[Ann]

Hi, Only Love –

I also feel much closer to God now than back in my orthodox days. But it’s interesting to me that we still thirst for conversation with like-minded people. I also believe, like you said, that God can teach me something in the midst of the excitement of knowing him better and the distress of losing faith in the institution.

Glad you’re here and hope it’s helpful.

[Ann]

squarepeg wrote:

Interesting… The D&C verse Pres Nelson cited to show that women’s divine role is to have kiddos was originally meant in reference to plural wives.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2018/01/17/verse-63/

Thanks for linking to the Ardis P. post.

I usually don’t nod my head in agreement when people talk about GAs ages, nationality, out-of-touch-ness, but, wow, do I feel it now. Very disappointed in his comments about women throughout the Q&A.

It’s 2018!

[Ann]

I’ll just post separately. I went to Wikipedia because I was curious about their ages. Terryl was born in 1957.

I know from a presentation I heard a year or so ago that she has something in the works, but this is what I’m waiting for:

Quote:

Givens’s wife, Fiona Givens, is a Latter-day Saint who was raised as a Catholic. She has co-authored some of his books and been involved in some theologically related work on her own, such as discussing the possibility of fully developing a theology of Heavenly Mother in a Neal A. Maxwell Institute Podcast.

It’ll be interesting to see if Deseret Book publishes it and what kind of reception it gets. I don’t say that rubbing my hands with glee over some big controversy. I think there’s probably going to be one run at the idea, and nothing more if it can’t get traction. So I’m hoping. Unless there’s some other way to finally have a real hearing on a woman’s place in the restored gospel, the temple, the day to day functioning of the church, etc.

I worry that the generation following the Givenses is being gutted right now, so their work is all the more important.

[Ann]

Thanks for the link. It’s not exactly an easy listen because of the sound quality and the slowness of the discussion. But here’s my meandering take:

The interview is with two (of 60-70) people who attended a Givens fireside in Arizona. I think I got it right – their new book is “The Christ Who Heals.”

Kind of weird, I think, that attendance at this thing was generated solely by word of mouth, nothing over the pulpit. If the church is okay with Deseret Book publishing them and with chapels being available to them, I don’t exactly see why they wouldn’t “allow” more promotion. The Givenses walk a fine line and never criticize the brethren, but should appeal to many of the leavers.

The interview was with two attendees because the Givenses have declined invitations to come back on the program. I can think of all kinds of reasons why, but apparently Fiona has said that they don’t want to be seen as “faith crisis gurus.”

Some bullet points from the discussion of their book:

– teachings of Protestant churches at JS’ time

– Joseph Smith’s teachings as contrary on nearly every important point

– we came into this life to ascend back to God

– becoming “perfect” really means “whole”

– baptism is more of an adoption into the body of Christ than for forgiveness of sin

– progression within the three degrees of glory

The attendees take is that the Givenses are trying to educate all of us and reshape a culture that still doesn’t promote doctrines that – in the Bruce R. McConkie/Joseph Fielding Smith era especially – fell out of favor.

Whose right is it to theologize? was the next question discussed. What really constitutes Mormon doctrine? A Thoughtful Faith Facebook group has used the phrase “trickle up theology.”

One of the guys said something pretty funny when I thought about it. “People at church aren’t interested in talking about religion.” One of them, when asked for his final thoughts at the end, what struck them the most, said, “how few people were there.” It wasn’t said to criticize because one of them said his wife is simply not interested in these discussions.

P.S. I’m not a huge John Dehlin fan, but this podcast got me a glimpse of something I wouldn’t have seen otherwise. He noted that a woman had been asked to participate, but it didn’t work out. He invited any woman listening live to call and he’d patch her in to the call.

[Ann]

Quote:

I believe part of the issue is that she has been going through puberty at an early age, she started early stages a few years ago. None of her close friends are showing any signs so she feels out of place. She almost as tall as me and catching up in many “other” ways. So she is trying to make sense of her body and emotions at such an early age. We have had lots of puberty talks so she knows what is going on logically.

A friend’s daughter experienced what at the time was called precocious puberty, but maybe it’s just plain old “early” now. I know this doesn’t really have anything to do with how you handle the P and M issues, but maybe her pediatrician has some things he/she would check. Or some advice (out of earshot) about handling some of the social issues.

It’s hard to be an outlier, early or late. It’s good that you’re close with her until her peers catch up.

[Ann]

Spocklover,

At a time like this, you almost wish you didn’t love your kids so much, or want their lives to unfold a certain way so badly.

Oh, my goodness, yes, this isn’t a talk for her and the bishop.

If you think it would help you, it would probably help responders here to know more about her side of the conversation. Is she emotional about it, casual, in conversation with other kids, seeking it out very privately, etc. If it’s distressing to go into more detail, I get that. Maybe it’s not helpful for us to put it under a microscope.

From where I sit, the worry is understandable, but you don’t have anything to feel guilty about.

(And breathe! In and out slowly for a minute or two. You’re there, dealing with it.)

[Ann]

I agree with lots of what’s been said.

