A recent disturbing trend surfaced in Mormon internet groups in which parents wrote letters to their young adult children explaining that if they did not stay active in the church, they would be cut from the inheritance. At roughly the same time, LDS Philanthropies published a video featuring a father who said that if his sons continued to follow church teachings, they would keep their inheritance, but otherwise, he would simply donate his money to LDS Philanthropies. The video was removed due to backlash. It’s an interesting trend, some might say alarming.
First of all, my own view on inheritances is that nobody should count on it. If you are living so close to the edge that the inheritance will make or break you, maybe you should be focusing on more sustainable sources of income. Furthermore, it is the right of any individual to donate their earthly goods as they see fit. And yet, it is unsavory to imagine parents using their inheritance as a bribe to control their children. It also seems like a recipe for hypocrisy, if one’s children are encouraged to pretend to be living one way for the benefit of the parents, but in reality feel differently. Do some parents really only love their children if those children do as the parents wish? That doesn’t feel like love. That’s something more like a dynasty than a family.
I recently finished watching The Tudors, the Showtime series about the reign of Henry VIII, the notorious wife killing monarch. The theme of his entire kingship was his insecurity without a male heir. His father won the crown in battle, overthrowing his cousin, and then Henry VII’s first son Arthur died before becoming king, leaving his second son in the position of power. Henry VIII was obsessed with having both an heir and a spare. All that mattered was preserving the Tudor dynasty, and to achieve that goal (or when they failed to produce the desired male heir) he dispatched wife after wife, divorcing or executing them. For all that effort, his only son died soon after his father, leaving the Tudor dynasty to his daughters in an era in which women did not usually inherit crowns. Throughout his reign, he used the threat of bastardizing or disinheriting his daughters as a tool to manipulate and control them when he didn’t like their views or felt they were going to act contrary to his will after his death.
Henry VIII’s story illustrates the difference between a dynasty and a family. A family, at least as we talk about it at church, is a group of related people who love and rely on one another; a dynasty is about power and inheritance, obligation and control. Our temple rites use the symbolism and language of the monarchy, putting each person in a position of thinking of him or herself as a future king or queen, someone with progeny reaching into the eternities. When these ties are bonds of love and service, they are a beautiful expression of Christian charity, a proving ground to learn and practice our skills of empathy, service, and patience. When we instead use this language toward self-aggrandizement or to view our children as an object, a blessing we receive for our righteousness, there is a temptation to try to manipulate them, shame them or push the filial bonds to the breaking point with fear-motivated, self-serving acts of control. Even if this is done under the guise of keeping a child on the strait and narrow path, when we act out of our own feelings of insecurity about our legacy, that’s self-serving. It isn’t love. That’s a dynasty, not a family.
Several years ago we visited the Capuchin catacombs in Sicily. It’s an odd and somewhat gruesome tourist attraction. The catacombs display the corpses of hundreds, possibly thousands of people, their faces turned to face onlookers to remind them that they too will die. According to our guide, the intent of many of these individuals was to provide their children with a stark reminder that the grave would come soon enough for them too. Scaring your kids straight from beyond the grave. Apparently, Catholic guilt knows no bounds. But Catholics don’t corner the market on parental guilt and a desire to control the choices of offspring. Anyone who has had a child knows the temptation to take the reins when we see them heading in the wrong direction.
One of the interesting observations Richard Bushman makes about Joseph Smith in Rough Stone Rolling is that Joseph lusted for kin, not necessarily for sexual liaisons. He wished to join himself with others in the church through the sealing process. He had a vision of one large network of believers. One reason Bushman argues this is that Joseph’s additional marriages were not necessarily fruitful. He didn’t seem to be amassing a large pool of offspring as a crowning achievement.
