddhist" and by "Protestant" you mean "mainline, not Evangelical Protestant".

 It's just my view, of course. However I know I'm not alone in my thinking. For many of us the more you force things down our throat (especially in youth) the more we'll either shut down or rebel. I freely admit that just my experience doesn't mean everyone has the same experience-but it doesn't mean everyone doesn't either. 

it's the same line of thinking of the "Romeo and Juliet" situation. When your daughter brings home a guy you despise, the worst thing you can do is say "I forbid you to go out with him! He's horrible!" because that creates a "Wow! I like him more than I thought!" way of thinking.  The best thing to do is embrace him and say "Welcome to the family!" because then it'll de romanticize him in your daughters eyes. 

Like I said, it's just my view. 

Edited June 29, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 It's just my view, of course. However I know I'm not alone in my thinking. For many of us the more you force things down our throat (especially in youth) the more we'll either shut down or rebel. 

it's the same line of thinking of the "Romeo and Juliet" situation. When your daughter brings home a guy you despise, the worst thing you can do is say "I forbid you to go out with him! He's horrible!" because that creates a "Wow! I like him more than I thought!" way of thinking.  The best thing to do is embrace him and say "Welcome to the family!" because then it'll de romanticize him in your daughters eyes. 

Like I said, it's just my view. 

It is your view...but the other end of it to have no standards, goals, or expectations which is equally destructive ...  it leads to kids feeling unwanted, unloved, and unimportant.

It is part of standard childhood development to find and push against limits.  It is the limits and the parental oversight of those limits that give younger children a sense of safety and security.

But younger kids have different developmental needs then older kids, so the parental response also needs to change.  They need to allow older kids more independence because that is part of their natural development and it should and will happen

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It is your view...but the other end of it to have no standards, goals, or expectations which is equally destructive ...  it leads to kids feeling unwanted, unloved, and unimportant.

It is part of standard childhood development to find and push against limits.  It is the limits and the parental oversight of those limits that give younger children a sense of safety and security.

But younger kids have different developmental needs then older kids, so the parental response also needs to change.  They need to allow older kids more independence because that is part of their natural development and it should and will happen

 I'm not saying don't have standards. Where did you get that from? You should have standards, standards are a good thing.

Where we differ though is this: In the long run, learning how to use a soft touch will get your child to live those standards better than constant preaching, hellfire and brimstone and applying iron clad control. 

You are right, it is "my view". It's what I've seen from my own experiences. 

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I'm not saying don't have standards. Where did you get that from? You should have standards, standards are a good thing.

Where we differ though is this: In the long run, learning how to use a soft touch will get your child to live those standards better than constant preaching, hellfire and brimstone and applying iron clad control. 

You are right, it is "my view". It's what I've seen from my own experiences. 

Simple ....  You are saying we should not compel or force young people to serve mission...  This is of course correct and in harmony with the scriptures on how authority should be handled.

You make your statement based on what you have seen. 

I am pointing out what I have seen and making my statements based on that.

I have seen parents so concerned about not compelling or forcing that they say nothing at all and take steps to minimize and reduce the very clear council and direction the Lords Leaders have given on this matter.  Like the use of force or compulsion such reduction and minimization is also not in harmony with the scriptures on how such authority should be used

 

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Simple ....  You are saying we should not compel or force young people to serve mission...  This is of course correct and in harmony with the scriptures on how authority should be handled.

You make your statement based on what you have seen. 

I am pointing out what I have seen and making my statements based on that.

I have seen parents so concerned about not compelling or forcing that they say nothing at all and take steps to minimize and reduce the very clear council and direction the Lords Leaders have given on this matter.  Like the use of force or compulsion such reduction and minimization is also not in harmony with the scriptures on how such authority should be used

 

Okay.There is a huge difference between my saying "Don't force your kids to go on a mission" and "don't have any standards at all." 

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Okay.There is a huge difference between my saying "Don't force your kids to go on a mission" and "don't have any standards at all." 

Indeed there is...  And just like something inspired you to share your views on what a parent should do...  Your post inspired me to share mine.

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

27 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed there is...  And just like something inspired you to share your views on what a parent should do...  Your post inspired me to share mine.

 

 

And you should. I never said don't share them Estradling. 

My entire point is that you need to be careful. Parenting is a steady balance of using a soft touch and a firm one. You can say "But you don't have kids!" and you'd be right. But you'd be wrong in saying "That means your opinion is useless!" (which I don't think you are saying) because I was a kid once, and I saw many of my friends experiences with religion.
 

