Elder Oaks Talk

[Jeff Lebowski]

I thought about this more last night. Although its application is vague, I suspect Elder Oaks's counsel was referring in part to accepting children's homosexual partnerships. I can't prove it, and his language was deliberately generalized (it is, after all "General Conference") but I listened to the talk a couple of times and came away with this impression both times.

Could be. Either way, my question still stands.

[wuapinmon]

Could be. Either way, my question still stands.

Perhaps we'll see an Ensign article in the next 6 months by Elder Oaks that elaborates on what he meant.

[Shaka]

I missed that nuance. I definitely look forward to going back reading this one.

I guess what I am wondering is what exactly does it mean to not be accepting in this case? Presumably we are talking about a choice made by an adult child, right? What would one do?

Avoid or be disrespectful to the child's partner? No
Not allow them to come to family functions? No
No Christmas presents? Uh-uh.
Cut them out of the will? Ha.
Call their children "the bastard grandkids"? Hell no.

Specifically, I am struggling to think of what would be done differently with a child in this case that would not be considered un-Christlike. Maybe some gentle and loving encouragement to tie the knot. That's about all that I can come up with at the moment.

My family had occasional activities where spouses were invited but girlfriends or boyfriends were not. On the activities where GF's or BF's were invited you were expected to stay in different rooms and set and example for the younger kids. Had one of us been doing the living in sin thing the parents would have treated that couple as boyfriend and girlfriend and not as a married couple which means the partner wouldn't have been invited to everything and had to conform to my parent's definition of appropriate when they were.

[Surfah]

It's funny, as soon as Elder Oaks started leading off with his examples at the beginning of his talk all I could think about is CUF and the various reactions.

[UtahDan]

I thought about this more last night. Although its application is vague, I suspect Elder Oaks's counsel was referring in part to accepting children's homosexual partnerships. I can't prove it, and his language was deliberately generalized (it is, after all "General Conference") but I listened to the talk a couple of times and came away with this impression both times.

This could be. Also, consider the audience. Is this directed at people who are being completely accepting and counseling them to not be so liberal or is it directed at people who are disowning their kids? I suspect it is the latter primarily. When I view it that way, it is actually very progressive.

I, like others, can't think of a scenario where I would be unwelcoming of a child because of their romantic relationships. I could very easily see, however, telling an adult child that they will not be permitted to share a bedroom in my home with their non-spouse because of the message it would send to the kids still living there. The significant other would be welcome, but in a separate room. Now if there were no kids at home, I probably would not draw that line. The interesting question would be whether I would allow my legally married, gay oldest child to stay in the same room with his/her spouse while there were kids still living at home. I lean towards yes, but that is less clear somehow.

[Surfah]

The interesting question would be whether I would allow my legally married, gay oldest child to stay in the same room with his/her spouse while there were kids still living at home. I lean towards yes, but that is less clear somehow.

All I know is I'd probably be knocking and announcing my entrance at every turn like the dad in Modern Family when he visits his gay son.

[LA Ute]

I guess what I am wondering is what exactly does it mean to not be accepting in this case? Presumably we are talking about a choice made by an adult child, right? What would one do?

Avoid or be disrespectful to the child's partner? No
Not allow them to come to family functions? No
No Christmas presents? Uh-uh.
Cut them out of the will? Ha.
Call their children "the bastard grandkids"? Hell no.

Specifically, I am struggling to think of what would be done differently with a child in this case that would not be considered un-Christlike. Maybe some gentle and loving encouragement to tie the knot. That's about all that I can come up with at the moment.

Offhand, it seems to me that parents would need to be clear where they stand and what they think is the right thing for the "wayward" child to do. The subject doesn't have to come up all the time or be harped on, maybe the discussion needs to take place only once. There probably need to be some understandings about basic ground rules (you don't smoke in our house, we won't preach at you when we visit). I think what he was saying was that you need to make all those decisions with guidance from the HG, and that both extremes (never even acknowledging the "elephant in the room," on the one hand, and totally cutting off contact, on the other) are the wrong answer. I thought it was very sound guidance. Not easy to follow, but solid.

[ERCougar]

Offhand, it seems to me that parents would need to be clear where they stand and what they think is the right thing for the "wayward" child to do. The subject doesn't have to come up all the time or be harped on, maybe the discussion needs to take place only once. There probably need to be some understandings about basic ground rules (you don't smoke in our house, we won't preach at you when we visit). I think what he was saying was that you need to make all those decisions with guidance from the HG, and that both extremes (never even acknowledging the "elephant in the room," on the one hand, and totally cutting off contact, on the other) are the wrong answer. I thought it was very sound guidance. Not easy to follow, but solid.

You're probably right, but do you really think this topic wouldn't have been hit on at some point? I definitely think the tendency is not towards overacceptance.

[UtahDan]

I thought it was very sound guidance. Not easy to follow, but solid.

I like the fact that it is very "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"-ish. It doves tails nicely with the other quote from him someone put up a while ago where he basically said "I articulate general policies, please don't write me to ask whether you are an exception; you could be; but only you can decide that."

[LA Ute]

You're probably right, but do you really think this topic wouldn't have been hit on at some point? I definitely think the tendency is not towards overacceptance.

All I have is anecdotal experience, and I've seen both extremes. My sense is that you are right; the "hard-core rejection" response seems more common.

I have a wayward child myself, so I have a feel for how parents struggle with finding the right response. Several speakers already have mentioned that problem, and my ears have perked up every time. It's a big deal for people with that challenge - and there are lots and lots of us.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's funny, as soon as Elder Oaks started leading off with his examples at the beginning of his talk all I could think about is CUF and the various reactions.

We aim to please.

I liked the talk. I just thought it was an interesting comment it got me to thinking.

[wuapinmon]

All I know is I'd probably be knocking and announcing my entrance at every turn like the dad in Modern Family when he visits his gay son.

But you wouldn't be as vigilant if it were your hetero son? Perv.