[AmyJ]

DarkJedi wrote:

(If there are modern ites in the same sense as the classic ones I am an Uchtdorfite.)

Count me in!

[AmyJ]

nibbler wrote:

It sounds like you’re saying that leaders would rather people change to conform to the type of people that the church is set up to minister to as opposed to putting in the effort it would require to minister to all types of people.

This. I am not that great at conforming – I am great at halfway pretending to conform periodically or conforming not to conform, but because there is good reason to conform – just not usually everyone else’s reason.

Example: I don’t drink alcohol. The first reason I don’t do so is because 3 out of my 4 grandparents were alcoholics and I don’t want to deal with the consequences that would ensue if I drank alcohol. The fact that it is a currently considered a commandment is incidental to me. It’s an inconsequential checkbox I get to check off on the list of what “good” Mormons do.

I don’t fit in socially very well at church. I can talk to people and be friendly, but I am not a comfortable conformable latter day saint. My best friends at church are 10-35 years older than I am. I have friends because we are in a branch, so people are more like family. I love it at the branch, but I don’t love it the way I love my board “branch” here.

Example:

My husband is always at home with the kids (between being a SAHD and us having 1 car, he doesn’t go places). He is fine with being at home and doesn’t really want to see people anyways. But I get weird looks from people when I ask if I can bring my baby to a branch baby shower (the planners can say no), or bring both girls to a branch R.S. activity (making cinnamon rolls for Father’s Day), or the Women’s broadcast. The idea that I would cart them with me to R.S. Sisterhood activities to see them, or serve my husband by giving him some time off from being the on-call parent doesn’t seem to make sense to other sisters. Or maybe, it’s in combination with the fact that I ask the planners or the R.S. President ahead of time as a sign of respect. It would be nice if I wasn’t given weird looks for finding an alternative that works for all of us, or being a deviant and entertaining kid/mom time is as equally important as R.S. time. I get that it is nice to be away from kids if you are a mom, but what if it is nicer to be with your kids if you are the mom and you don’t want to drop activities?

A judgement-happy sister took something I said in a passing conversation out of context 2 years ago as a reason to dislike me, and didn’t feel like working it out with me until she was “forced” to be my VT a few months ago and we wound talking about me as her “project” for self-improvement (general gist). I am not mad or offended that she made a judgement not to like me – that is her call. I have 2 regrets about the situation. I just wish she had TALKED to me about it, or gotten to know me a little to realize she could TALK to me about it instead of just not liking me and not saying anything. I wish that I had been able to pick up on her extreme dislike of me enough to make efforts to fix it. I don’t pick up on non-verbal cues as well as the average female, so I had NO CLUE she did not like me. Needless to say I don’t consider her my VT, and will not rely on her in the future as a VT. In fact, I did speak up and request a different VT – but only because my mom pointed out that my R.S. President might want to know just in case she did the same to other sisters she visited. And yes, my husband thought it was weird that I recommended to my R.S. president a sister whom I had a relationship with and whom was already functioning as my VT – and requested that she be assigned to it because I was going to consider her my VT – so they might as well get credit for what was going to happen anyways. Now, I know protocol is that you don’t normally request callings or VT because they want to break up cliches. But what if cliche-building is not an issue? When do the needs of the person/people outweigh administrative policies?

nibbler wrote:

I’m with you. The church doesn’t fit everyone… but the belief I see among most orthodox members I know is that the church does fit everyone; the church is the way, the truth, and the life, no one makes it back to the father except through church. If someone isn’t a good fit we typically chalk it up to them not having a testimony of the truth yet (they don’t realize the importance) or we chalk it up to sin that is preventing someone from being a good fit.

There is a middle way.

I used to think that there was only 1 way, but now I don’t. It used to be a matter of faith that somehow my quirkiness and not really fitting into standard categories would resolve itself into the 1 way or at least I would get enough brownie points for it to do so. Now, I don’t know if it matters that I feel that I don’t fit well in the church program even though on paper I fulfill all the TBM check boxes. I can readily accept that in order for the church way to fit me, changes have to be made on both sides. The skirmishes I have had in this area (ie, providing input on the best callings for me to my branch president) already cause my husband to nearly swoon from shock. The rationalizations I make for what I do what I do make sense to him, but the audacity I have in bringing up concerns requiring changes from the church drives him nuts.

I don’t even feel worthy enough to make the qualification as to which way is the best way – only each individual can on their behalf, or in some cases, on behalf of their children.

