.

[ktgrok]

You can talk about them, but people may not agree you are right. 

[annandatje]

When the teachings of a faith drive a wedge between parent and child, for me, the relationship with child takes precedence.   Honestly,  if I were Scarlett's son and learned of various people giving their sympathies to her in regards to my behavior (which sounded like "concern trolling" to me), I would high tail it out of that town and probably that faith first chance I get.  Hopefully son will let bygones be bygones and work on restoring the relationship. 

[moonflower]

9 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

You can talk about them, but people may not agree you are right. 

 

Of course, but if you don't want to debate about whether you're right, but want to talk about another aspect of the situation (the emotional effect of the conflict, in this case), you can't talk about the specifics because people will not be sympathetic to you or even be willing to talk to you about that aspect without castigating you about the thing they disagree with. (as you explicity said in an earlier post)

which, I dunno, whatever

It works if you're normalish (for this board)

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Melissa in Australia said:

I personally felt sorry that her father turned up. In the weeks before the wedding he had run off with another woman. His daughter was still very much angry with him for what he had just done.

 

Oh, wow! Now that you added that part, I totally agree with you!!!

[moonflower]

And it is true that on the whole I really don't belong here, and I guess this thread has me feeling it.  I was happy to talk with people about the different ways we've had trouble with kids growing up and rejecting us, or becoming independent, and reflecting on ways we did the same thing to our parents; it's given me some perspective for (very mild) issues we're going through now in my family.

But if I were explicit about the issues, I would absolutely not be able to talk to much of anyone about it, because the overwhelming response to me would be "you don't have the right to feel that way as your moral beliefs are backward and evil."  

I've gotten great book recs here before, listing the more mild of my criteria (which I still have to JAWM and still get blowback about); if I said what my actual criteria were there would be no recs, no discussion, just condemnation.

 

[Catwoman]

11 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

Of course, but if you don't want to debate about whether you're right, but want to talk about another aspect of the situation (the emotional effect of the conflict, in this case), you can't talk about the specifics because people will not be sympathetic to you or even be willing to talk to you about that aspect without castigating you about the thing they disagree with. (as you explicity said in an earlier post)

which, I dunno, whatever

It works if you're normalish (for this board)

 

The problem is, though, that if you feel the need to be too vague about what happened, maybe this is a topic best saved for PMs with trusted friends or a private social group of likeminded people. If you don’t trust people to genuinely try to help you, it may be best not to start a thread at all. It’s very stressful to worry that people are going to be mean to you!

I think people wanted to sympathize with Scarlett and try to help her figure out how to repair her relationship with her son, but I can’t say that I blame people for having gotten annoyed after a while, because it started to feel like a game of cat and mouse, where Scarlett was adding a tiny detail here and there, just to keep people interested and curious. Don’t get me wrong — I don’t think she did it intentionally, but I can see how people may have thought she was messing with their heads by withholding important information while posting confusing and unrelated analogies. Again, I think she was just upset and worried and she wasn’t sure how much information she was ready to share, not that she was actually trying to dupe anyone.

I can definitely understand why she didn’t initially want to say that she hadn’t attended her son’s wedding, because that would be a big hot button issue for many of us, but on the other hand, it’s hard to answer a general question about whether or not a relationship can be saved without telling people what actually happened. The abortion analogy in the OP had no relation whatsoever to not attending a wedding, so the whole thread started on the wrong foot.

 

[Catwoman]

14 minutes ago, moonflower said:

And it is true that on the whole I really don't belong here, and I guess this thread has me feeling it.  I was happy to talk with people about the different ways we've had trouble with kids growing up and rejecting us, or becoming independent, and reflecting on ways we did the same thing to our parents; it's given me some perspective for (very mild) issues we're going through now in my family.

But if I were explicit about the issues, I would absolutely not be able to talk to much of anyone about it, because the overwhelming response to me would be "you don't have the right to feel that way as your moral beliefs are backward and evil."  

I've gotten great book recs here before, listing the more mild of my criteria (which I still have to JAWM and still get blowback about); if I said what my actual criteria were there would be no recs, no discussion, just condemnation.

 

 

I have to say that, even in the threads where people have been tough on you, you have always been gracious. You aren’t nasty, and I admire that about you. 

[ktgrok]

14 minutes ago, moonflower said:

And it is true that on the whole I really don't belong here, and I guess this thread has me feeling it.  I was happy to talk with people about the different ways we've had trouble with kids growing up and rejecting us, or becoming independent, and reflecting on ways we did the same thing to our parents; it's given me some perspective for (very mild) issues we're going through now in my family.

But if I were explicit about the issues, I would absolutely not be able to talk to much of anyone about it, because the overwhelming response to me would be "you don't have the right to feel that way as your moral beliefs are backward and evil."  

I've gotten great book recs here before, listing the more mild of my criteria (which I still have to JAWM and still get blowback about); if I said what my actual criteria were there would be no recs, no discussion, just condemnation.

 

Well, I mean yeah..people are going to think some things are wrong. If someone asked you about the best way to say, lure a young girl into a situation where they could take advantage of her, you wouldn't be all "well, everyone has different morals" and just give advice, right?

