Honoring parents, leave and cleave, and single folk


Backroads
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/2/2021 at 9:18 AM, Suzie said:

Does he need to take an interest in the well-being of his  torturers and provide the necessities of life if they are in need?

Perhaps in circumstances such as this, we can take a legalistic approach and say that such people, by the way they have failed to fulfill their parental responsibilities, should not actually be considered as parents, and therefore do not come under the commandment to be honoured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not claiming to have the only or best answers.  But one thing I do know, is I've seen forgiveness, genuine, wholehearted forgiveness, work miracles on the forgiver.  Cleansed souls, lightened burdens, joy and peace - I'm big on forgiveness.

(And again, forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean forgetting, it does not mean you have to stay in a relationship, it does not mean you have to be a victim or a doormat or endure bad behavior.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

...forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean forgetting, it does not mean you have to stay in a relationship...

I wonder about this.

D&C 58:42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

When the Lord forgives us, is it with the understanding that we never speak to him again? Or is the very idea of forgiveness a furtherance of our relationship with the Lord?

The oft-cited ideas that you can forgive someone without giving up your feelings of being wronged by the person and that you can forgive someone with the condition that you never ever ever ever have to see that awful creature again do not sound much like divine forgiveness. I believe forgiveness implies exactly the opposite.

Now, maybe that's a later stage of forgiveness that is beyond easy reach for some people, and so we tell them to do what they can and take baby steps in the direction of forgiveness. If so, maybe there is some wisdom in that approach. But the statement above seems not to match the ideal of divine love and divine forgiveness, which are exactly what we are commanded to model in ourselves.

Too often, I fear we look to the easy answer that soothes the hurt and seems on the surface to make sense, without investigating deeper and being willing to face tough-seeming realities about the true nature of our existence. Maybe I'm bad at forgiving. If so, I need to improve on that. Telling myself that I don't ever actually have to give up my dislike of the person I'm supposed to be forgiving, that I can insist on never interacting with or seeing or breathing the same air as the hated person, the I can permanently sever all ties to him, and certainly that I can clutch to my breast the memory and feeling of betrayal by his actions and of my own victimhood at his hand—well, I just don't think that's going to help me become the person I'm supposed to be.

I'm fine with admitting that forgiveness seems too hard, or that I'm willing to forgo vengeance but not my grudge, or that I'm not willing to talk with So-and-so ever again for any reason because he's an awful person who wronged me. These attitudes may be regrettable and may keep me back, but expressing them is telling how I honestly feel and view things. That expression of feeling is not bad, even if the feelings being expressed are. But when I start insisting that God modify his definition of forgiveness to allow me my carnal feelings or claiming that what God really meant is not, you know, what the scriptures teach about it, then at that point I'm way off the reservation. To my ear, such rationalizations sound no different from those who claim that there is no sin in drinking an occasional beer, or that fornication isn't actually bad as long as the participants, you know, love each other. Yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor. There is no harm in this.

I do not minimize the difficulty of forgiveness for the victim of a serious hurt. I make no judgment on such an individual. But redefining "forgiveness" to make it more palatable to us and less offensive to our sensibilities is definitely the wrong way to go. There is nothing fair about forgiveness. The whole concept of forgiveness is that you quit seeking redress for your grievances, however legitimate. As the saying goes, forgiveness means giving up all hope of a better past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:
On 6/4/2021 at 12:37 PM, Traveler said:

I personally believe that it is "BEST" for children to be raised by intelligent, loving, compassionate and caring biological parents.  

Fixed that for you. 

I agree with Traveler's statement without emendation. All things being equal, children should be reared by their biological parents. I doubt anyone here disputes this most obvious truth. Adoption exists exactly because all things are not equal. Adoption is a solution to a problem. If we could magically make the problem go away, the solution would be irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Perfectly said. Biology is irrelevant. 

Which is kind of like saying that marriage is irrelevant because divorce exists.  Both the need for adoption and the need for divorce only exist because we live in a fallen world.

Please note that I talked about the 'need for.'  In the case of Adoption those that come in an pick up the pieces and let a child that otherwise would not have had a chance at a normal upbringing, have that chance, are doing a wonderful and important thing.  The fact that this can happen and can work, does not negate the position/idea that it should not have been needful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Which is kind of like saying that marriage is irrelevant because divorce exists.  Both the need for adoption and the need for divorce only exist because we live in a fallen world.

