Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t know if or when I will return to the temple. But I’m keeping my clothing and a couple pair of garments. If for some reason I pass away, I know it’s likely my family/ward will probably prepare my body…and I don’t want them to have any difficulties. Someone would go through my things and find the clothing. Not that at this point I have a preference, but if I’m gone then I won’t have much say. I used to think earlier in my life that polygamy was a test for the saints. I just can’t accept that anymore because of the degree that it was implemented, the secrecy that was employed, and the fact it is still doctrine (I can marry another woman in the temple and my divorced wife-civil–is still sealed to me.) The race issue raised by university? That chaps my hide even more. My girlfriend is black and quotes like the 1947 letter by the First Presidency that includes the following response cannot be ignored:
“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”
So polygamy was OK but interracial marriage was “repugnant.” Wow.
I understand the idea that prophets are fallible. But we aren’t talking about a few mistakes or missteps….it’s a matter of claiming revelations from God with very clear language written down and published; 30+ wives, some at the age of fourteen and telling them they were damned if they didn’t agree; and from a man that saw God–or had a vision of some kind. Not just a man in line of succession to carry a mantle, but the man that restored the gospel to earth. I don’t see it as a mistake of one indiscretion or error, but either a clear direction from God or not. So what if the Church disavows polygamy? Does it mean it was never a correct principle? How can it ever do that? Either it was sanctioned by God or it wasn’t. And if it is no longer a correct principle, was there a revelation to direct this?
I never thought that polygamy would ever challenge my faith until I learned about the details behind what was said to the women, their ages, and all of that. I don’t see any way out of this.
Quote:AND,…why can someone who is inactive and has actually gone and joined another church with full baptism and so forth in that church,…why are they left as a member of the LDS faith and their name not removed? I’ve seen that happen as well. Isn’t there a policy about joining another church being cause for action?
I think it is reason for the bishop to take action. The issue is that many don’t want to deal with it (I can’t blame them–really have a church court to discipline when there are so many other things to attend to?) I was a counselor to a bishop who mentioned a couple times when some disciplinary discussion came up, “I really need to initiate action on Sister Xxxxx [none of us had even ever met] because she’s living with a guy….but I really don’t want to.” And to my knowledge he never did.
I think you may like it. I had this calling several years ago and it was not bad…the 11 year old boys are goofy, on the cusp of young adulthood, and easily entertained. The advancement tasks are simple and not difficult to teach. When things got boring we’d work on the “football badge” and just throw the football around. They really liked this 
I always dreaded the new calling. I was often at the point that I really didn’t want one (eventually served as a counselor in the bishopric, sheesh) and I can say this was not a bad one. Once or twice a year a campout for a night, not bad. I don’t like camping at all.
Anyway, I never liked scouts as a kid and still don’t like it. But Webelos or whatever they are calling it now is not bad. In fact, I have fond memories of that time…but once I got into real scouting as a kid I hated it. This is a fun age and you can really leave a lasting impression if you are laid back, let them have fun, and don’t take things too seriously. You may really like it.
Quote:Can you see a connection between the dispensation of the gospel and the rate of technological innovation?
There is a clear connection between population and technology…this was outlined in the recent publication, “The Second Machine Age” complete with graph to show how human population (worldwide) matched social development (defined as “a group’s ability to master its physical and intellectual environment to get things done,” which is of course aided/driven by technology.)
“For many thousands of years, humanity was a very gradual upward
trajectory. Progress was achingly slow, almost invisible. Animals and
farms, wars and empires, philosophies and religions all failed to exert
much influence. But just over two hundred years ago, something sudden
and profound arrived and bent the curve of human history—of
population and social development—almost ninety degrees.”
In other words, the industrial revolution kicked it off and since then both population and technology have shot upwards. I doubt technology advanced due to anything else. The graph and narrative is in the first chapter of the book, available online for free at the book’s website (just Google it. It’s a pretty good read.)
I am a senior administrator at a university and believe (I guess this is a thread where we’re weighing in on what we believe) is that there was no direction from the top of the Church leadership…but that the local leadership wouldn’t do something like this unless they believed they would have support from SLC and it would be the same action a GA or the FP would take. I’m not going to do something at my institution that wouldn’t fit that criteria. But even in the absence of that kind of measure, what the Ordain Women movement was trying to do–gain followers and advocate something so radical–couldn’t be ignored. I think a lot of local leaders don’t want to get into this slop but it meets the definition of apostasy as far as the handbook and practice goes. I can’t say if I agree or disagree, since I’m questioning a lot of things myself. I just think it wasn’t directed or even suggested from the top. It was an assessment by local leadership based on their understanding of standards.