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It would be as if I decided to have my 50th birthday in the - I cannot believe this is a thing - sausage factory restaurant and cafe the next suburb over, and invited vegan dd2, and said 'Hey honey, it really matters to me that you can make it!'

Well firstly, that would be a major jerk move, because I would have failed abjectly to consider my daughter and her values as a person, placing my own need for her attendance before anything else. But secondly, I could hardly be surprised or angry if she said 'I'm really sorry Mum, but you know that I'm vegan, and it's an ethical choice for me, and I can't support the cafe with my presence or money.'

She's not telling me, in that hypothetical, that she is right - she is telling me that there are some things she ethically cannot do, even for me.

I have no idea what the actual scenario is, and Scarlett doesn't owe us the actual scenario - no-one is obliged to post in this thread if they don't like that. But if it was that son and dil held wedding in a place they knew (or did not check) that Scarlett could not go - not because she is 'right' - after all, she's not picketing the venue, making sure no-one else can get in either - but because she found it lay so heavy on her conscience that she could not - well, what have they got to be surprised or angry about ? 

I bet that I share very few of Scarlett's religious boundaries, if any.

It's still not difficult to see the sense in what you assert here. 

And it IS difficult for me to see ds and DIL not responding to 'oh, Mum can't come to that venue' with 'let's find somewhere else'. 

As in my comparison above...dd can't come to my sausage factory 50th 'cos morals ? Ok, no big deal...change the freaking venue and now she can come. Magic!

 

 

 

This assumes that there is no moral or compelling reason for them choosing the venue. I mean, if the ONLY place she would attend is a JW Kingdom Hall, not anywhere else, and they are no longer practicing that religion, then well, they can't just pick another place. 

Or if it doesn't matter where they got married, just that they say, left the church and have been disfellowshipped, then really, that is her saying "believe what I believe or I won't have anything to do with you". Which yikes. Not sure what can be expected to happen there other than what did happen. 

[catz]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I feel that this board disproportionately acts out a sort of collective trauma from their own young adult years, in weighting the rights and experiences of young adult far more than they do the rights and experiences of mothers. I feel this board is disproportionately fetishising of youth, and has insufficient respect for age. You may disagree entirely with my feelings, and that is fine, but I do see this group dynamic play out over and over again. It's my opinion that a man old enough to marry, and take on the responsibilities of family, is old enough to effectively manage his own emotions, without needing his mother to violate her conscience, however inexplicable he may see that line in the sand. Other people's mileage may vary.

I actually don't agree with this.  I think this board tends to side and sympathize with whoever is presenting the story.  Which is normal human nature.   The OP got plenty of sympathy in this thread. I actually think in plenty of situational posts where a poster is posting as upset by a situation, it would be fascinating to hear the story as presented the other side.  It is highly likely that is not nearly as clear cut as many people would like to present.   I've been involved in mediation situations in real life and rarely are things as clear as one side would present.  

This is an extremely diverse board.  I think everyone is an insider and an outsider in some way.  I am not Christian and have certainly felt piled on at times and  have quietly stepped away during certain threads.  If someone does not want a diverse opinion set, maybe this isn't the board for them.  I have been here on and off for many many years and I have seen minds open and hearts change by intelligent but respectful discussion and an open mind.   There are other boards - faith based, etc that might be more appropriate.  

[EmseB]

26 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

This assumes that there is no moral or compelling reason for them choosing the venue. I mean, if the ONLY place she would attend is a JW Kingdom Hall, not anywhere else, and they are no longer practicing that religion, then well, they can't just pick another place. 

Or if it doesn't matter where they got married, just that they say, left the church and have been disfellowshipped, then really, that is her saying "believe what I believe or I won't have anything to do with you". Which yikes. Not sure what can be expected to happen there other than what did happen. 

The point of Stella's analogy is that the specifics don't matter if you're going to answer the questions in the OP. They really don't.

All we know is her son asked her to do something her conscience would not allow her to do, some place she would not go, or whatever it was. There are a lot of people in this thread who keep saying they can't understand why she wouldn't give up her morals for her son for whatever it was. There are a lot of people saying they would never hold to any kind of morality that would keep them from doing something or going somewhere for their kid. 1) I find this very difficult to believe because everyone has a line they won't cross, even for their own kids. They may just find that other lines that other people hold to are silly; and 2) It is not fair in any sense for someone to say, "If you don't violate your conscience in this way it means you don't really love me and I'm going to be angry at you indefinitely." That isn't okay, no matter if it's painting pink polka dots on a t-shirt or eating pork or attending a wedding or hopping on one foot. It isn't fair to ask someone you know has a strongly held belief to violate it for you or else. It isn't mature. It's manipulative.

So, hypothetically, if you wanted to have your wedding a venue you know that your mother cannot go to, that is absolutely fine. It is your choice. However, it is not fair to hang that over your mother's head and be angry that she wouldn't do what you wanted knowing that she couldn't go there. It isn't fair to say, "She could have gone if she really loved me," or, "She could have gone if she really wanted to." That's manipulation. Even if they had a super good reason for holding the wedding somewhere Scarlett couldn't go, that's okay! But it means she can't go there and part of being a mature adult is recognizing that in a mature way, which doesn't include being angry and holding a lifelong grudge. It might be a super sad situation where everyone is grieved that things didn't work out and mom couldn't be at the wedding. But it's not okay for either party to hold the other person in contempt and be angry for not violating their consciences, especially if that was a known quantity long before any of this ever came up. I would say the same if Scarlett were the one getting angry and holding a grudge at her son for having his wedding somewhere she couldn't go. He gets to have his wedding where he wants. People (even mothers!) can choose to attend or not based on their own boundaries. The relationship needs to be mended on the idea that it is okay for people (even mothers!) to have lines they will not cross, even for their kiddos. I guarantee everyone has one or several, even if you (general) think Scarlett's are silly or unreasonable based off of what you know of her religion.