Please note that I talked about the 'need for.'  In the case of Adoption those that come in an pick up the pieces and let a child that otherwise would not have had a chance at a normal upbringing, have that chance, are doing a wonderful and important thing.  The fact that this can happen and can work, does not negate the position/idea that it should not have been needful.

Yup, my experience and perspective is different than yours is, that’s for sure. 
 

 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Yup, my experience and perspective is different than yours is, that’s for sure. 
 

 

I am not talking about experience... (I can if you really want to) I am talking about fundamental principles.  Show me where I am wrong and I will be more then willing to correct.  But just because a problem can (and should) be fixed.. doesn't mean the problem never existed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

I am not talking about experience... (I can if you really want to) I am talking about fundamental principles.  Show me where I am wrong and I will be more then willing to correct.  But just because a problem can (and should) be fixed.. doesn't mean the problem never existed. 

As long as you don’t treat non biological children differently than biological, our differences are irrelevant. And no, I’m not saying you would treat them any different. 
 

But I’m not sure what the point is here. Are we trying to show step and adopted kids they are somehow lesser than biological? I don’t think so. But I still don’t see why blood matters. It doesn’t. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

As long as you don’t treat non biological children differently than biological, our differences are irrelevant. And no, I’m not saying you would treat them any different. 

While a correct statement it fundamentally misses the point.

I think the Lord's parable of the Talents can be applied to the subject of this thread.  With Parents as the Servants and kids as the Talents.

The Lord gives each of his servants a differing amount of talents.

When he returned, for each of his servants that caused their talents to increase... he was well pleased  (Clearly this is the state everyone should be in and we should strive for)

But there were servants that 'buried' their talents and they did not grow or increase.  These servants he rebuked and took away their talents and gave them to another (Clearly we do not want this to happen)

That last bit sounds like an adoption to me (Give the application we are using)  The Lord did not rebuke the Talent as being inferior... Nor did he excuse the Servant he gave the talent to treat it any less then that servant did his other talents.  If this idea holds then it is possible that those with very bad parents might find themselves in a completely different family after the Lord makes his judgement.

Having said that we are not the Lord, and our judgements can be very questionable at best.  (Here comes the is the point your missing) By design God put the Biological Family together for a 'wise purpose in him' most assuredly and we need to be very careful and humble about breaking those bonds.  With this understanding the biological family has to be the default and preferred arrangement until we know that an individual case is, for lack of a better term 'Toxic.'  Only when we are as sure as we can be does the point you make (and I quoted) become relevant and necessary 

 

 

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

While a correct statement it fundamentally misses the point.

I think the Lord's parable of the Talents can be applied to the subject of this thread.  With Parents as the Servants and kids as the Talents.

The Lord gives each of his servants a differing amount of talents.

When he returned, for each of his servants that caused their talents to increase... he was well pleased  (Clearly this is the state everyone should be in and we should strive for)

But there were servants that 'buried' their talents and they did not grow or increase.  These servants he rebuked and took away their talents and gave them to another (Clearly we do not want this to happen)

That last bit sounds like an adoption to me (Give the application we are using)  The Lord did not rebuke the Talent as being inferior... Nor did he excuse the Servant he gave the talent to treat it any less then that servant did his other talents.  If this idea holds then it is possible that those with very bad parents might find themselves in a completely different family after the Lord makes his judgement.

Having said that we are not the Lord, and our judgements can be very questionable at best.  (Here comes the is the point your missing) By design God put the Biological Family together for a 'wise purpose in him' most assuredly and we need to be very careful and humble about breaking those bonds.  With this understanding the biological family has to be the default and preferred arrangement until we know that an individual case is, for lack of a better term 'Toxic.'  Only when we are as sure as we can be does the point you make (and I quoted) become relevant and necessary 

 

 

Oh, I get your point just fine, thanks. I don’t think you understand mine. What are you trying to do here? Prove the importance of a biological relations? Okay, I get you think it’s “ideal”. I think you are incorrect and shouldn’t make sweeping statements like that. No need to go further around on my side. 
 

Since we won’t agree on this, and that’s fine, I made sure we would agree on the  more important subject-how you treat non biological children. That’s settled, and thank goodness. The other stuff is just noise. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Oh, I get your point just fine, thanks. I don’t think you understand mine. What are you trying to do here? Prove the importance of a biological relations? Okay, I get you think it’s “ideal”. I think you are incorrect. No need to go further around on my side. 

