The emphasis on the possibility of losing family members in the next life, IMO, causes this anxiety, which results in over-intrusiveness.
I agree absolutely with this. I have always thought that the Mormon ladder to heaven concept (depicted on an Ensign
cover I saw) places a huge and unnecessary burden on every member. Not only do you have to work for your own place in heaven, you have to haul everyone else along with you too. This must surely be one of the main reasons why members react as they do when someone in their family leaves the church. As has been said countless times before (some of the time by me) in other churches you can leave to attend another denomination and not be considered "lost" (depending on the doctrines of your previous church, obviously). You can even discontinue church attendance and not be "lost", again, depending on individual beliefs. The huge difference is that in Mormonism, so much emphasis is placed on the church
whereas in non-LDS Christianity the emphasis is on God. If you start attending a different congregation of the same denomination (strict boundaries are not mandated about which congregation you must be part of) or even switch denominations fellow church-goers still see you as part of "the family of God" because you still believe in God
, you've just changed churches
. The emphasis is altogether different and doesn't give rise to that whole scenario of desperate family members trying to persuade, manipulate or enforce church attendance. Each person is seen as an individual, responsible for themselves, unlike in Mormonism where the family structure can be ruptured, according to some at least, if one member isn't on the ladder.
In response to Bob's question, which of course still missed the mark as an apt comparison in ways already pointed out - I would absolutely think it was inappropriate for someone to "tattle" on my daughter, unless issues of personal safety were involved. Appparently this is such a fundamental difference in worldviews that some LDS simply cannot fathom that some parents do not want to be informed if and when their adult children may complain about their adult parents.
Good insight re the "fundamental difference in worldviews". I think this aptly explains how there is no meeting of the minds at all
on this matter, even after a year's worth of discussion.
I think it's also accurate to say it's a boundary issue, although Mormons may see that as offensive, although it isn't meant to be. Again, it's a case of adults being individuals - or not - according to your religious beliefs or worldview in general.
Re the difference in worldviews and how that can hamper understanding and communication, when I first started reading posts at RfM, many of which were/are written by people who call themselves atheists, I literally could not comprehend what it would be like to have no belief in God. I didn't know how to have a discussion with an atheist, didn't know where to start or how to discuss a topic, and I kept tripping over that wide divide, of absolute and certain belief in the existence of God and the equally absolute conviction that there is no god. I think a lot of assumptions are made, especially when people are feeling defensive (even subconsciously) and communication suffers, understanding is not gained and unnecessary conflict ensues.
I am surmising that perhaps the lack of "boundaries", as seen by non-LDS, is one reason that in this case with GK and s-dad and the infamous email those who can't see anything wrong with involving the s-dad tend to be LDS while those who are most opposed to sending the email are not LDS. That is a generalization as obviously some LDS here have disagreed with the send. But rcrocket and DCP, the sender, are the two who most energetically defend DCP's decision to send it. They are as unlike non-LDS as anyone I can think of and perhaps, speaking of worldviews, they are so immersed in Mormonism that they truly cannot even fathom a different viewpoint, much as I described myself as a very active Christian, immersed in that world, not even being able to comprehend what it would be like to not
believe in God.
What is still curious to me, though, is how from my reading of the comments of both rcrocket and DCP they both seem to have the impression that GK was trashing his dad/family in his original post when to the average reader it was all about what he was thinking about ph blessings and not at all about his family. Certainly there was no identifying information in the post itself. The vast body of readers would never have known who it was posting or who he was talking about. Because two LDS posters here did recognize him, perhaps they overreacted somewhat on the damage control side in assuming that many people would also recognize the family, which was not the case. Even so, as GK is well into his 20s (so I understand) why is it necessary for someone to inform his father about what he does or says? Surely that should be between them (or not, according to their own choice). This is where the concept of "boundaries" comes in - that there is a time to let people make their own choices and stay out of it.
Safety was cited by beastie as a reason to perhaps inform parents about an adult child's actions. I can see, just, that many LDS would perhaps consider this very much a case of "safety" in that GK jumped off the ladder, to them an extreme action that disrupts the family chain, or something like that.
I think we are unlikely to ever agree on whether the email should have been sent or not. I really like the worldview explanation for that and I think that nails it. And it's tough for one side to see the other side's view on that, as in many other situations as well.
"Contrast what GoodK has done to me. Lots of fun pointed out about my physical appearance (thinking erroneously that I am short). Lots of vuglar references to my daughter. Name-calling and such."
I have noticed the references to your daughter. Some of them have made me cringe. Some sound kind of creepy and certainly inappropriate. But that's just my view from afar, not knowing any details about the parties involved or their relationships. I would wish that comments here are restricted only to ourselves and other participants and not to people's family members who don't post and certainly not to their children.
I somewhat understand some people's rabid aversion to all things Mormon but I regret the often-OTT spillover onto specific individuals who surely are not to blame for everything Mormon that bugs someone. IOW, I prefer to heap the fire upon the actual source of my issues and not any handy lightning rod I happen to bump into.