Edited September 16, 2019 by EmseB

[catz]

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

As I said, others are free to disagree with my perspective. It's just my own perspective, and matters no more than yours.

I - an atheist, progressive, unmarried, interracial family with gay kids - am more than happy to have Scarlett here, and have her share as much or as little of her story as she wants. I don't feel the need to shunt her off to a JW board or somesuch. I am OK to have Scarlett and moonflower here, just as I am OK the other way round, morally and politically. 

I personally have found greater growth in an ability to listen to, and consider someone like maize, who disagrees with me on some close moral issues, and is still a good, intelligent, and kind person, but other's mileage, as I said above, may vary. It's all good. 

I don't disagree.  I like the diversity of this board.  It's why I return and I think everyone is welcome. 

But I really don't think anyone choosing to be here is a "victim" of the board.  Pretty much everyone is the minority view at some point.    

[Sneezyone]

My DH always says, “do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?” When we are fussing at each other or over our kids. Rarely can you be both at the same time when a major conflict occurs. If you prefer to be ‘right’ that’s fine. You just need to find another way to be happy because it’s not going to come from the opposing party. 

I don’t think age necessarily gives anyone any special wisdom. My mom has been making some of the same mistakes in her personal and professional life for decades because she never learned to do things differently. This she admitted to me just last month as part of the very first apology/acknowledgment I’ve ever received from her.

In this as in most things, time will tell.

 

[Jaybee]

As to Scarlett's situation, I don't know. However, I have found it a bit ironic that on a board where we are always talking about boundaries, and the Boundaries book is often recommended, it doesn't seem to apply if it is one's child rather than someone else. I love my kids with all I am, but if I had one who was trying to manipulate me to do something I felt I couldn't (thankfully, that hasn't arisen thus far), I would have to put a boundary there, The speculations have been interesting, and sometimes entertaining, but I must not have read as carefully as others, because I keep seeing people insisting that Scarlett said things that I don't recall reading that she said. If this really had to do with her son's wedding, it seems as though things must have moved really quickly, and talking things through to a compromise might not could happen as quickly as the wedding did. Hugs to you, Scarlett. I hope you and your son are able to find a healthy, loving way forward, with mutual respect for each other and your points of view.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Exactly the same thing could be said to the son. 

Age doesn't bestow wisdom; it does bestow life experience, and frequently, people do mature in the light of that.

Being older doesn't automatically disqualify your point of view, that's all. And there is no 'young adult wisdom', available only to post-millenials, which negates the combined wisdom of every other generation currently on existence on this planet.

Dealing with our experiences of our own mothers is a good thing to deal with in therapy; I think it's less effective when we use our own personal experience of mothers to extrapolate to other mothers here on this board. That my mum made some grievous mistakes in her raising of me doesn't mean Scarlett is any more likely to be making the same or other mistakes. I think I would be wrong to take my own experience of being mothered, and project that onto Scarlett's situation, without a vast degree more information.

In general (not just on this board) I think mothers are incredibly devalued, and often act as community scapegoats, so it wouldn't be surprising to see that echoed in any environment, even one composed of mothers.

 

To the bolded, of course, no one said otherwise. Therapy is always beneficial. My mother only apologized to me after a year of it. I’m glad it helped her. My experiences weren’t extrapolated to Scarlett except to say that she cant control her son’s response and has to find a way to live with/find peace with where things are. That’s it. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yep, I agree. 

And this is great advice for Scarlett's son and DIL also; a shame they aren't here to hear it. I hope they are hearing such moderate advice elsewhere.

 

 I do too. I just think that, ultimately, you have to be prepared (on both sides) for the fact that their peace may not include you (or in a very altered way) going forward.

[DawnM]

3 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

I mean Scarlett doesn't owe us satisfaction, and anyone who is irritated by that needs to, in the words of the immortal Man in Black, "get used to disappointment."*

*Princess Bride reference.

 

That seems like an odd thing to need to own feelings about, but to each his own.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

There is a truth that is not about bashing mothers or disrespecting religious convictions, and that truth is this:

The child of a parent who has chosen their conviction over supporting their kids, might not ever actually fully forgive their parent or reconcile with them. Especially if the parent has no intention of apologizing or finding middle ground, in fact, the parent finds religious or prideful satisfaction in never backing down or softening. It doesn't matter if it happens to the child when they are 12 or 32, it is a devastating hurt. Even if the child always knew their parent was capable of that. It feels like abandonment.

I'm not going to gloss over it or blame it all on the son's immaturity. If he doesn't share his mother's conviction, and especially if he disagrees that her faith necessitated that conflict with him, the anger makes sense. It's not a good or happy situation. But it plays out for a zillion families, around the world and down through time.

