Try actually reading his comment and you'll find that he DID discuss it with his family.

I've read this lengthy thread from the beginning, and I don't see anywhere that it says that he actually talked to his family about this. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Even when directly asked a few times, the closest he came to answering was to say how disappointed he is in his wife and kids.

Some have asked if I had talked to my daughters about this. I was disappointed with my wife and my kids too. My whole life I've always put them first. Because I had a really lousy home life, I went to great lengths to do much more. I rearranged my life to be an attentive, available, involved dad. What this experience tells me is that no matter what you say or do for your wife or kids matters.

I just see him unhappy about their choices - since they didn't choose what he wanted.

Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe he said something about it in an earlier message....but I didn't see it. If so, could someone point it out? I can't seem to find it.

As far as your anecdote about knowing kids who did ring ceremonies and separate weddings for non-members...if this is true...then they were in direct violation of LDS Church policy.
This is not true. The LDS Church doesn't want elaborate ring ceremonies, but having a small exchange of rings (no vows or separate wedding though) at the reception or elsewhere is perfectly fine - from what I've seen and read.

This has been interesting reading. Thanks. Hope it is ok to add my two cents worth.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
JLD wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
I understand his feelings. there is a certain amount of "emotional extortion" that goes on in the LDS Church, and my family experiences this every so often. When a church member who finds out that I'm not a member starts to tell my mother how see needs to get me to join the LDS Church so that we can all be together in the next life. I feel this shows a great deal of insensitivity to her feelings as a mother. My mother knows that I respect her choice to be a LDS member but it's a subject I won't get in to a discussion about with her, because I feel that my choice also deserves to be respected. But sometimes my wife will talk to her about it out of kindness. Which usually leads to my wife getting upset because she truly loves my mother and also because my mother wants to talk about somethings, my wife feels really aren't any of her business. Anyway it's probably clear that this has raised it head again recently. I'm not sure there's a solution to this type of problem in families because of the nature of some of the LDS beliefs. Anyway there's my two cents.

I would think that those discussions come up with most, regardless of being LDS or inactive, or any religion for that matter, unless I misunderstood your point.

How many religions teach that they need to convert other family members so they can be together in the next life? How many other religions teach that non member relatives will be consigned to a "lower Kingdom" and that they won't be permitted contact with them?

I would imagine most, don't they? I think many prescribe to a belief that you can enter "heaven" if you follow certain rules and that if you don't you go somewhere else.

But my point was the religious conversations in general among family members. I think there is a certain level of upset in those conversations regardless of what religions are in play.

Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
We know a wonderful woman from Kaysville, who, at 23, was preparing for marriage. She was temple worthy, he was temple worthy, but her father had never been a member of the LDS church.

Her bishop told her that her duty was to go to the temple.

She told him to butt out, that she had praying about the matter, and that the Holy Spirit informed her that her duty was to honor her father who had supported her finacially and emotionally all of her life, that she owed it to him and to God to make sure that the father could be there for her wedding.

She married civilly and was sealed in the temple a year later.

In my opinion, she acted like a true Christian.

I agree...as well as acting like a daughter who truly loves her father, and remembers her duty to honor her parents.

The LDS Church professes the importance of family first and foremost. How geneology is so important in turning the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to their children.

"Families are forever".

But as this man's experience indicates...they do not always practice what they have professed.

To "honor" our parents, or anyone, means to show high regard and respect. I don't think LifeRocks children who married in the temple dishonored him or proved to be less than Christian. On the contrary, I find it very honorable that they DID marry in the temple. How so? They were obviously taught in their home by LifeRocks and their mother about temple marriage. They obviously had a testimony of it, and then chose to marry for eternity.

Yes, the Church does teach that family is first, foremost, AND eternal. Civil marriage is but for a moment, hence, we go to the temple to be sealed. As for genealogy and temple work for the DEAD ("turning the hearts of the children to the fathers. . .", Jaye, that is for our family members and others who have passed on and weren't able to take care of their temple work while living. Remember, we are talking about ordinance work for people still ALIVE.

Now about ring ceremonies. . .Itchy Peaches is right. There is nothing in Church policy that says you can't have a simple ring ceremony at the reception. I just spoke to one of my priesthood leaders with many years of service in bishoprics and stake presidencies, and now serving in a bishopric, and he said there is NOTHING prohibiting this as long as marriage vows aren't exchanged again ('til death do us part), which would make a mockery of the temple ceremony.

Now about ring ceremonies. . .Itchy Peaches is right. There is nothing in Church policy that says you can't have a simple ring ceremony at the reception. I just spoke to one of my priesthood leaders with many years of service in bishoprics and stake presidencies, and now serving in a bishopric, and he said there is NOTHING prohibiting this as long as marriage vows aren't exchanged again ('til death do us part), which would make a mockery of the temple ceremony

Ahh, OK. That makes more sense to me now, thank you.

KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Carpediem wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Carpediem wrote:
I think the whole temple thing is just a tool for control. Eternal marriage, "families can be together forever," posthumously baptising relatives etc., is quite a hook the church has to keep people obedient. I mean who wouldn`t want to be with their family forever? I suppose that there are some, but I would guess the majority of people would want to be together in the eternities. I think this tool is quite effective in practise, but it does, in some situations, drive a wedge between family members..

To each there own, but you are wrong, God has instituted a plan, take it up with him.
Save it for Fast & Testimony Meeting, where you might get a better response.

Don't be a typical anti Mormon bitter bob, there's too many here, this is the breeding ground for bitter anti Mormons, ex Mormons who have left their familys and taken a destructive road, don't do that.
Seeing that you believe this forum is a "pretend" world, why do you get so peeved at what people say? After all, they probably don't say these things in "real" life.

You are far more bitter than anyone else here!

Oh there are definitly bitter bob anti ex mormons in the world that are real, we see pretty plenty here, my only point has ever been that seems to be getting morphed to another point here is that I don't even speak to bitter bob ex mormons in real life, and I don't treat people in real life the way I treat the bitter bob ex Mormon apostates here. But trust me, these people and their bitter BR negativity are real.
You are a joke. A bitter joke. Your negativity is just as real as you perceive anyone else's to be. You can continue saying you are different in "real" life, but that's just a cop out and we all know it. Even you.

Listening to all the talks that come out of General Conference, you are definitely not listening. We are being asked to turn the other cheek, to show compassion, to love those who are different, and the list goes on. I don't give a damn if you claim this isn't real life, and you aren't the same here. YOUR ACTIONS ON THIS FORUM WILL COUNT AGAINST YOU ON JUDGMENT DAY. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT!

BR has been gone for how long now? And you still can't leave him be.

Grow up.

And therein lies the rub. Kent is incapable of growing up.

And he is a contradiction unto himself.

He blathers on and on about bitter ex-Mormons who leave the Church but cannot leave the Church alone.

In his case...he is a bitter Mormon who cannot bring himself to leave ex-Mormons...particularly BishopRick, alone.

Dubbs wrote:
BR and tori are still around, lurking. LOL

So flippin' what? No crime against reading comments on a forum.