Brigham Young’s vision of polygamy took a decided turn toward the dynastic. He even boasted that he didn’t know the names of all of his wives. He viewed the blessings of the endowment being the Abrahamic blessing of having progeny as numerous as the sands of the sea, and if you ceased to have progeny, you were damned. Celestial glory meant increase, and increase didn’t mean progress so much as more children. The term “believing blood” was coined to refer to the offspring from prominent polygamous dynasties. Those with so-called believing blood were considered somehow superior to others, either genetically or through their faithful upbringing.
One corporate training I went through years ago talked about the failure of leadership when leaders rely on control to get results. As soon as the controlling leader is gone, so is the compliance. Resentment is also a common byproduct of this kind of leadership. You get the illusion of the result you wanted, but the minute you are gone, the relieved underlings immediately go about doing what they wanted to do anyway. The only true leadership is to explain a rationale, influence, persuade, listen, and collaborate with those in your charge, seeing them as rational actors in their own right and helping to promote their best instincts.
What motivates parents to try to control their children through the use of inheritance funds? The Doctrine & Covenants puts it this way:
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. (D&C 121: 39-44)
The ending “that he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death” isn’t referring to one’s faithfulness to the gospel, but to the loyalty one feels toward the other person. We can reprove betimes with “sharpness” (which in the context of the era meant “clarity” rather than “harshness” as the word is more typically used now), only so long as we make it clear through our subsequent actions that our love is stronger than the cords of death, that our love is not conditional, that our love is unbreakable; in terms of family relationships, this means that we love our child regardless of our ability to control their actions either during our lifetime or after.
This is really important because it’s the whole point of the gospel. We can’t love the law more than we love our own children. We can’t love our legacy more than our children. Both of these are really just examples of loving ourselves–our reputation or our importance to future generations–more than we love our children. In addition to not being able to take your money with you when you die, you also can’t dictate the choices of your offspring.
The only influence we have is that which comes through persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned.
Wheat & Tares 
” on inheritances is that nobody should count on it. If you are living so close to the edge that the inheritance will make or break you, maybe you should be focusing on more sustainable sources of income. Furthermore, it is the right of any individual to donate their earthly goods as they see fit. And yet, it is unsavory … [to look at the standard practices of philanthropies of all types]”
Exactly. We should do better.
And it was Abraham, seeking the inheritance of the fathers that started the entire tradition we join as children of Abraham.
“The ending “that he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death” isn’t referring to one’s faithfulness to the gospel, but to the loyalty one feels toward the other person. We can reprove betimes with “sharpness” (which in the context of the era meant “clarity” rather than “harshness” as the word is more typically used now), only so long as we make it clear through our subsequent actions that our love is stronger than the cords of death, that our love is not conditional, that our love is unbreakable; in terms of family relationships, this means that we love our child regardless of our ability to control their actions either during our lifetime or after.
This is really important because it’s the whole point of the gospel. We can’t love the law more than we love our own children. We can’t love our legacy more than our children. Both of these are really just examples of loving ourselves–our reputation or our importance to future generations–more than we love our children.”
“As soon as the controlling leader is gone, so is the compliance.”
I’ve noticed a big uptick in beards at church over last few months, including on stake leaders. It’s so good!
Can’t resist highlighting that.
Onto the main topic. I’m not really sure what I make of the whole legacy thing, but certainly prefer JS’s view (as described here) to BY’s, by far.
I’ve seen some parents really work themselves up into a state, to the point of damaging their own health, over a child making choices the parent felt would take them away from the church, choosing to marry a non-member, for instance. That’s a terrible burden to place on your child.
I feel really lucky with my own parents, who have ever respected our decisions, let us live our lives, but who have also been ready to step in and to offer help and support if necessary, for my siblings and myself. They concentrate their energies on love. I try to be that kind of parent with my own kids.
I know one family who uses this threat to control their children. They have 6 adult children. Every single one of them has stopped believing in the church and stopped following many of the commandments in private, but every single one of them goes to church and puts on a show for their parents. This is obviously anecdotal evidence, but I think people are more likely to stop believing if they feel forced. Testimonies don’t grow under threat and force.
