[Ann]

PazamaManX wrote:

Roy wrote:

I think the word “offended” has immense baggage in the LDS church. I feel that it is a way to trivialize, diminish, and dismiss the action that the person experienced. It feels synonymous to saying, “I got my feelings hurt” or more common “that person got their feelings hurt.” The person who was “offended” thus becomes marginalized and their grievances are portrayed as minor and petty.

Imagine for example if the passage read as follows, “Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today” or “No one was friendly to me” or “My child was bullied and tormented at church activities until he took his own life.” Personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.”

I couldn’t agree more. My cousin has autism and when he was very young he was a major handful. My aunt received no support from the primary or anyone else as no one could/wanted to deal with him. For her, church was just a huge hassle that was more exhausting than enriching. So she quit going. And how was her inactivity summarized? She was “offended”.

Roy wrote:

And now my favorite part….

Quote:

Church membership councils lovingly seek to help us qualify for the mercy of forgiveness made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Am I the only one that finds this unchristian?

.

Nope. I do as well.

No from me as well.

Regarding “personal disappointments should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ…” I find the wording very guilt-inducing, and I’m afraid to say it, but it seems purposeful. He didn’t say, “personal experiences should never keep us from the LDS church”, but I think it’s what he means. I feel uneasy when “doctrine of Christ” stands in for the church. The love of Christ, the sacrifice of Christ, the example of Christ – are not the church.

The church encourages and facilitates a lot of good behaviors, but that doesn’t trump all. I get the feeling from both President Nelson and President Oaks that in their minds there is absolutely nothing that would justify inactivity in the church. They seem very far away from people whose experiences lead them out of the church and are better off there.

[Ann]

He said,

“We have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people.”

He doesn’t want flags, just everyone treating gay people well, and a house that at least appears united because it doesn’t fixate on these issues. The rainbow-lit “Y” was too much for some people. But the real changes are happening in people’s hearts and homes. And they choose their gay kids’ health and happiness over the church. And in the house next door, they have gay friends, and choose them over the church. For them, the issue is not so very “challenging and complex.”

I don’t know that it was such a good idea to refer to and distribute President Kimball’s 1976 “Second Century Address,” because, at least for me, it calls to mind the era pre- black priesthood ordination and reminds me that our leaders have been just plain wrong in the past.

I don’t know what the end game will be, but it shouldn’t be a whole class of people that can’t hold hands on campus. People that are “othered,” fretted and prayed over as though there is something wrong with them.

[Ann]

I got curious about Brian’s avatar, so I googled it and found a post from him on this site. “Tom Haws” asked about it on April 6, 2009, and this is part of Brian’s reply.

Brian wrote:

Quote:

“The name Valoel also has a meaning. It is the name of a mythical archangel that represents and governs over certain universal principles. I wanted to be associated with that meaning.

…Valoel presides over peace, while filling our minds with tranquility, serenity, and happiness. Valoel inspires cooperation and calmness when we have conflicts within our hearts. Valoel is considered to be an archangel as he brings us inner peace and balance.

I’m not being so arrogant as to think I am that archangel. I just like what the name represents, and use the name to focus my own feeble efforts to influence the world around me. It is a nice ideal to strive for.”

I think he lived up to his name.

[Ann]

nibbler wrote:

But seriously, I don’t think his perspective allows him to be able to feel the plight of the doubter. I know I wouldn’t have before I had experienced it myself.

I agree that I wouldn’t have before experiencing it myself. But I’m a nobody, not the person charged with leading all the members. Why the out-of-place swipe on Easter Sunday morning of all times? This was a talk that began with, “Christ changed each of our lives forever.”

[Ann]

bridget_night wrote:

When I grew up in the church it was encouraged to question and get your own confirmation from God. Early leaders like Hugh B. Brown would say things like, “he who has never doubted has never thought.” J. Reuben Clark said the church should be investigated and exposed if wrong. So what changed?

Another big change is the sheer amount of information out there.

[Ann]

The first person I heard from after this talk was one of my 20-something kids, a sincere and hard-working person who was devastated by a faith crisis. The gist of her conclusion: I guess I made the right decision to leave. There isn’t a place for me in the Church.

[Ann]

Sorry about my cryptic OP. I was upset, and didn’t give context.

This is *the* talk that will be taught in RS/EQ in the coming six months and I feel that Pres. Nelson may have given permission with his example to dismiss and belittle doubters. We aren’t “rehearsing” our doubts “with other doubters.” Many of us are heartbroken and looking for a way to hang on. I wasn’t “hoping to find a flaw in the fabric of a prophet’s life.” I faced waves of disturbing information that gave rise to real questions, real distrust.

Thousands of LDS families have been torn apart by faith crises, and here is a talk saying that the strugglers are just doing it wrong. That’s all, nothing to see. No empathy needed. No curiosity about what troubles them. It’s okay to call them lazy and lax. If their personal journey takes them out of the church, it can’t have been God working in their lives.

[Ann]

I could try to sum up how all my beliefs have changed and how I fit in now. But the main reason I go is so my husband doesn’t go alone, and as a sort of tribute or acknowledgement of all the years we spent on the same page. That goes a long way for me.

I also fulfill non-teaching callings, but they aren’t what’s driving me.