I have repeatably acknowledged and restated my understanding and agreement with your point and I will do it yet again.  "A persons Adopted kids, are just as important, just as valuable and just as good as a persons Biological kids." If this is not the correct understanding of your position and point please tell me.

When it comes to the point I and others have been making... I have never seen you do more then say that you "get it" and then turn around an amply demonstrate that you do not because you straw man it in into absurdity, or simply say you disagree. You are free to disagree, but since you clearly show you do not understand it, all your disagreement statements show is that you are not willing to consider it.  And in that case there is no point in trying to have a discussion with you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby and Suzi get married and decide to have a child. Suzi is pregnant and four months into the pregnancy, Bobby is killed in a traffic accident. Suzi continues on with her pregnancy and five months later dies during childbirth. The newborn infant goes up for adoption and is in a new home with Dave and Jenny who raise that child, who never knows he is adopted. Unfortunately his life is not ideal because he is not with his biological parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Bobby and Suzi get married and decide to have a child. Suzi is pregnant and four months into the pregnancy, Bobby is killed in a traffic accident. Suzi continues on with her pregnancy and five months later dies during childbirth. The newborn infant goes up for adoption and is in a new home with Dave and Jenny who raise that child, who never knows he is adopted. Unfortunately his life is not ideal because he is not with his biological parents.

Thank you for the perfect example of a straw man I was taking about.  It is so laughing distorted, that is it clear that you do not get the point... or you do not want to .

So in the words of @LDSGator

42 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 
Have a blessed Sunday, and I mean that in all seriousness. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@estradling75 (et al) I guess I missed the part in The Family A Proclamation To The World where it differentiated between bio and adoptive parents as one being ideal and the other not quite. 

There was no straw man, you just do not get it and I feel sorry for you in that regard.

Yes as @LDSGator said, Have a blessed Sunday, and I mean that in all seriousness. 

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

@estradling75 (et al) I guess I missed the part in The Family A Proclamation To The World where it differentiated between bio and adoptive parents as one being ideal and the other not quite. 

There was no straw man, you just do not get it and I feel sorry for you in that regard.

Yes as @LDSGator said, Have a blessed Sunday, and I mean that in all seriousness. 

Thank you for acknowledging that you do not get it... I can work that and with someone that that answers question instead of evading.

Thank you for referencing the Family Proclamation... which shows the importance of family, and the need to protect it.

So it starts out really simple... which comes first in time... a biological family or a adopted family? (That is a self evident question)

Thus per the Family Proclamation the biological is the first family that we need to protect. (Because it is the first one that exists)  But sometimes we can't protect it for very good reasons...  Then we go to adoption, and once adopted that is the Family that we focus on protecting.  This does not make one family better or more worthy in any way shape or form.  But it is a clear case of Preventing Damage being better then Healing Damage.  (Not that there is anything wrong with getting healed if you need it but not needing it means less suffering).

Its about keeping families together if it is possible to do so, at every point.  If we truly value families then we have to acknowledge that biologic one comes first in time, therefore it should be the very first one we try to fix (again if possible).  How this gets twisted into the adopted children/families being lesser is so mind blowing off the rails its like people are hearing what they want rather then what is being said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Vort said:
14 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

...forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean forgetting, it does not mean you have to stay in a relationship...

The oft-cited ideas that you can forgive someone without giving up your feelings of being wronged by the person and that you can forgive someone with the condition that you never ever ever ever have to see that awful creature again do not sound much like divine forgiveness. I believe forgiveness implies exactly the opposite.

 

Very, very valid response there @Vort.    I've been having a righteously bulletproof response to this for over a decade now, but read the whole thing for a surprise twist at the end!  Briefly put: "Just about any repentant and forgiving pair can benefit from forgetting, but not all.  At least, maybe not right now."

My wife escaped from a family full of multigenerational child sexual abuse.  She started knowing what happened to her, and which brothers it came from.  Over the years, additional bits of info became available.  She wasn't the only victim.  The brothers themselves were victims.   One brother didn't 'keep it in the immediate family', but molested two different siblings' children.  Then we hear about which aunts and uncles were molested, and did molesting.  Then apparently a story about a grandparent molesting an aunt.  The toxic cancer of incest and sexual abuse spanning four generations.  The fifth hasn't been born yet.