The child learns to live without the support of their parent, and also has to address difficult questions about how they're going to deal with their parent's aging and death, when the time comes. They have to face the fact that their child will not be fully accepted and embraced by their grandparent, that even if there's a relationship, it's going to be just as likely that the grandchild will be left out in the cold, too. (Some of us regret letting our children even know their grandparents, because sure enough, that happened.)

The parent learns to live without a good relationship with their child. They cry a lot. They commiserate with other parents of their faith who have had the same outcome. They reassure each other that they are doing the right thing and some kids are just going to reject the faith. They worry about their belief that their children and grandchildren will be in a literal hell. After these anxiety episodes, they reassure themselves for the hundredth time that they are holy and suffering these things for the cause of Christ, and they pray that their kids will repent, and then they stiffen their chin and say, "But he made his decision. I'm not going to let this ruin my life."

Truth.

The flipside of this truth is that the parent/child bond is very strong, and if the parent would just apologize. Just soften somewhat, meet them halfway, tell them that they love and accept them...the child would probably forgive them and be so glad. Whether they were 12 or 32 or 62 when the parent came to that decision.

[Annie G]

10 hours ago, Scarlett said:

.  I wondered if others had been through something similar and managed to regain the relationship.  A few people answered. (The poster who told about her sister trying to get her to watch an R rated movie and becoming angry when she refused—that was similar to my situation).  

 

I have been through something similar, though with a sibling. He was married with a three year old and it came out that he was having two affairs. When his wife decided to file for divorce and he found out he wasn’t going to get sole custody, he decided to walk away and never see the boy again.  The rest of my family stood by him, though they thought he was crazy. I did not. I told him how selfish he was to walk away from his son. In the end, he told his kid he’d never see him again, but after several years he did decide to be a parent. This was 15 years ago and my relationship with him is not healed. We were together when mom passed away and were fine around each other, but we make an effort to not be at Dad’s at the same time. It’s pretty sad, but it is what it is. 

I hope your situation will be different, and it might because a mother/son bond is stronger than a sibling bond.  Also, we have complicating factors because at the time he was getting divorced he did some pretty awful things to my parents and to dh. (Called my folks and shot his gun a few times and made them think he’d died by suicide, and told dh he was on the way to our house to burn it down)

Hang in there, Scarlett. We’ve had four kids go through young adulthood and they have all become less rigid in their thinking as they matured. I pray your relationship w your son will heal. 

 

[EmseB]

52 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

maybe it’s just me, lol, but it’s a bit freaky reading this last page of posts, and seeing that Scarlett is online right now, clicking thank you to those ‘defending’ her, all the while not bothering to explain anything. 

Its almost as if she’s getting off on it, or perhaps she knows she’s partly to blame and is trying to make herself feel better?  Either way, I think I’ve had enough of the circus antics. This seems to be much more than a religious drama.

I have thought that sometimes, but it's not any weirder than me reading along and seeing who liked my posts or other posts, I don't think. Just part of the nature of message boards. I could tell this thread was going downhill from about page four when people started speculating about what the specifics *must* be and the, "if you don't tell us, I'm going to assume the worst" comments. Curiosity is a heck of a drug, though, lol.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

So, hypothetically, if you wanted to have your wedding a venue you know that your mother cannot go to, that is absolutely fine. It is your choice. However, it is not fair to hang that over your mother's head and be angry that she wouldn't do what you wanted knowing that she couldn't go there. It isn't fair to say, "She could have gone if she really loved me,"

 

1 hour ago, Jaybee said:

 I love my kids with all I am, but if I had one who was trying to manipulate me to do something I felt I couldn't (thankfully, that hasn't arisen thus far), I would have to put a boundary there, 

But we don't know that the truth isn't that she was the one manipulating him, saying he needs to stay in her religion or she won't attend his wedding, interact with him, etc. If he's left the church, and she's chosen to cut him off over that, why isn't that manipulative, rather than him being the one manipulating her by wanting her to attend his wedding? If he is no longer in the JWs, the only way he may be able to have a wedding she could go to would be to cave and go back to her faith. 

[Frances]

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Anger often makes sense. No-one think that son can't feel angry.

I am feeling real angry with my parents right now for things they did 30 years ago; I am, as he is, completely entitled to have my feelings.

Being angry doesn't give anyone - and especially not a young man - the right to dump it all, aggressively, on a woman, even if that woman is mom. 

I agree that the son should not be aggressively dumping his anger on his mom and acting disrespectfully towards his parents. But this just happened and he is young and passionate. Hopefully with time, cooler heads will prevail and constructive and healing conversations can take place.

At least in my family, the sibling who exploded in anger like this on more than one occasion and then later apologized and reconciled now has a wonderful relationship with my parents and is so helpful to them. Whereas the one who held all of the anger and resentment in let it grow and fester and deepen and now there is estrangement. Both hurt my parents at different times and in different ways, but the ultimate outcomes were also very different.

[Catwoman]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

I agree that the son should not be aggressively dumping his anger on his mom and acting disrespectfully towards his parents. But this just happened and he is young and passionate. Hopefully with time, cooler heads will prevail and constructive and healing conversations can take place.