I'm also seeing my friends with kids make mistakes. That's eye opening as well, for sure. 

Edited June 29, 2016 by MormonGator

[yjacket]

57 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You can say "But you don't have kids!" and you'd be right. But you'd be wrong in saying "That means your opinion is useless!" (which I don't think you are saying) because I was a kid once, and I saw many of my friends experiences with religion.

No, your opinion is valid; it's just that there is a lot that ones learns simply by experience as a parent that quite frankly can't be gained any other way-not even watching other friends with kids.

I find very interesting the rates of retention.  Why do Hindus, Muslims, and Jews have higher rates of retention?  Is it because they have the "truth", no not at all. It is very simple, the family structure in those religions is highly autocratic with the Father at the head.  Most Hindus & Muslims are immigrants to the US (not a high percentage of people convert, nor have Hindus & Muslims been long accepted as immigrates into the US. Consequently, their culture and family structure is more akin to the US family structure in the 1950s, than the US modern family structure.

And here is the key.  Those cultures understand the proper role of parenting-to promulgate the species and to promulgate the culture. Therefore, they completely understand that their role as parents is nothing less than the indoctrination of their children into their lifestyle. Yes indoctrination. It is 13 years of indoctrinating a child into strict obedience and discipline into the parents culture followed by ~4 years of mentoring in that culture.

That indoctrination begins very early with the absolute understanding that as a father/mother, I am the Superior Being, in my child's life. I am to be obeyed simply because. A child with a firm understanding of obedience to parents will eventually transfer that understanding of humility and obedience from parents to humility and obedience to God.

Children aren't lost in the teenage years, they are lost in the pre-teen years when a firm base of obedience, discipline, manners, respect for authority etc. is established.

So yes, if a parent is "forcing" a 17 year old to prepare for a mission, they already lost the war at least 4 years prior. Forcing a child to go to church, read scriptures, say prayers, etc. when they are small will prepare them when they are 17.  If you spare the rod (i.e. the Word of God, the Iron Rod), you will spoil the child.

Edited June 29, 2016 by yjacket

[The Folk Prophet]

From my observation it is blatantly obvious that the strictest, most disciplined families generally turn out the most stalwart, faithful kids. It is, actually, quite rare for stalwart families to end up driving all their kids into rebellion to leave the gospel. Very, very rare. What seems more common is the parents who do not, actually, keep a steady level of discipline and control across the board, but then try and crack down hard on one or two items (particularly later in the kids teenage years) that leads to the problems.

Of course that isn't universal. Sometimes there will be a personality type that's going to rebel against any type of discipline. My observation there is that those individuals are as likely to give the finger to strong discipline as to weak, and in such a case, yes, the stronger discipline may lead to broken relationships and push them even further away. That has to be handled on a case by case basis with input from the Spirit. But, generally speaking, I consider the whole -- don't push or strongly discipline your kids or you'll drive them away -- ideology insidiously harmful and wrong-headed.

[yjacket]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

From my observation it is blatantly obvious that the strictest, most disciplined families generally turn out the most stalwart, faithful kids.

TFP, +1000, Awesome post!

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, yjacket said:

TFP, +1000, Awesome post!

Ditto to yours.

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

it's the same line of thinking of the "Romeo and Juliet" situation. When your daughter brings home a guy you despise, the worst thing you can do is say "I forbid you to go out with him! He's horrible!"  

There are other ways of dealing with the Romeo & Juliet rather than an "I forbid you".  (I guarantee a Juliet will end up disobeying some set of rules to be with her Romeo). Like hmm, who's car is it that you are driving to the Prom? What was that . .. oh that's right it's my car, that I'm letting you use. That's just too bad sweetie, you were out past curfew the last date you were one, you knew the rules no being out past curfew. Car is gone-tough.  Or hmm, who's phone is that you are using, ah that's right my phone, to call Romeo. 

A so-determined parent can make life very, very miserable for said Juliet, without ever needing to forbid Juliet from dating Romeo.

But yes ultimately, children have to learn how to make their own choices and their own mistakes in life and then lie in the bed of thorns they made with their mistakes.  It's a parents job to guide them so the mistakes they make aren't a life-alternating, now my life is filled with suck (i.e. child out of wedlock,drugs, etc.).

Edited June 29, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Ditto to yours.

The challenge is always living up to what you know you have to do.  Saying it and knowing it is one thing; being in the trenches of parenting and doing it is quite another . . .