Over the years, it became painfully apparent that my wife's mother was part of the problem.  Not just incapable of saying stuff like "don't molest your sister" out loud, but also incapable of seeing it happen, even when it happened right under her nose.  Her go-to behavior was to "react with disbelief and shock", either do the wrong thing or not-do the right thing, then tearfully apologize later, but only if she got caught and called on it.  Her list of failures was impressive: Failure to see it coming.  Failure to address it when it came.  Failure to stop it from happening again.  Failure to stop it as it was happening in the next room.  Failure to stop it from happening in the same room, less than 10 feet away from her, under a blanket.  Failure to stop it from happening to another victim.  And another.  Failure to cooperate with the authorities.  And the last one my wife allowed to harm her: failure to tell the truth to a lawyer about her daughter/my wife.   My wife's mother had nothing wrong with her testimony, her activity in the church, her intelligence, her moral compass, her understanding of how troubled her family was - all of that was fine.  But for whatever reason, whenever it came time to actually do something, she became paralyzed into inaction, or denial, or even outright lying to people.    "If I [do the right thing], it will hurt my son's chances of going on a mission."  "If [someone else does something], everyone will know what my son did, and he'll lose all his good friends and leave the church."  We heard a dozen variations on that theme over the years.  Along with flat out denial of established facts, and accusations that the people presenting the facts were crazy, evil, or had it out for her family.

So there's my wife, with our new kid.  And a mother that kept proving, time and time again, across years, that she would consistently act in ways that nurtured and encouraged abuse, protected abusers, and silenced or cast out 'boat rockers'.  We tried from 2004 through 2009.  Things culminated with an ex-spouse going to the cops, and one brother went to prison for 5-life.  So my wife and I closed our relationships with my children's grandparents/aunts/uncles, and all the friends, neighbors, and peer group.  One choice was clear: The relatives were a clear, direct threat to our children.  One choice was harder, but still clear:  My wife matters, and if her parents are going to keep missing opportunities to not hurt her further, then she has the duty to protect herself from her parents.  We have family we visit in Utah - it's the ex spouse of my wife's brother, and her child from another marriage.

In this climate, from a position of distance and control, my wife managed to forgive her mother, and all the rest of them.  I asked her what she wanted to see happen to the people in Utah.  She looked at me in genuine pain, born out of concern for the people she loved, and cried out "I just want them to be healthy."   Holy crap but we went through a lot of boxes of kleenex back then.  Still do, on occasion.

I would tell this story over the years, and ask the people who were advancing Vort's notions on forgetting, if they still figured we were doing something wrong.  (I don't need to ask you, Vort - you are a good person, and I already know your answer.  It is good, worthy, and correct.)  And we raised our kids without grandparents in their lives.  And when they got older, we told them why.

So here's the plot twist - fast forward 15+ years, and my daughters are coming of age.  As they turn 18 and come into their own strength and moral foundations, my wife is melting the ice a tad with her people in Utah.  A facebook friending here.  A post gets liked there.  A short conversation about neutral topics in instant messenger?  I never thought I'd see the day, or want to.  I asked my wife about it, she said, without a hint of sadness, that her mother is the same.  As long as nobody talks about the bad things, everything's fine.  Like nothing has even happened, actually.  

My wife's mother can't hurt my wife any more.  And our kids are closing in on adulthood, having had full childhoods untouched by this crap, other than the sad lack of extended family.  And the mother's days of being relevant, and having access to choices to fail at, are mostly in the past now.  There's always a funeral or wedding or something happening, I'm thinking we may actually see my wife and daughters in the same room with those people, and everyone getting along.  The elephant in the room is elderly, and sleeping in a corner.  As long as he isn't blocking any exits, I think things will be ok.

And yes, all of us, everyone in that room, looks forward to the day when we meet each other on the other side of the veil, and any dumbness or illness or lifelong inability to do good, hall as been removed.  And we all stand spotless, having been washed clean of our sins by our Savior and His atoning sacrifice on our behalf.  And mother and daughter and granddaughter can all embrace in trust and love.

We're told that if we just can't stand to see someone in heaven, we won't need to ever worry about that meeting, because we won't be there.  I believe that to be the case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have readily acknowledged the chronological sequence from biological to adoptive.  What I don't get is this emphasis on why biological family denotes any particular quality that makes them superior to an adoptive family.  So I had to think a while about what benefit I could possibly have had from my bio family vs my adoptive one.