 

Yes, and realistically speaking, if the argument was about something as important to both sides as the son’s wedding, I would strongly suspect that there were some raised voices on both sides of that heated encounter. I doubt the son was the only one who wasn’t exactly at his best that day.

[LucyStoner]

On 9/13/2019 at 5:23 PM, Scarlett said:

But..,,,what if it is faith issue.  

 

My kids come before my ideological beliefs. If one of my kids came home and suddenly held religious views I find abhorrent, I would let it ride unless someone’s health or safety was at stake or there was something criminal going on.  It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t set boundaries with my kids (I do that a lot), but it does mean my relationship with my kids does trump most things.  

Edited September 17, 2019 by LucyStoner

[EmseB]

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

But we don't know that the truth isn't that she was the one manipulating him, saying he needs to stay in her religion or she won't attend his wedding, interact with him, etc. If he's left the church, and she's chosen to cut him off over that, why isn't that manipulative, rather than him being the one manipulating her by wanting her to attend his wedding? If he is no longer in the JWs, the only way he may be able to have a wedding she could go to would be to cave and go back to her faith. 

Aside from the fact that I have no idea if this is the case and have no reason to speculate on this hypothetical as if that's what happened, I'll say: It's not manipulative because he doesn't have to do that.  No one is saying he has to. If she was demanding he rejoin a faith that he found objectionable in order that she could go to his wedding, I would have a different take on this thread. No one here has said that would be ok for her to do. I think she flat out said somewhere that's not what happened (but I admit to losing some of the bubble somewhere in there), and I don't gather she's the type to try to manipulate her son into a JW wedding or into a religion he doesn't want to be a part of. AFAIK, she other relatives that aren't JW that she associates with.

But the question in the OP was how do you handle a situation where a DC wants you to do something you find morally objectionable and is angry at you if you won't? How or can you mend the relationship?

What you're speculating on is a totally different question; that is, "my child won't do X so I refuse to do Y, which of us is right?"  It's just a totally different issue based on a complete hypothetical based on...idk what. It doesn't even seem like a hypothetical you could get to from all the info given unless you make a ton of mostly negative assumptions about the OP, her actions, her motivations, her religion, etc.

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Aside from the fact that I have no idea if this is the case and have no reason to speculate on this hypothetical as if that's what happened, I'll say: It's not manipulative because he doesn't have to do that.  No one is saying he has to. If she was demanding he rejoin a faith that he found objectionable in order that she could go to his wedding, I would have a different take on this thread. No one here has said that would be ok for her to do. I think she flat out said somewhere that's not what happened (but I admit to losing some of the bubble somewhere in there), and I don't gather she's the type to try to manipulate her son into a JW wedding or into a religion he doesn't want to be a part of. AFAIK, she other relatives that aren't JW that she associates with.

But the question in the OP was how do you handle a situation where a DC wants you to do something you find morally objectionable and is angry at you if you won't? How or can you mend the relationship?

What you're speculating on is a totally different question; that is, "my child won't do X so I refuse to do Y, which of us is right?"  It's just a totally different issue based on a complete hypothetical based on...idk what. It doesn't even seem like a hypothetical you could get to from all the info given unless you make a ton of mostly negative assumptions about the OP, her actions, her motivations, her religion, etc.

What I'm trying to say is that it could be seen as him expecting her to come to a wedding outside her religion and her expecting him to have his wedding within her religion, or she won't go. 

some have speculated that it was a case of "I know you can't go if I have it at a church, so I'll do that and then try to make you go"

But it could also have been, "if you want me at your wedding, you'll come to your senses and do it within my faith"

 

[EmseB]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

What I'm trying to say is that it could be seen as him expecting her to come to a wedding outside her religion and her expecting him to have his wedding within her religion, or she won't go. 

some have speculated that it was a case of "I know you can't go if I have it at a church, so I'll do that and then try to make you go"

But it could also have been, "if you want me at your wedding, you'll come to your senses and do it within my faith"

 

Yes, it could have been any number of things. They are each allowed to have their own personal moral or religious boundaries. However, I guess unless she was really trolling and lying about the whole scenario, I was taking her at face value when she said her son asked her to do something he knew she could not do according to some conscience issue he already knew she held to and then was/is angry at her for not doing that exact thing. 

IOW, I could assume she is lying and it's the second scenario you came up with, but that's not what she asked about, so I didn't answer as if that's what happened. I answered and continue to reply based on info she gave and general principles I hold to wrt religion and boundaries.

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Yes, it could have been any number of things. They are each allowed to have their own personal moral or religious boundaries. However, I guess unless she was really trolling and lying about the whole scenario, I was taking her at face value when she said her son asked her to do something he knew she could not do according to some conscience issue he already knew she held to and then was/is angry at her for not doing that exact thing. 

IOW, I could assume she is lying and it's the second scenario you came up with, but that's not what she asked about, so I didn't answer as if that's what happened. I answered and continue to reply based on info she gave and general principles I hold to wrt religion and boundaries.

That conscience issue could simply be associating with him after he's been disfellowshipped. We don't know. 

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That conscience issue could simply be associating with him after he's been disfellowshipped. We don't know. 