A few years ago a sister in our branch included in her testimony (I am paraphrasing now) how wonderful it was to see a “tender mercy of the Lord” that her nephew and family had found a Christian church to belong to since they moved to their new house. [Yes, we are outside the Mormon Corridor]. This surprised me because she was specifically citing a non-Mormon church and I normally don’t hear that. Now I understand what she was talking about.

[AmyJ]

DarkJedi wrote:

My thing was teachings that in my experience turned out not to be “true.” I’m not sure which bubble that fits in.

I have been thinking about this a lot, actually. We are taught quite a few if/then statements as principles, and when the if/then statement fails, we’re given a shrug and told to “work harder”, “pray harder” and figure it out and shamed for our confusion. I feel this is especially true when the if/then statement breaks down because of our choices.

Heber13 wrote:

I’m there with you DJ. Personal revelation and personal experience lead to loss of faith in the church or the messages from authority figures…but not losing faith in God or the gospel.

I still don’t see them drawing that distinction…and perhaps…that is the major reason I still see a disconnect. This is just my gut feeling…I could be limited in my view…but I feel they still see church and gospel as equivalent and inseparable. So…the person that leaves church activity must therefore have lost faith in all things good in the gospel…

Exactly. My father tried to teach me that there was a difference between the church and the gospel, but I did not fully understand it then (not sure I fully understand it now actually), and I have no idea how to transfer my understanding to my spouse and children safely. I suspect that those who see the church and gospel disconnect either end up here and/or are no longer actively involved in the church, for the most part.

Heber13 wrote:

The focus is on the extreme behaviors and equating those with the idea that if you stay in church and keep the Sabbath holy, you don’t have those behaviors. I think they are conflating things because their point of view is not seeing a distinction between the institution and the principles taught.

I think they want to identify and implement a standardized formula for retraining members. Between cultural traditions/mindset, changing challenges, and people being people, “it’s not that simple”. 😯

[AmyJ]

Beefster wrote:

Thank you for your perspective. Over the last few days, I’ve been ruminating on the thought, “How can this be the true church when there are so many mistakes that have been made?”

I pose the question differently. My question is “Is this this one true church FOR ME, for now?” Which I can answer “Yes” to – for now.

I know you are thinking “What about our priesthood?” So, I am going to go there and talk about what I think I have figured out

Right now I am not sure what I believe about temples – full stop.

I believe the sacrament is important in general, and I know it is important for me, but I can’t make a judgement call that the sacrament equivalents for other religions don’t have the same benefits. I believe in the power of the priesthood in my home and that it helps my husband be a better father and spouse, but I don’t know if it works as setting a standard for my household, or as direct power from God. I believe the ordinance of baptism is important for the individual as a commitment of his or her relationship to Christ – but I am not going to to claim other churches don’t have ways to make and express their commitment to Christ as well. I believe that receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is helpful, and that it is an invitation for the Holy Ghost to have more of a presence in our lives. I think that feeling the Spirit in our lives is tied to our commitment and our desire to have a commitment to Jesus Christ. I have rarely, if ever felt the Spirit around those who aren’t making keeping the 2 Great Commandments a priority, so I think they are connected somehow. The rest of the priesthood, for me, is administration stuff. I am pleased that more women are being invited to assist with the administration stuff in the church these days through going to PEC, and being invited to be on the boards of several key committees at the church level.

[AmyJ]

Heber13 wrote:

Those are my thoughts. I don’t care if Nephi was real or fiction, if they were really starving with their pregnant wives or if those were just stories to make a point…it feels like this life has hardships to endure, whatever they are. And building faith in the right things can help me apply that faith to my life, and help guide me through my own trials…as silly and little as they are compared to my dad’s or my ancestors in the handcart company.

The power is in the myths and teachings. There is no great answer to “why” it happens the way it does, and there is no great value to proving or disproving historical accounts of those who shared their journeys with us to help us learn. There is greater love and strength and enduring in hope when we apply the gospel teachings learned through the book of mormon.

Thanks for letting me share. Thanks for the thread, and letting me learn from all of you.

Wow. Just wow. Thank you!

I am here in part to build my faith in the “right” things.

The process from moving from California to Michigan I half in jest refer to our “reverse trek” – and it has many of these experiences we needed to become the people we are.

[AmyJ]

Heber13 wrote:

I feel like people accept the Bible is a conundrum, but have faith the BoM is plain and simple…they don’t want it to be complicated.

I think that for a variety of reasons, people are lead to believe that the BoM is much plainer and simpler than the Bible. It’s easier to believe that scholars through the ages got things in the Bible wrong through numerous translations, while the BoM went straight from the prophets to Mormon to JS. It wasn’t until I found this site that I really started thinking, “What if prophets were writing their inspiration through the filter of their time/place/circumstances even while trying to provide revelation(s) for future generations?”