[Ann]

I hope not.

Lately, even before Covid-19, I don’t feel I have much to contribute, but I do check and would feel the loss if it disappeared. I came here eight years ago in full-blown crisis, and you all took a lot of the sting out of it.

[Ann]

I think I’m reacting negatively to this because they touched the third rail of faith crises when she quoted (or paraphrased?) Elder Ballard – you’ll be in rebellion, confusion, and disharmony if you read the stuff “floating around on the internet.” The church’s own Gospel Topics essays have contributed plenty to my loss of confidence and faith. Also disappointing is the use of such a tired phrase as “put it on a shelf.”

It was obviously impossible to talk with Harry one on one, and I’m glad they at least took a question about doubts. But something in their answers makes me think that even one on one they wouldn’t really seek to understand him. And for me, that is too familiar. The most important person in my life is utterly uninterested in what I’m thinking about the church. There is no judgment, no pushing, but also no willingness to just listen or ask me questions.

I understand that orthodox LDS living has brought them lots of happiness. They’re thankful for that and want the same for others. I keep hoping, though, for more true interest in the doubter’s inner life. He said to “ask your questions. They deserve to be answered.” My feeling a couple of years into my own disillusionment is – ask us questions! They’ve undoubtedly done surveys, though.

In the end he says to take our questions to God. I think a lot of people do that and come away with some peace and reassurance that the doubter is still acceptable, and it’s okay to step away.

[Ann]

It seems like leaders still haven’t grappled with how the internet has changed the church. They’re not alone in that, but there’s very little “waiting patiently” these days. People talk – online, 24/7, anonymously for social safety. I think privately current leadership would all say that they found the priesthood ban objectionable. So they can point to that as successful, faithful waiting. I think they see that as the last thing that needed to change, and what’s all this other stuff.

[Ann]

Gerald wrote:

I’m in the ward choir (don’t really enjoy it but I always feel so sorry for ward choir directors which is a thankless calling in our ward). The choir director recently told us that our Christmas sacrament program had to be a regular sacrament meeting (though Christmas themed) with (seemingly) a minimum of musical numbers (our bishop interprets this as “one”.) This came down from our area authority. I looked through the handbook and could only find that “pageants” are not permitted and any musical program should have at least one speaker. But it seems the door is open to still having a primarily musical sacrament meeting around Christmas time. Is this just an overinterpretation by an overzealous area authority (or perhaps our overzealous bishop)? Or is this the experience that the rest of you have? Just wondering.

Same here. They also got rid of rest hymns in regular sacrament meetings.

[Ann]

LookingHard wrote:

I think the anger isn’t always just his behavior, but the frustration of the totally whitewashed version presented by the church.

This is how I feel. It’s the lionizing of the man that bothers me. It starts at the top and trickles down to whole sacrament meeting talks and GD lessons and Primary sharing times in which Joseph Smith gets more press than Jesus Christ.

[Ann]

DarkJedi wrote:

But the fireside was intended or a much younger audience and probably an audience that is wary of the apologetic stance, at least many of them to some extent. Ithink that’s what some of the leadership don’t understand – I think this generation really does want a “we report, you decide” kind of thing. Tell the story, don’t make excuses or talk about what could have been or why it could have been. I do think the top leadership recognizes and is concerned about the bleeding of this age group but I don’t think they know what to do about, and frankly neither do I. As a parent of four of them, some active and some not but all with questions, I’d say they want honesty and they don’t want to be told what to think or what to do.

Just curious, do the footnotes in the polygamy chapter include “In Sacred Loneliness?” If they have the guts to include something like that, it will go a long way with kids like mine. But, otherwise, they don’t want one or two cherry-picked examples and nothing meatier in the notes. The book is written for a 9th grade reading level. (I think I read that somewhere.) Meatier info in the notes would also show that they realize some readers can digest much more.

[Ann]

LookingHard wrote:

I have known Sam for quite a long time. He is a salesman through and through, but has a really big heart. He loves people.

He has many of his relatives and children of those close that have come out as gay and it tore him apart to see the pain they went though.

He tried the route of voting opposed, which seems to be a sham more than a way to have your voice heard. That ticked him off.

I too think that looking at the reality of how top church leadership puts loyalty above almost anything else, he wasn’t going to be effective (the change he wanted). I think he got pissed off and kept raising the stakes assuming he could get the change done.

I think the church is playing with fire here. If the press/public start grouping the LDS church in with the JW and the much bigger Catholic sex abuse scandles, they are going to look really bad if they don’t get some humility and admit there were problems and start making changes – they could get some seriously bad press.

I listened to the “A Thoughtful Faith” podcast last week that had a lawyer on that has been taking on LDS abuse cases most of his career (sounded like he was approaching retirement). I don’t know how much is verifiable, but he sure painted a picture that there was a lot of cover-up – as in lots of “here is a pile of money as long as you shut up”. And he said it is impossible to get a good outcome of a trial in Utah and law firms are smart enough not to try and stand up to the church or they will feel it in their pocket books.

And now I need to go get dressed and attend 3 hours of how great the church is.

I agree on the playing with fire.

I listened to that podcast, too. If what he’s saying is true, I’m ashamed of us.

[Author]

Posts