I enjoy cleaning the building, while I don’t care much for cleaning my own home lol. All I can say is that I think it’s a matter or priorities…there was one time I forgot I was “assigned” and didn’t go, but if I had remembered would certainly have shown up. Wards that have an effective system to remind members have greater success, I think. It’s a matter of cleaning not being high on the list for most people but I’d bet most don’t mind. I can see how cleaning the building is an issue for a lot of members. How it’s a trigger for what’s wrong with the Church and how it does things….like rescue visits is for me. But cleaning the building is something I actually like and don’t mind. I like some physical labor and don’t always get a lot because of my desk job, and in the scheme of things this isn’t that bad. So when several people/families are assigned and not everyone shows up I think it’s just a matter of them not minding the idea and willing to do it, but not important enough to put a reminder somewhere to do it.
For me, it’s less about spreading the word about this document and more about still trying to figure out “why” there was so much confusion about race and the priesthood. The document continues to raise questions for me. And the more I think about it, the closer I get (I think) to the answer. Consider that the ban was put in place. After that, it was a matter of following it or changing it. Finally it happened in 1978.
During my life I first believed, based on what I heard somewhere, that it was a matter of the supposed “curse.” Then I came to believe that it was approved by God due to the contentious period and what America was ready for…almost like the way the BOM and restoration happened when the world was ready. Finally, years ago, I just accepted that we don’t know the reason but God does–and there must be a reason but we don’t know why.
Now I look back and none of these possibilities make much sense. I can only guess that the leadership of the Church accepted one or all of these reasons at some point…it wasn’t a matter of how to reverse the ban, just acceptance. I’d like to think that if the ban was uninspired or based on racists views or political aspirations, which it now appears, the later leadership would have fixed it much sooner. But they just accepted it.
Finally today it’s absurd to most everyone and thus we get the document explanation. And there’s a degree of honesty in the text that acknowledges this. For that I give the current leadership credit.
Hard to fault the past leadership after BY when I myself accepted so many different explanations for so long. The difference between me/us and them is that as prophets of God there should have been some inspiration to end it sooner. For me either they were uninspired or just accepted X.
Can’t say which it was, but that’s where I’m at. And glad the document was produced last year.
InquiringMind wrote:And that’s the strange part of it. She said that dating me was not the answer that she wanted, but she felt strongly that she should date me.
Maybe she likes your company enough and someone paying for dates…but it doesn’t fully explain why she would go to the length of saying she didn’t want to date you, prayed about it, and got an answer of “yes.”
I believe in prayer, but I also think that some people–maybe all of us?–are influenced by our own subjectivity. That might be the case of the first woman;
in the case of the second woman, she may be influenced by whatever whim comes to her mind (read: not the Spirit). It’s like people who see signs in everyday things–a bird that flew overhead is a message from God–or who want to interpret every dream to mean something. For me that’s a dangerous thing. What about if she has a dream about marrying you? Would she just because it played out in her mind while sleeping? Dangerous.
I’m conflicted on this question because I’m just not sure how to articulate my feelings, but here goes via my own experiences: I believe that my soon-to-be-former wife went to the temple and prayed about our relationship in December. Got the answer that she needed to divorce me and pursue an old boyfriend that reentered her life. If true that this was her experience, then it’s absurd that the Spirit would give her this answer in light of what was an otherwise wonderful marriage. “Otherwise” meaning I have periodically struggled with some aspects of the Word of Wisdom–in every other respect it has been loving, generous, and happy for 22 years. It’s crazy to think God would want to break up a temple marriage, separate a family, and just expect us to give up. She got the answer she wanted.
Bottom line is that I agree with Roy’s response. If a potential bride is not using the brain and heart that God gave her, and is having these kinds of impressions now, watch out in the future. You’re going to encounter a whole lot of crazy later on.
Finally, I know chastity comes into play before marriage. I get that. But if she won’t kiss you or be affectionate, I see it as a sign that it’s going to be a lame romantic/sex life even after you two are married. I would want to know there was some passion–any passion–there before putting a ring on the finger.
Nobody ever asked me about going on a mission. Never. I can’t recall anyone at church or even my parents asking what my plans were or telling me that I “should.” I’m glad it was my decision. That’s one thing I don’t like about the Church is the pressures, but in this case I never felt it. I think my aversion to home teaching is two-fold: First, I could care less if they came. It’s actually an imposition to schedule and welcome someone into my home, so I should really say I’d just prefer them not to come. This has always been the feeling I’ve had.
Second, I don’t like being told I’m not [fill in the blank] if I don’t go home teaching. “They really need you.” Maybe, I don’t know, but I’m sure I don’t need them…so I naturally don’t think it’s true they need me. I’m probably wrong but that’s the lens view HT from. The notion that I’m not a good member if I don’t home teach is another guilt trip that I’ve become immune to.
About having dreams about serving again….I’ve had a dozen over the last 20 years about being called to serve again (after being married, kids) and going. Then getting into the field and thinking, “What the heck?!?” and planning to return home as quickly as possible. I’m not much for reading a lot into dreams at all, and usually these came out of the blue. Strange is all I can say.