The only thing I could figure is medical history.  That then opens the door to the whole nature vs nurture argument.  And that debate simply hasn't been settled in hundreds (thousands?) of years.  I've provided my explanation and position on that argument.  But it apparently fell on deaf ears.  Apropos of this particular side thread, it seems to even out.  So while I can possibly accept differences, I don't see either as "superior" in the rearing and nurturing of a child.

The reason I have no problem with living a "Plan B" life is that I realize that life is full of Plan B.  How many times do we ever make a plan and it turns out exactly as we planned?  Sure, we may get to a goal.  But we all had to make adjustments as we went.  There is nothing wrong with anything being called "Plan B."  That usually acknowledges that Plan A did not work. And it also acknowledges that, perhaps, for the circumstances present, it was the wrong plan to begin with.  So, a lot of the time, by definition, Plan B was better.

Yes, yes, circumstances, circumstances...   We all acknowledge better or worse "for the circumstances."  I admit that.  But I'm pointing out that Plan A almost never works out in life.  All of our lives are built on Plan B, Plan C...  And that is the path that made us who we are.

Big question now is "Why do some believe that biological family is overall superior to adoptive?"

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgiving and forgetting:

I truly do exemplify the Savior's own words of a man who has the memory of an elephant.  Memories simply do not leave my mind very easily -- especially those that left an emotional impression on me for whatever reason.  But the fact is that I do not get to "choose" what I remember and what I forget -- to an extent.  Can I be held responsible for something that isn't a choice?

I have a quirk that (if it were my choice) I really wish I could bet rid of.  It deals with memories that are linked to strong emotional impressions.  These could be both good and bad.  Whenever I experience a memory trigger, I relive that event in my mind.  If it is a bad one, I usually have a "shout out".  These often include vulgarities -- which is why I believe I have Tourette's or something similar to PTSD.  This tends to happen several times a day with differing memories.  I can't really control these.  A trigger happens, and my mind goes over it again.  No choice. But it happens.  It is hard to forget a memory that keeps presenting itself several times a week; for my brain, impossible.

What I can do is make an effort to forget the feelings of resentment and judgment.  I will do the right thing with my family I'm raising.  I will do the right thing with those I come into contact with.  I do not use my past as a crutch of excuses to not perform to the best of my abilities.  Little by little, my memories will fade (a lot of them are emotionally linked, after all).  But many will never fade simply because they have replayed in my mind with each memory trigger for all my life.  Not my choice.  Just how my brain works.  I hope I can change my underlying nature enough that those triggers stop being triggers.  I really hope I can forget.  But it I really don't believe it is mine to control.

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

In this climate, from a position of distance and control, my wife managed to forgive her mother, and all the rest of them.  I asked her what she wanted to see happen to the people in Utah.  She looked at me in genuine pain, born out of concern for the people she loved, and cried out "I just want them to be healthy."
...
So here's the plot twist - fast forward 15+ years, and my daughters are coming of age.  As they turn 18 and come into their own strength and moral foundations, my wife is melting the ice a tad with her people in Utah.  A facebook friending here.  A post gets liked there.  A short conversation about neutral topics in instant messenger?  I never thought I'd see the day, or want to.  I asked my wife about it, she said, without a hint of sadness, that her mother is the same.  As long as nobody talks about the bad things, everything's fine.  Like nothing has even happened, actually.  

My wife's mother can't hurt my wife any more.  And our kids are closing in on adulthood, having had full childhoods untouched by this crap, other than the sad lack of extended family.
...
We're told that if we just can't stand to see someone in heaven, we won't need to ever worry about that meeting, because we won't be there.  I believe that to be the case.

I've taken a similar path for my family.  Our only contact with my family is with my non-biological sister.  As the kids get older, I tell them why we have no contact with my side of the family.  They don't know how to take it.  So far, most of them simply forget I ever told them.  While all my children do express some complaint and curiosity, they don't seem to be affected by it.

What I do look forward to is the day where I can actually hope for repentance.  I hope for repentance of others.  But I acknowledge that I'm not perfect either.  While I take some solace  in the fact that I haven't done what others have, I still know that we are all sinners and we all need the grace of Jesus Christ. 

So, by D&C 64:10-11, I continue to ask for the grace to forgive others just as much as I seek forgiveness for myself.  And I truly do hope that I can greet my trespassors with open arms in the Celestial Kingdom.  May I be prepared to do so.  May they actually find themselves there as well.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2021 at 12:35 AM, Vort said:

I wonder about this.