Of course we do. JW's are fine with civil ceremonies, but not with participating in ceremonies of other faiths.  The thing he wanted her to do was against her conscience and something he's been raised knowing she would never do, which is going to a religious ceremony in a different faith.  He was trying to force her. She still wants a relationship with him.  She said nothing at all about trying to get him to violate his own conscience and come back into the fold.  She never even said he joined another church, and joining another church would be strange when you are angry that your own church isn't strict enough with their own beliefs, beliefs that other denominations don't have.

[LucyStoner]

Boundaries work both ways. It’s fine for Scarlett to decline to attend something that she feels strongly about.  It’s also fine for her son to feel distance from her choice.  We all live with the natural consequences of our choices.  I can see how that would be heated on both sides.  

My FIL refused to attend my husband’s and my wedding because his ex-wife, my MIL, would be attending with her new husband.   We weren’t going to play the pick and choose game.  We weren’t going to exclude my MIL to placate my FIL.  We didn’t retaliate against him or even have it out with him but it definitely affected their relationship.  My FIL then died suddenly, before the proverbial air really got cleared.  After he died, several family members relayed that in his last weeks and months he talked about how proud he was as of my husband for making his own way.  Unfortunately, my husband only ever heard that second hand.   Not to be morbid but I don’t assume that there’s always time to make amends.  My husband and I married young but my FIL died when my husband was just 26.  

ETA: my FIL only met his grandson (my oldest) twice because he was so bitter about us not excluding my MIL from our wedding.  There was a bit of physical distance in the mix there- we lived about 280 miles away but mostly it was FILs stubbornness.  The first time we tried to visit with our 3 month old son in tow, my FIL was too bitter about the wedding thing to open the door.  That hurt my husband more than the wedding reception thing TBH.  The summer before he died, he sent a spate of gifts for our then 2 year old son (things he found in catalogs) but he still wouldn’t really respond when my husband called to thank him.  His health declined rapidly all at once that November and by the time we’d arrived from the other side of the state, he’d lost consciousness and was in multi system organ failure.  He robbed himself a lot.  

Edited September 17, 2019 by LucyStoner

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, Katy said:

Of course we do. JW's are fine with civil ceremonies, but not with participating in ceremonies of other faiths.  The thing he wanted her to do was against her conscience and something he's been raised knowing she would never do, which is going to a religious ceremony in a different faith.  He was trying to force her. She still wants a relationship with him.  She said nothing at all about trying to get him to violate his own conscience and come back into the fold.  She never even said he joined another church, and joining another church would be strange when you are angry that your own church isn't strict enough with their own beliefs, beliefs that other denominations don't have.

So...you think he got married in a church so she couldn't go, but didn't actually leave the JWs? Most churches aren't going to let you get married there if you are actively part of another religion and have no intentions of joining their church, at least in my experience. 

She didn't say anything about him leaving the faith, but she also didn't say anything about the wedding, or anything, until it was brought up. 

[Xahm]

12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Yes, it could have been any number of things. They are each allowed to have their own personal moral or religious boundaries. However, I guess unless she was really trolling and lying about the whole scenario, I was taking her at face value when she said her son asked her to do something he knew she could not do according to some conscience issue he already knew she held to and then was/is angry at her for not doing that exact thing. 

IOW, I could assume she is lying and it's the second scenario you came up with, but that's not what she asked about, so I didn't answer as if that's what happened. I answered and continue to reply based on info she gave and general principles I hold to wrt religion and boundaries.

There aren't only those two options, though. We don't have to either believe that things are exactly the way she says they are or else believe she is a liar. I generally read all these type threads assuming that the original poster is telling the truth the way she sees it but that a different witness would have a somewhat different story. I think Scarlett is hurt and doing what most of us do when we are freshly hurt, reacting emotionally and justifying our actions to ourselves. Sometimes it takes some time before we can take a step back and say, "yeah, he shouldn't have done that, but I can see why he reacted that way. Maybe I shouldn't have done the thing I did when I got angry, or maybe I should have found a different way to share my thoughts with him."

[EmseB]

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That conscience issue could simply be associating with him after he's been disfellowshipped. We don't know. 

A) Right, we don't know so I find answering as if that could be the case sort of useless. I find it unlikely based on the way she's talked about her religion in the past, like you say, we don't know. It didn't enter into how I answered the original questions.

B) If that is the case, I still stand by everything I've said regarding boundaries and personal conscience. I may not understand religions that practice non-contact after excommunication or disfellowshipping, but I am familiar with people who cut off contact with close family for any number of reasons, religious and secular. It's painful and it sucks, but I'm not going to tell anyone they have to have contact with another person based on circumstances I know nothing about.

But I still contend the general principles of the situation she asked about don't require specifics to answer. 

 

[Katy]

16 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

So...you think he got married in a church so she couldn't go, but didn't actually leave the JWs? Most churches aren't going to let you get married there if you are actively part of another religion and have no intentions of joining their church, at least in my experience. 

She didn't say anything about him leaving the faith, but she also didn't say anything about the wedding, or anything, until it was brought up. 

 

IME all churches that don't consider marriage a sacrament will let couples get married there, they just charge ten times more for non-members.

And yes, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.  I don't always agree with her or her faith but I have known her to be predictably and ethically consistent, so if she said he was manipulating her and liked all the scenarios when that was the description I absolutely think that's what  most likely happened.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Katy
typo that autocorrected to the opposite meaning.