I tend to agree with EBK that children could easily interpret trying to coerce your children to “believe” as a show of no confidence in the church. If you have to compel people with bribes and threats then it’s obviously not compelling on its own merits. Ergo, the strategy backfires.
This was so good Hawk, I was going to write about something similar: when families cut off people who leave.
For example I have a friend w many children, she is from a family in Utah where the siblings and parents are all relatively close. She’s been helping plan a huge reunion in a beach house in SoCal this year. They also recently quit going to church after the policy change. Not only has her family been uninvited from the reunion she helped plan, but they now don’t even invite her or her kids to their regular Sunday gatherings. All the cousins who grew up together as best friends? No longer welcome. The siblings all decided they didn’t want the doubt and unbelief to infect anyone else, even though she promised not to talk about the church. She is heartbroken and has no idea how to explain to her kids what’s happening when all the other cousins post pics on social media of being together, etc.
For all that we talk about the doctrine of the family, it seems like everyone’s really missing the point of the whole thing.
Making inheritance or approval or spending time with each other conditional on belief is not only bad form; like you said it’s missing the whole point of family. Doctrine of the family, my foot. It’s about bonds, you guys – loving bonds that require you to sacrifice and do hard things to make them strong.
I swear that guy who told his kid he’d rather have him come home dead in a box than unclean has done more to ruin family relationships in the church than anything else.
Excellent essay (as usual) with which I agree fully.
I have no personal experience with parents specifically attempting to coerce their children via an inheritance–though we all have used more minor bribes to effect good behavior when our children were young. I have a great deal of disdain for the ubiquitous, nearly universal, tone/tenor/approach of our teachings (though certainly, in general, not unique among religions): obey the rules = get blessings. In our (LDS) execution of this approach we have some very specific/pointed words (of God?) in D&C 82…
“7 And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.
8 And again, I say unto you, I give unto you a new commandment, that you may understand my will concerning you;
9 Or, in other words, I give unto you directions how you may act before me, that it may turn to you for your salvation.
10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; BUT WHEN YE DO NOT WHAT I SAY, YE HAVE NO PROMISE.”
I have my doubts that God is the author of these words, primarily (but not only) because they violate the principle of Agency. But, they certainly provide very recent and direct support (especially interpreted as they usually are) for the belief that parents can righteously make inheritances conditional on behavior.
As a side note, I encourage you and other eloquent permabloggers on this and other LDS blogs to write more about how nearly completely inappropriate (as the kindest description I can think of on the fly) the very frequently used symbolism and language of kings and royalty are…”dominion, thrones, principalities, kings and queens.” Even if God is responsible for this continuing in the “one true church,” with “latter-day revelation,” I would encourage Him to take note of the history of royalty.
How about a brand new or used car after or a only paying college tuition if one goes on a mission? I’ve seen both — and I think both are inherently wrong.
KristineA
Very sad story!
I wonder if the family is trying to enact change through a “tough love” approach? Or, is their faith so fragile they fear associating with their inactive/ex-Mormon daughter?
I know a man whose parents disowned him when he returned home early from his mission (not for any moral lapse). Needless to say he hasn’t been active in the church since.
Inheritance runs through our theology. It sounds, however, like being disowned sometimes constitutes a liberation from abuse. The abuse can go both ways, it seems to me. The disaffected can overly rankle at times, too.
Interesting, but hardly an original Mormon threat. Many of the early converts to the Church were stripped of their inheritances by non-converted family members. When my sister & I converted, my father made it clear we would not inherit.
I agree completely with the idea that one should never “count on” an inheritance, but on the other hand, the money is not mine until given to me, & as long as inheritance money belongs to the one doing the giving, the criteria for distribution is also up to them. Being cut off did not even factor in my decision, nor in my sister’s decision.