D&C 58:42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

 When the Lord forgives us, is it with the understanding that we never speak to him again? Or is the very idea of forgiveness a furtherance of our relationship with the Lord?

The oft-cited ideas that you can forgive someone without giving up your feelings of being wronged by the person and that you can forgive someone with the condition that you never ever ever ever have to see that awful creature again do not sound much like divine forgiveness. I believe forgiveness implies exactly the opposite.

Now, maybe that's a later stage of forgiveness that is beyond easy reach for some people, and so we tell them to do what they can and take baby steps in the direction of forgiveness. If so, maybe there is some wisdom in that approach. But the statement above seems not to match the ideal of divine love and divine forgiveness, which are exactly what we are commanded to model in ourselves.

 

I agree.

Perhaps it's a modification for an imperfect mortal world, as forgive-but-not-forget can be necessary to one's survival, in absence of real change in offending parties and circumstances.

But it seems further along the path to perfection forgetting would become not only more feasible, but possibly more expected.

I can imagine quite a few repentant offenders who would love their sins to be forgotten. Do they yet deserve it in this imperfect mortal world? Can we yet demand others to forget?

Not forgetting may be good enough for now, but doesn't seem appropriate for the eternities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2021 at 2:16 PM, LDSGator said:

Understand. Thanks. 

Thank God (literally. I thank Him every day that I was adopted) that “plan A” didn't work in my case. 
 

And no child, biological or not, should EVER be told they were a “plan B”. Or even an “accident”. That always bothered me too. 

It looks like to me that you are saying all plan "A" children (that live with their biological parents) are a mistake.  I am trying to make sure the horse is before the cart with the concept that every biological parent has a responsibility before G-d.  I know for a fact that it does occur that many unprepared parents place a child in a better circumstance - then repent and become wonderful parents.  It would not be good to remove any child from a loving compassionate home where repentant parents are good examples.  I believe it is possible that putting a child up for adoption can be part of a repentance process.

I have attempted to put forth the idea that when biological parents fail at their greatest responsibility (president McKay said, "There is no success that can compensate for failure in the home." - When failure is sufficient enough - adoption is the better option - I do not understand calling such the BEST option.  I do not believe that I ever inferred that the fault is with the child.  What I am trying to say is that when we say "WHAT IS BEST" that such should be what happens in all cases.  Saying what is best for a particular circumstance is different that what is best.  For example it is best not to sin - but once a sin is committed then because of that circumstance the best option is to repent (which includes confession and forsaking the sin).

 

However, there is one other point that I wonder why no one has suggested.  That is the Atonement of Christ - and through faith in Christ all thing are made anew (perfect, whole, complete and holly).  The mistakes of all parents and dishonoring that all children have committed against that commandment to honor their parents.  But I am curious at this point - what should a child be told that is abused by their parent(s) or other adults?  I do not think we should tell them that it was for the best.  I think we should tell them that it was wrong and that adults should not abuse children - ever.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2021 at 7:02 AM, Backroads said:

I can imagine quite a few repentant offenders who would love their sins to be forgotten. Do they yet deserve it in this imperfect mortal world? Can we yet demand others to forget?

Perspective that I believe is accurate:

It's nice when a repentant person and a forgiving person team up and move forward together.  It's the preferable and the best outcome.  But it's hardly a requirement for the salvation or exaltation of either individual.

Forgiveness' blessings primarily fall on the person doing the forgiving.  From the standpoint of the individual who needs to forgive, it doesn't matter whether the person needing forgiveness repents or not.  Forgiveness heals and strengthens the soul of the wronged, and a lack of it keeps us stuck.  But it doesn't matter if the two ever meet on earth ever again. 

The blessings of repentance primarily fall on the person doing the repenting.  From the standpoint of the individual who needs to repent, it may or may not be a blessing to the person wronged, but it doesn't matter whether that person forgives or not.  Repentance cleanses the soul of the sinner.  It doesn't matter if the two ever meet on earth ever again. 

Prison missionaries and prisoners, addicts, anyone who has ever been through a 12 step program, folks who have gone through a divorce, or gotten out of horrible relationships, tend to understand this.  You can't make someone accept your repentance, all you can do is offer it.  You can't make someone change by forgiving them, all you can do is offer it.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share