[AmyJ]

Yes Sir, that is the truth Sir

But since we can only by the history/information passed down through the years based on what people knew, didn’t know, didn’t want to know, and didn’t want others to know it’s hard to get an accurate perspective – and that is before you get the bias applied by the filter of what we know know, what we don’t know about the time/circumstances, what we don’t want to know about history, and what we don’t want others to know about it.

So I am a little more comfortable talking about my my “now” because it doesn’t have so many variables involved:)

[AmyJ]

Heber13 wrote:

Could it be a better place but less righteous and more secular?

I am not entirely certain that righteousness and secular-ness are opposite ends of a spectrum…

In fact, I personally believe that it is a better place based on my world-view. As a product of this generation, I did not die or be mortally maimed giving birth to my children. My children are highly unlikely to deal with debilitating diseases such as polio. I can own land and vote, and I am not considered property. I can be gainfully employed knowing that if I encounter discrimination in the work force, I have the liberty of seeking a different position, seeking justice, or doing nothing. My family is not on the brink of starvation, and has not faced malnutrition. I can read and write. I have plenty of pure water to drink, bathe, and sanitize my clothes in.

Heber13 wrote:

What is “better” to God?

I am still trying to figure this one out. Actually, I am working on the “which paths of the paths available to me is better for me in God’s eyes” step. I am also planning a FHE lesson where I take a list of generic things (Sunday Sabbath Observance, Forgiveness, White Shirts, etc.) and write them down on strips of paper. I will make other strips of paper with “Doctrine”, “Tradition/Culture” and “Enlightened Idea” and have every family member categorize the principle. Hopefully this will remind them that there is a fair degree of variance between people’s perspectives – and also help DH realize “It’s Not That Simple”. I have no intent to discredit or shatter DH’s world view – but I am hopeful that I can build a foundation so that when we ever talk about it, he is prepared for the conversation(s). I deliberately use the word “when” because my DH HATES it when I don’t tell him things. It makes him feel he can’t be trusted by me, and he feels it is creates a schism between us. While I feel that his worldview is valid for us, I see no reason not to make things as soft a landing as possible instead of a crashing worldview

[AmyJ]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

The world is declining = erosion of patriarchy and white male privilege combined with a 24 hour news cycle and selective memory that results in an unwarranted nostalgia for the past. Who would really bring back legal marital rape, a murder rate 10x as high, or outhouses vs. toilets? Nobody in their right mind, that’s who.

I agree with Hawkgrrl. The world is overall a better place.

Don’t forget that up until 100 years ago for first world countries, the mortality rate for children and their mothers was a lot higher than it is now – childbirth was a perilous passage. The CDC reports that there were approx. 100 infant deaths and 7-9 mother deaths for every 1,000 live births.

Even today, the world factbook reports 112 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births within the first year in Afghanistan. In other words, a mortality rate around 10%. In contrast, the United States of America reports 5 deaths for every 1,000 live births within the first year, or about 1/2 a percent and is not one of the countries with the lowest infant mortality rate.

Sources:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

[AmyJ]

nibbler wrote:

The issues he brought up aside, I don’t care for conference talks where the spirit of the talk comes across as putting a group of people (in this case BoM critics) in their place.

I believe he also mischaracterized the issues that critics have, which I’m sure drives the critics nuts, then the whole thing becomes a feedback loop of reactions based off of reactions.

My TBM husband even raised his eyebrows at this talk and wondered “why” we had to have this in conference and came to the conclusion that he was being condescending and fulfilling an internal agenda. I was able to give him a quick “It’s Not That Simple” summary with 2-3 plausible reasons Bro. Callister felt he needed to have this talk (not that I disagreed with DH on this one, because I didn’t). The fact that my DH didn’t jump on the soapbox and join the TBM grandstand was a pleasant surprise. I am grateful that I had the chance to say something introducing seeds of other thinking so that if/when I talk to him about this FT, he will be in a better place to accept it.

[AmyJ]

Last year I listened to the “Old Testament” lectures from Yale on youtube for free – and boy was that an eye opener. I naively thought, “I have studied this set of scriptures off an on for years – it should be an easy review…” If you had read a summary based on each experience, you would think they were different books entirely…

[AmyJ]

Thanks SilentDawning!

I have been guided by the posts and comments here into following all those suggestions:)

The challenge I have at times is finding an acceptable unorthodox principle in each lesson – it can be done, but sometimes it is more challenging than other times.