I’m with Marivene — people make their own decisions, and that is good. A young adult decides to apostasize — people here cheer him or her on — his or her parents decide to spend or donate their money on good causes (other than the inheritance) and people here think it’s wrong. The young adult has agency, and the parents have agency. It’s best not to judge others in these matters — Jesus himself chose not to judge others in these matters — see Luke 12:14.
That said, if there was a video as described, I’m glad it was pulled — I’m fine with parents making these decisions on their own, but I wouldn’t want others to suggest these decisions to them.
I’m going to hijack this discussion of the many merits of this post because this new/old sharpness definition is my new pet peeve, on the same level as spreading that Eve means “mother of all living” and Zion means “pure in heart.”
The basis of this seems to be a 2005 BYU paper (https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-6-number-2-2005/reprove-betimes-and-sharpness-vocabulary-joseph-smith) with logic I don’t follow.
The paper states that the 1928 dictionary gives two common definitions: “Acute of mind” and “harsh.” It does not indicate which is the primary definition. The authors stretch acuteness to mean clarity — a definition I suspect would be more popular now than then, advancements in photography technology and all.
Citing the same example of “sharpness” used in the paper — Lehi saying,
“Ye say that he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold, his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth.”
— “sharpness” looks almost synonymous with “anger.” Lehi in essence says, “What you call ‘mean,’ I call ‘telling it like it is.'” You know, like Trump’s defenders would say. Why would Laman and Lemuel murmur about someone being clear? I have never once gotten a complaint from my kids that their brother was talking too clearly to them.
And in D&C, the same book as the verse in question (with nothing lost in translation as is possible in the BoM), “sharp” is frequently the adjective used to describe God’s words, which divide things asunder both joint and marrow. That sounds like something pointy and harsh to me, not something clear.
I am open to exploring the “clarity” hypothesis more, but I have not yet seen anything that proves this was the primary understood definition in Joseph Smith’s day, much less establishes this interpretation as the only possible one. I would appreciate being talked out of my stance, since emotionally the trendy interpretation sounds better to me, but mentally I can’t accept it.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this post and agree with the point that as parents, we should not exert control over other adults.
But I would like to see the other side presented as well–of children who judge and abandon their parents. My guess is that this happens at least as often.
In one family, an older sibling resented that the younger kids got more stuff–music lessons, better schools, etc.–than the parents could afford when she was growing up in the early years. The resentment became a poison, she refused to help with care of the parents as they aged.
I was hosting a group of teen girls from another town for youth conference, and one in particular was complimentary about how wonderful I was and how her mother was horrible in various respects. It wasn’t until I saw the thank-you cards and her last name that I realized I knew her mother, who is pretty darn amazing, from a stake calling. And at least one thing that her daughter accused her of was NOT true.
Sometimes young people assume that their parents will judge them this way or that, and never give the parents an actual chance. So they get married without inviting their awful judgmental parents, sure that their mom would not be there if it wasn’t in the temple… except that really, she would want to be there if the child was marrying a Martian in the middle of the ocean.
It’s almost like the child is using their parent as a caricature, a stick to beat themselves with, and holding the parent responsible for what the child is sure the parent would say–instead of what the parent actually says.
Yes, parents teach correct principles in the years their child is growing up. That doesn’t mean that they will stop loving a child who chooses to live otherwise.
I am sure that a lot of hurt LDS parents could totally relate when Han Solo reaches out to touch his son’t face one last time.
Naismith, a very important point and I love the Kylo Ren analogy. It is often easier for us to imagine our parents disapproving than it is to talk and listen and to love them also.
Could you cite the claim of Brigham Young boasting not remembering all of the names of his wives? I am unfamiliar with it.
I also agree Naismith that makes a good point. In discussions amongst my siblings and I, it’s obvious that we each are more aware of different things about our parents, perhaps due to our own individual experiences with our parents, but also down to our different personalities and the things that are important to us as individuals. So I can make one comment about how my father would have made a good architect for instance, and the brother I’m speaking to is totally surprised, says he isn’t doubting what I’m saying but is asking for the evidence on which I base my claim, whilst I feel like I’ve been swimming in the evidence most of life.