What a mess.

But Bro. Gordon, and it’s perfect right to say whatever he wants, just escalated matters. The idea that twelve year-old don’t discuss such things is patently false. A twelve year-old boy in our ward gave a very touching Father’s Day talk yesterday in which he discussed in fair detail his plans for marriage and fatherhood.

Who has enough fingers and toes to count the non-kosher testimonies we’ve heard? But I’ve never seen someone’s mic cut. And I’ve only seen a follow up comment from a leader once. Most of it just floats out and around and people make of it what they will.

(And recording is just wrong.)

[Ann]

Joni, I’m sorry for the tough times, and even sorrier that you and your husband are at such a standoff.

My sister had a very troubled young adulthood and some mental illness. At one point she lived with us and I took it upon myself to make church attendance a condition of our help. Yeah. Looking back I wish I had given her space. Maybe she just needed a fresh start with God and religion instead of beating her head against the wall of the church and all her childhood memories. Maybe that’s why most converts convert. It’s not actually The Truth; it’s My Second Try or The Next Step. Maybe you’ll read fifty pages of Episcopalian materials and say, Nope. Maybe you’ll feel hope and curiosity.

[Ann]

My response is always to recommend Thomas Wirthlin McConkie’s “Navigating a Mormon Faith Crisis.” Not at Deseret Book last time I looked, but maybe Signature and certainly Amazon. The title is boring with a capital “B,” and the cover art is off-putting, but I think it’s pure gold on the inside.

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7023&p=98634&hilit=Thomas+wirthlin+mcconkie#p98634

Otherwise, my too-simple advice is to be loving and at least look happy. The more comfortable I was in my own skin, the less tension in our house.

[Ann]

Old Timer wrote:

I taught the lesson in HPG last Sunday, using the assigned talk: Elder Oaks’ “The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood” from April 2014 – the one where he said that women exercise what I call direct and indirect priesthood power and authority, especially those who have been endowed. The Temple President is part of the group, and I was glad he was there.

We read portions of the talk and discussed the meanings of power, authority, and keys – and we talked about how endowed women possess direct Priesthood power and authority as a result of the endowment. The obvious example was mentioned (women performing ordinances in the temple), but I pointed out that the women who do so are called and set apart as temple workers, with “temple keys” having been activated to allow them to perform ordinances as part of that calling. I pointed to two other aspects of our temple theology and practices:

1) Women leave the temple clothed in the garment of the Holy Priesthood. It is hard to argue they don’t have Priesthood authority and power when they wear the exact same tokens of that Priesthood as the men do.

2) I mentioned the part in the endowment where it says the participants are prepared to officiate in the ordinances of both Priesthood classifications. I said that no man or woman was authorized to perform any particular ordinance simply because they were endowed in the temple, but the wording makes it clear that all men AND women are prepared by the endowment to do so.

Near the end, I used the example of OD2 and said I wouldn’t object or be surprised at all by an announcement of another revelation that ended the current ban on women being ordained to Priesthood offices – not that I expected it, but that it wouldn’t surprise me, given the way Elder Oaks addressed the reason why it hasn’t happened yet.

I ended by saying that my greatest hope was that no man in the Church would tell any endowed or set-apart woman in the Church that she didn’t have Priesthood authority, either directly as a result of her endowment or through her calling – that, right now, what we can do as a result of how the keys have been used differs somewhat, particularly in the performance of ordinances outside the temple and receiving administrative keys, but that, in perhaps all other cases, the Priesthood power and authority is the same.

Obviously, I had to word things very carefully, precisely, and accurately, but it went well – and the Temple President (a wonderful man) was able to give some excellent supporting commentary at a couple of key points.

Very cool that this discussion was had. :thumbup:

But I honestly don’t understand how priesthood and the female temple experience relate to each other. Say women are ordained to priesthood offices. In the temple would she still be a priestess to her husband? And he, alone, a priest to God? Hearkening unchanged? It remains okay for them to be co-dependent, not co-equal? Aside from not liking their style, this is the main reason I wanted nothing to do with Ordain Women. I say they have the cart before the horse. I always thought, let’s get that horse going and see where it takes us. It might not be to female ordination.

[Ann]

Heber13 wrote:

One part I would disagree with is the attack on the Q15, here:

Reuben wrote:

Most of the Q15 seem to have an abusive value system. Elder Ballard apparently does. “Where will you go?” also speaks volumes. Elder Holland apparently does. “I am so furious with people who leave this church.” “Don’t break your mother’s heart.” I think his anger and attempt at control arise from entitlement. (Also, is your mother entitled to your faith in the Church?)

I would have to re-review those quotes in context and what was said, but I do not see any of the Q15 have a value system of abuse. I don’t doubt or dismiss the limitations of church leadership, and even mistakes. But abuse by the Q15 and their value system? Hm. No. I have no evidence or proof of that. I disagree. Pretty strongly, actually.

Perhaps contrasts help me understand better. What would be examples of leaders of large organizations that are not abusive, and how they compare to the Q15?