[EmseB]

16 minutes ago, xahm said:

There aren't only those two options, though. We don't have to either believe that things are exactly the way she says they are or else believe she is a liar. I generally read all these type threads assuming that the original poster is telling the truth the way she sees it but that a different witness would have a somewhat different story. I think Scarlett is hurt and doing what most of us do when we are freshly hurt, reacting emotionally and justifying our actions to ourselves. Sometimes it takes some time before we can take a step back and say, "yeah, he shouldn't have done that, but I can see why he reacted that way. Maybe I shouldn't have done the thing I did when I got angry, or maybe I should have found a different way to share my thoughts with him."

Well I guess if the issue was that she was trying to force him back to the JW for his wedding so she could go, I would find that to be so opposite to the situation described in the OP as to be a lie for all intents and purposes. It wouldn't be just a difference in perspective between her and her son.

The thing about things being exactly as she said or not...she didn't give many specifics at all so was posing general questions about a general scenario. So there isn't even really any differing perspective to argue about, AFAIK. But we sure can try, lol. 🙂:shrug:

Edited September 17, 2019 by EmseB

[Wheres Toto]

She's already said the decision she made wasn't because it was against her religion, just against her personal moral code/conscious.  So anything that is disallowed by JW isn't what happened.

I don't know why I'm still reading all this.  I'm pretty sure we're never going to find out what actually happened. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

Of course we do. JW's are fine with civil ceremonies, but not with participating in ceremonies of other faiths.  The thing he wanted her to do was against her conscience and something he's been raised knowing she would never do, which is going to a religious ceremony in a different faith.  He was trying to force her. She still wants a relationship with him.  She said nothing at all about trying to get him to violate his own conscience and come back into the fold.  She never even said he joined another church, and joining another church would be strange when you are angry that your own church isn't strict enough with their own beliefs, beliefs that other denominations don't have.

You totally made that up. Nowhere in this thread has Scarlett ever said that the wedding ceremony was in another faith. And when Ktgrok posted a quote about JWs being allowed to attend weddings in other churches and asked if that was correct, Scarlett replied "that is not the situation here." Lots of people have been speculating that the issue was it was in another church, but Scarlett never said that and refused to answer questions about it.

[catz]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

You totally made that up. Nowhere in this thread has Scarlett ever said that the wedding ceremony was in another faith. And when Ktgrok posted a quote about JWs being allowed to attend weddings in other churches and asked if that was correct, Scarlett replied "that is not the situation here." Lots of people have been speculating that the issue was it was in another church, but Scarlett never said that and refused to answer questions about it.

Agree.   Lots of speculation.   The other faith explanation is actually pretty straightforward.    Could be something like the ex husband being there and complexities with that.  

[Catwoman]

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

You totally made that up. Nowhere in this thread has Scarlett ever said that the wedding ceremony was in another faith. And when Ktgrok posted a quote about JWs being allowed to attend weddings in other churches and asked if that was correct, Scarlett replied "that is not the situation here." Lots of people have been speculating that the issue was it was in another church, but Scarlett never said that and refused to answer questions about it.

 

I’m so glad you posted because I was sitting here wondering how I could have missed a post where Scarlett said her son was married in another faith. 

Scarlett, you’re obviously still reading all of the posts here because you’re taking the time to like the ones that support you, so why not just throw us a bone and tell us what actually happened? 

[Corraleno]

8 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Agree.   Lots of speculation.   The other faith explanation is actually pretty straightforward.    Could be something like the ex husband being there and complexities with that.  

Or the ex husband was allowed to bring his girlfriend, or someone else would be there who was disfellowshipped, or they got married without going through some religiously required preparation or getting permission from someone in the church, or any number of other possibilities. The fact that many people said they would be sympathetic if the issue was the venue makes it even stranger that she would not simply confirm it if that was the issue, especially since that's not an especially personal thing that would need to be kept private.

[Catwoman]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Or the ex husband was allowed to bring his girlfriend, or someone else would be there who was disfellowshipped, or they got married without going through some religiously required preparation or getting permission from someone in the church, or any number of other possibilities. The fact that many people said they would be sympathetic if the issue was the venue makes it even stranger that she would not simply confirm it if that was the issue, especially since that's not an especially personal thing that would need to be kept private.

 

The funny thing is, after all of our crazy ideas and suspicions, if Scarlett actually does tell us what it is, it will probably be kind of a letdown because it will be something totally normal and we will all be thinking, “Really? That’s it? You were worried we would criticize you for THAT???” 😉

 

[Bambam]

I've read pretty much this entire thread because was fascinating to me. From where to starts to all the different side trails and theories to just a little info from the OP either confirming or denying or giving just a little info and then refusing to post any more. I've been on the WTM long enough to know there is NO way to anticipate how a threat will end up (sorta like Telestrations - based on the Telephone game, you know?). People honestly seem to want to help, but without specifics, they are left hanging in the wind, want closure, so come up with a variety of scenarios which then has others discussing them.