For anyone that wants to watch the 14-minute video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNRlg6O8ekU
In my family and my husband’s family, financial inheritances are about as real as glass slippers. Any money a parent makes belongs to them. If anything is left over after they die, then cool (but don’t count on it).
When I watched the video, the big problem I saw was tone. The (obviously wealthy) parents were expressing how disappointed they were in the choices their oldest child had made, and that they were going to change how they parent their younger two children. The dad seems to say that a guy at LDS philanthropies suggested he use his money to work towards the goal of getting his kids to make better choices. I’m pretty sure the dad came up with the idea of withholding inheritance based on temple recommend status. His reasoning is that when he is later asked how his adult children are doing, he will think about whether they are honoring the priesthood and keeping a temple recommend. If they are doing that, then they’re good. If not, then they are struggling (doesn’t matter what else they’ve accomplished in their life). That’s the critical issue – the temple recommend proves whether they are a success or failure in the eyes of those parents. The temple recommend proves that they are qualified to handle the financial responsibility. The thing is, we never find out what the disappointing choices the oldest daughter made – we don’t know if they’re talking about constant rehab stints and jailtime or critical Facebook posts and Sunstone attendance. There’s no scale to work with.
The crux of the issue, though, is using outward religious behavior as the basis of one’s acceptance within the family unit. When you have a parent declaring to a child that they will never, ever, be good enough without that one religious criteria – that’s a problem. My in-laws might be disappointed that my brother-in-law isn’t active in the church, but they are still very proud of how good a husband and father he is, his work ethic, and his many talents – and he knows it. I’ve witnessed my husband’s family and his extended family make their priorities clear – approval/disapproval of behavior never negates family ties.
“The crux of the issue, though, is using outward religious behavior as the basis of one’s acceptance within the family unit. When you have a parent declaring to a child that they will never, ever, be good enough without that one religious criteria – that’s a problem. but they are still very proud of how good a husband and father he is, his work ethic, and his many talents – approval/disapproval of behavior never negates family ties.”
Agree
Two things
I don’t necessarily think a temple recommend is an adequate/best measure of someone. Some of the most Christ-like people I know aren’t even LDS. And some I know holding temple recommends are less than Christ-like.
I also think of the parable of the prodigal son. He received his inheritance and squandered it, eventually returning to his father who welcomed him with open arms.
I’m opposed to coersion/bribes/tough-love as a way to keep children, especially adult children engaged with the church.
(Now, if they have an addiction, then yeah, I wouldn’t give them money)
Thanks Mary Ann for providing the link to the video.
I find it quite curious (actually, stunning) that LDS Philanthropies mixed a message about helping others and being charitable with one about how one could discipline children not “measuring up” in a way that could benefit LDS Philanthropies! I thought it incredibly sad they talked about the daughter–and she isn’t part of the video. Seems quite insensitive.
I have had the experience of a daughter who has cut me out of her life, having made many damaging choices as she was in her teens. It broke my heart, but I’ve never stopped loving her or acting in her best interests and invested as much in her wedding to an atheist as we would have had he been a member.Indeed, he’s a lovely person from a lovely family.We never attempted moral blackmail as we felt it wasn’t compatible with the principle of free agency, yet the strain has been too much for her, and she has cut herself off from me.
But here’s the thing-for what it’s worth we would never think of disinheriting her. I think those parents who do should seriously look at whether their motives are punitive, or whether they may be seen as punitive.
Both my husband and I as converts to the church were largely disinherited, as were our children who gained less from their grandparents estate than the local dog’s home. It’s like a slap to the face from beyond the grave and that is the experience of your parents that you are left with for the rest of your life. I’d very much like not to repeat history in my family, by not passing on such an insult.
I hope that my last act will not be one of cruelty and veangefulnes.