That link is powerful, Ray – thank you! I will study it further and apply it in my studies:)

[AmyJ]

DancingCarrot wrote:

I see at least a few intersections regarding this topic.

– Healthy sexual expression is not talked about in church, except when it’s framed as a list of Don’t Until You Can – In Marriage. Even after that, there is no clear, helpful, healthy way forward. I am not advocating that the church become a bastion of healthy human sexuality, but it’s a tough wall to scale.

– To add to the above, the culture makes up for the silence on sexuality by both hypersexualizing both genders, and suppressing appropriate sexual expression. This is also done in the West/American/Puritan culture at large, as other countries don’t have the same issues with sexuality as we do. Women get hypersexualized by having decidedly non-sexual body parts deemed sexual, but they also don’t have an independent sexuality (separate from their husband and beginning before marriage). Men are hypersexualized in the sense that they’re told their sexual urges are quite ravenous and need to be squelched until they have a release in marriage.

– It is normal for humans to be aroused by images, physical touch, stories, and fantasies. In fact, it’s considered abnormal if someone is incapable of being aroused. It’s also considered abnormal to be aroused by most things. Being aroused by arouseable things isn’t a problem; how you personally deal with your arousal CAN be a problem.

– The hypersexualization and following sexual repression of men leads them to secret activities that inevitably feed the shame that they have before any sort of porn use. The perceived unsexuality of women leads them to secret activities that inevitably feed the shame they have before any sort of porn use.

– Especially for older singles, sexual expression is perceived as unacceptable and nearly non-existent. Like I said earlier, being aroused and expressing your own sexuality in healthy ways is normal and good, for married and single people alike. Church members have different beliefs and values to manage than the culture at large, but long-term sexual suppression is not healthy nor does it lead to mature adults who are capable of connected and fulfilling relationships. Other religions tend to sublimate their single and celibate members’ sexuality through special callings and support groups, however the LDS church does not and it is taxing on those who don’t know what to do.

This entire summary – thank you!!

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:

DancingCarrot wrote:

– Healthy sexual expression is not talked about in church, except when it’s framed as a list of Don’t Until You Can – In Marriage.

This is becoming a more visible problem as the conversations (and the expectations about when to have the conversations) about healthy sexual expression are now starting in Primary instead of YM/YW. Parents get the opportunity to present insights on this subjects before the parents were necessarily ready to do so as a form of inoculation measure.

DancingCarrot wrote:

Women get hypersexualized by having decidedly non-sexual body parts deemed sexual, but they also don’t have an independent sexuality (separate from their husband and beginning before marriage).

I feel that single women have 3 forms of “independent” sexuality – either they are stereotyped as self-cloistered nuns, lesbians, or they are tramps. There is no middle ground. However, all 3 stereotypes are independent of a spouse.

[AmyJ]

Thanks Roy, I agree with all of these points. The pathways program itself GS class seems to be designed that way. Thankfully, all I need to do is take a

quote and find a principle in it to write about. The writing requirements are also short – just a paragraph or two.

What is keeping me sane in the class is that I review the information, think about it, apply my StayLDS (honest answers that keep me off the radar) approach while doing the coursework. As expected, there are a LOT of TBM responses to read/muddle through. It is almost a game to to blend in TBM-wise, while being honest. Actually, I feel I am learning just as much from the posts and responses here as I am in the actual gatherings and coursework. And there is value to be had in the coursework, but for me the greatest value is from the 69 bucks a credit university price tag at the end of the experience.

[AmyJ]

Silent Dawning,

Thanks for your wisdom:)

I think the biggest difference between school learning and personal life application (among many differences) is motivation. For example, the research I have done about Asperger’s syndrome and other learning differences did not interest me and I did not have a context for it until my daughter was assessed for these learning differences. Now, I have developed additional insights about this area of expertise that I would have never dreamed of formally studying (though I may decide to do so later on in life). Study in this area of expertise was vague and unfocused until it had a life application.

“And as one professor told me “all we can do is teach general principles given the diversity of jobs our students will enter some day”. So after they graduate, they still don’t know a lot because they need training in their specific fields. ” I like this quote a lot – thanks!

I can relate in regards to learning specialized information from articles and such. In regards to my family, I am becoming one of the “people in the know” (hopefully) about a few things. But I have my list of sources and knowledgeable people I talk to about this stuff too.

I will think about your statement that education takes a lot of time before it seeps in from seeing the same material in different contexts.

I can see how the difference between structured and unstructured knowledge creates that chasm. I am currently an unstructured thinker in a structured company.

I will bear in mind your ending with a question suggestion, but right now no questions come to mind.

[Author]

Posts