But once it became clear the issue was her son, a JW, got married a girl, another JW whom Scarlett likes, and Scarlett wouldn't attend their wedding because of a moral/personal and not religious issue - am I the only one who thought maybe they were big Star Trek Next Generation Fans and they wanted a Betazoid wedding? Because outside of the idea that the person conducting the marriage ceremony was a truly undesirable evil person (which doesn't seem likely given what we've read of the son here), I can't figure out a legitimate-sounding-to-me reason to not attend the wedding. But reading all the speculation is interesting. I can imagine this being a great made-for-TV movie - with each different theory being played out until we get to the final scene reveal. 

[fairfarmhand]

4 minutes ago, Bambam said:

I've read pretty much this entire thread because was fascinating to me. From where to starts to all the different side trails and theories to just a little info from the OP either confirming or denying or giving just a little info and then refusing to post any more. I've been on the WTM long enough to know there is NO way to anticipate how a threat will end up (sorta like Telestrations - based on the Telephone game, you know?). People honestly seem to want to help, but without specifics, they are left hanging in the wind, want closure, so come up with a variety of scenarios which then has others discussing them.

But once it became clear the issue was her son, a JW, got married a girl, another JW whom Scarlett likes, and Scarlett wouldn't attend their wedding because of a moral/personal and not religious issue - am I the only one who thought maybe they were big Star Trek Next Generation Fans and they wanted a Betazoid wedding? Because outside of the idea that the person conducting the marriage ceremony was a truly undesirable evil person (which doesn't seem likely given what we've read of the son here), I can't figure out a legitimate-sounding-to-me reason to not attend the wedding. But reading all the speculation is interesting. I can imagine this being a great made-for-TV movie - with each different theory being played out until we get to the final scene reveal. 

Ha! A betazoid wedding! No, I would not attend that myself. Don’t care how upset my kid would be.

[DawnM]

10 hours ago, Catwoman said:

 

The funny thing is, after all of our crazy ideas and suspicions, if Scarlett actually does tell us what it is, it will probably be kind of a letdown because it will be something totally normal and we will all be thinking, “Really? That’s it? You were worried we would criticize you for THAT???” 😉

 

 

Although I still think it is the opposite.  We would be like, "Why did you make such a big deal over THAT?"  And that is probably why she isn't stating.

[hjffkj]

2 hours ago, Bambam said:

I've read pretty much this entire thread because was fascinating to me. From where to starts to all the different side trails and theories to just a little info from the OP either confirming or denying or giving just a little info and then refusing to post any more. I've been on the WTM long enough to know there is NO way to anticipate how a threat will end up (sorta like Telestrations - based on the Telephone game, you know?). People honestly seem to want to help, but without specifics, they are left hanging in the wind, want closure, so come up with a variety of scenarios which then has others discussing them.

 

 

Actually, Scarlet's threads are the easiest to predict.  It went exactly as I anticipated it going. 

[maize]

I've been thinking about this and I've come up with a potential correllary example from my own faith. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints follow a guideline that we call the Word of Wisdom that among other things forbids us to drink coffee or tea. There are a significant number of members who believe that by extension drinking of any caffeinated beverage is forbidden. That isn't explicit in the official interpretation however, and there is no negative consequence applied by church authority for someone who drinks a Coke every day--whereas there are some negative consequences for drinking coffee.

I have never in my life intentionally broken the word of wisdom. It would seem silly I'm sure to someone who is not of my faith that I would see drinking a cup of tea as a significant trangression, but yes it is. If a child of mine wanted me to participate in some kind of ceremony that required me to sip a taste of tea I wouldn't do it-regardless of how important the ceremony was to the child. 

I wouldn't personally hold to that degree of strictness if the beverage in question were Coke, although I mostly avoid any caffeinated beverage. But I would understand and respect the choice of a member of my faith who did hold to the same strictness with regard to caffeinated soft drinks as they did with coffee or tea.

Edited September 17, 2019 by maize

[maize]

7 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Total side question...

Is herbal teas ok?  They don't contain any caffeine at all since they aren't technically made from actual tea leaves.  

Yes, I enjoy herbal teas/tisanes. Only beverages made from the tea plant are forbidden.

ETA I've occasionally encountered Latter-day Saints who avoid drinking any hot beverage. That is a less common literal interpretation of the original guideline.

Edited September 17, 2019 by maize

[Frances]

14 minutes ago, maize said:

Yes, I enjoy herbal teas/tisanes. Only beverages made from the tea plant are forbidden.

ETA I've occasionally encountered Latter-day Saints who avoid drinking any hot beverage. That is a less common literal interpretation of the original guideline.

You just sent me down a rabbit trail to read about the history of this. Very interesting. I guess I’d fit right in because I can’t stand coffee or tea. I only drink herbal tea. And I’d completely forgotten about Postum. My husband drank it sometimes when we were first married because he drank it growing up. 🙂

For me only, it reminded me of abstaining from meat on Fridays during Lent. I always thought it was great because I love fish and so many local places would have fish specials on Fridays. 

[Annie G]

Scarlett, 

Replying here to something you said on another thread. You are a great mom. And a great stepmom too.  Keep repeating that to yourself, because it’s true. 

[LucyStoner]

15 minutes ago, Annie G said:

Replying here to something you said on another thread. You are a great mom. And a great stepmom too.  Keep repeating that to yourself, because it’s true. 

 

Little, if any, good can come of defining success as a parent as the adult child adopting all of the parent’s same values and beliefs.  

Edited September 17, 2019 by LucyStoner