Was Christ abusive to Pharisees and Sadducees? If so, was that wrong?

I hope I don’t come across dismissive in any way. Simply want to learn more from your posts, and others’. Thanks for the dialogue.

“To Whom Shall We Go?” (Peter to Christ, and the title of Elder Ballard’s October 2016 talk), or “Where will you go?” (in the body of Elder Ballard’s talk). Big difference. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/to-whom-shall-we-go?lang=eng

We should ask ourselves, “to whom shall I go?” The church should ask, “Why are you leaving?” The howling online response of hundreds after this talk was strong. Deleting expletives and hot tempers, it boiled down to: Where will I go?!? Anywhere but here, and to anyone but you, who doesn’t listen.

I think it’s disinterest, lack of comprehension/empathy, and neglect – and not outright abuse – but “Where will you go?” does smack of control, imo. And possibly women are more sensitive to it than men. It seems phrased to intimidate and scare.

(Another big problem with this talk is the fuzzy line. Leaving the church is not by definition leaving Christ. I wish someone would just say that, in General Conference.)

But here’s a small example “On The Other Hand.” The other day I was in a meeting about how to cut down meetings. The trickle-down story from the area authority who had trained the priesthood leaders was about a young man who wasn’t active. They’d apparently asked him why, and he said he resented the church for eating up all his father’s time. He never saw him. I liked that they were revealing: people are leaving activity in the church, leaders are willing to tell us what an inactive member said, and they’re willing to change in direct response instead of presenting it as nothing but their own revelation.

For the first time in my life, I was recently contacted through lds.org to be part of a survey. I answered my first set of questions about how often I pray, read scriptures, have FHE, and (I think) pay tithing. I sure hope they want to hear more.

[Ann]

Journey Girl – There is so much good stuff here. Only two things are coming to my mind.

Try to find something – however small – you’re willing to contribute to your new ward. I think that in times of stress, overload, and transition, giving what we still can in good conscience give is important.

There’s a great family in our stake. She’s a return missionary, married in the temple, four kids, executive-level job. Not always at church. She’s a positive personality making some contribution to the congregation and seems happy, comfortable in her own skin and beliefs. (See my first quote below.)

Good luck with your program. :clap:

[Ann]

SilentDawning wrote:

I think elevating the Ward council over PEC was a step in the right direction. I understand WC meets more frequently than PEC, which gives women leaders more of a voice than they had in the past.

I like this one a lot. No one likes meeting just to meet. There may be more of a “let’s work this out in the meeting we already have” mindset.

As part of his testimony our bishop recently mentioned a ward council discussion where he had been insisting on a point. The Primary pres. had better info…. Bottom line of the anecdote was: this is a better, wiser way for ward leadership. I liked that he was willing to tell the story at all.

[Ann]

nibbler wrote:

Ann wrote:

But we have changed [the temple endowment] in the past. I’m left with the sinking feeling again – maybe they don’t want to change it.

Thread jack:

The last (major) change to the temple endowment was in 1990. I didn’t have a pulse on the culture of the church in 1990. I find myself wondering whether the prevailing church culture has become more literal, less literal, or has remained relatively the same in the last 27 years.

Was it easy for members in 1990 to accept the changes made to the endowment or did many members experience cognitive dissonance because a part of the ordinance had changed?

Do you think maintaining ordinance purity serves as a barrier of sorts to making another round of sweeping changes? Or do you believe that the top leaders are comfortable enough with continued revelation that maintaining ordinance purity wouldn’t come into play. It probably depends on the person, the change being considered, etc., etc. but I wonder whether the current environment of the church (regular Joe members) could handle sweeping changes made to the endowment and whether that factors into decisions made at the top.

Tangential details to my point:

I was a missionary right about the time the 1990 changes were made and one of our teaching points about the Great Apostasy was that other religions changed the ordinances so they needed to be restored to the proper methodology. Maintaining ordinance purity was a thing to the culture. Maybe people compartmentalize ordinances.

There have been more recent changes (2005 & 2008) but they were small enough to make me wonder whether the majority of people noticed.

Maybe the endowment is more pliable because:

1) It’s not canonized anywhere in scripture. Baptism and the sacrament have rules and specific language mentioned in scripture.

2) The endowment wasn’t codified by JS. It was sort of an oral tradition for 30 years before being scripted and probably 50+ years before it was “correlated.”

Re. 1990 changes, I admit I didn’t think much one way or the other. I just found the penalties tedious in the extreme and were happy they were gone.

I’m hoping the endowment is pliable enough to survive what would initially seem like the biggest change yet.

[Ann]

Old Timer wrote:

I never said “co-equal”. I said “co-dependent”. There is a difference, and it is important.

I feel a bit like Elder Stephenson in this thread: Said one thing, but the responses were about something else. 😆

I agree! I’m saying that as I watch the ones close to me process this in a kind of slo-mo, they’re realizing that all their lives in the church, the distinction has been blurred. And so many of us didn’t care too much. We were okay with it because men and women were co-…something, and that sounded acceptable.

[Author]

Posts