[BeJoyful]

squarepeg wrote:

Glad you are here. This is a wonderful group of people.

Thank you! It is a great collection of people here- exactly why I finally got brave enough to post. Thanks for the warm welcome, we seem to have a lot in common!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

Old Timer wrote:

This is what makes my heart cry. It is directly against worldwide church practice, and it is a stupid policy. Leadership roulette at its worst.

These types of policies are driving people away from the gospel- people who want to stay but can’t make it work.

I’ve heard so many stories from good people in my previous stake who were driven away by similar archaic policies. It really is heartbreaking.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

DarkJedi wrote:

FWIW, I have never been to a ward where the sacrament was not taken out to the foyer for late arrivers and others and I’ve never heard of any policy against that (except if the person wasn’t there for the bread they shouldn’t take the water).

Same here, until now, and we’ve traveled and moved A LOT.

When I asked the first time, I was told it was policy. I asked again a month or so later for a clarification and explained my situation, and was told that “all kids are like that, he’ll learn” and again, policy.

Almost a year later, I talked with the bishop again and explained that my son had an official diagnosis and husband was going to be gone for 6 months. He said he would think about it.

The following Sunday was a 5th Sunday with a video presentation intended for ward councils with the Q12 and Aux leaders discussing how to keep the Sabbath holy, and QLC told a story of a young mom with a special needs child who was trying to stay in sacrament and left defeated and how if he were her bishop he would make sure the sacrament made it out to the hall to her.

I approached my Bishop afterwards and he put his hand up when he saw me coming and said, “I know, I know. We’ll start doing it.” (very annoyed)

2 more years and a new, more reasonable Bishop went by and it never happened. New Bishop cited stake policy.

One Sunday we had a crazy amount of visitors and the foyers were full of late comers. After the bread, Bishop asked for a show of hands of anyone who had not received the sacrament and someone came from the foyer and said they hadn’t received it. Bishopric quickly counseled and my husband was helping with the sacrament and they told him ‘just this once’.

It’s frustrating that this unwritten rule became law and that ‘law’ superceded member’s needs.

To reframe it bluntly, I was denied an ordinance for 6 months because I have a child with special needs.

New ward and my son is phenomenal in sacrament now, so this particular issue isn’t a hurdle anymore. The bigger issue of unwritten rules being treated like law probably still is, but there’s no specific conflict I have with it right now.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

Old Timer wrote:

The more liberally they apply that word to lots of things they don’t like (such as wearing a tank top, as opposed to adultery), the less likely they are to love someone unconditionally, especially when “love”‘ is viewed as an action verb (as it nearly always is in the Bible, for example) rather than as a feeling (as it is so often now).

Welcome! I hope we can help you and that you can help us as we walk our collective, individual journeys. That is the core issue: how to walk our own, individual path as part of a communal journey.

I like focusing on how to define love, as an action verb vs a feeling. I need to ponder on how to apply that in my own life.

I also like the issue of individual paths on a communal journey- it’s how it’s possible for me (and everyone) to stay. I don’t condemn any person’s path, and hope to help other people who all understand my path.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

Roy wrote:

Now 10 years old he can tolerate class but despises sharing/singing time. We made a deal with him that if he goes to class we will come get him for the third hour. If we were to break our promise then he would have no reason to trust us and would likely fight us and hate the entire church experience.

My kiddo is almost 6 now, and not quite to where I can make a deal with him. We don’t force him to go ever, today I sat with him at the back of primary until they broke for class and that worked. It’s a week by week thing for us right now.

Roy wrote:

Now I feel that God loves me … period. I still need to figure out how to grow and develop and raise my kids and treat others but God’s love for me hinges on none of that.

For me, understanding God’s love for me has helped me be a better parent to my own children. That love is separate from any hopes I have for my kids, and that love should grow, never diminish. The love I feel from God has definitely helped me have more love and give more love to others, as well.

Roy wrote:

Joy, I love that you have a solid and supportive partner in your husband and another help in your BFF. Sometimes people feel so utterly alone and that their marriage would end if they failed to live up to Mormon ideals. Having someone in your corner is a huge resource. It sounds like you know this. What a great reason to be Joyful!

I’m incredibly blessed in this. I remember years ago some LDS movie- maybe “The Singles Ward”?- that had a scene where a husband left his wife because of WoW issue, and the movie made it seem like that it was his only choice. My husband and I both had such a negative reaction to that scene, even when we were fresh faced TBMs with no doubts, because it put priority on something before marriage. We both feel that our marriage should come before anything else- church, work, even our outside families- because if you can work together, you can work anything else out. I know that that isn’t the case for a lot of people-I don’t take it for granted that I hit the jackpot with a husband who shares that value.

Thanks for such a warm welcome!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

nibbler wrote:

It pains me to know there are many people out there that are fearful of being their authentic selves around family because they have strong indications that the relationship is conditional.

That’s one of the things BFF has struggled with most- “do people love me because I’m the cool convert story, or do they love me for me? ” There’s too many “I love you, but…” situations. BFF now lives her authentic self but is respectful of others beliefs (she won’t wear tank tops around my family, for example).

I’d like to get to that point, but there’s added complications. My mom’s mental health is poor, and the slightest deviance on my part could send her into a downward spiral that could affect my whole family. It’s not fair, but there it is.

I’d love it if church members could remember Christ’s example and take “I love you, but…” to simply “I love you.” It’s something we all need to remember.

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

Old Timer wrote:

An admin has to approve registration before any comments are posted. Since we all are volunteers, it doesn’t happen instaneously. Thanks for your patience. [emoji2]

Thanks for all you do!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

AmyJ wrote:

I am working on forgiving myself and accepting that these feelings come from where I was developmentally at the time. These thoughts might produce great mileage for you.

For the last 6 months of 2017, I focused my thoughts and studies around the 2 Great Commandments (Loving God and Loving Others). I felt that that was a safe plank to stand on because it is fairly universal (non-confrontational), and was something that would be useful where ever I went in my faith journey.

Yes and yes! Forgiving myself and figuring out why I felt that way when bff left have helped immensely. It’s deepened my relationship with bff and helped me to feel love for those who struggle with my own faith transition.

The 2 great commandments have been my platform at church as well- when we moved to or new ward, I bore my testimony focusing on 2GC and nothing else, and it was a testimony building experience for me and helped me stay on the right foot in my new ward. It sounds like we’re in sync with that.

Thanks for the response!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

NightSG wrote:

“Feelin da Spirit up in here wit ma homies, yo. We gon send out more missionaries real soon.”

Bahahaha!!!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[BeJoyful]

LookingHard wrote:

BeJoyful – welcome and great thoughts.

Oh good, my comments posted! My phone kept telling me it couldn’t find the forum, so after several tries I came back today. Apparently one of my tries went through!

[BeJoyful]

This is my first time posting/commenting, but this is an issue I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.

squarepeg wrote:

I understand that bishops are not supposed to ask detailed questions about the law of chastity when interviewing youth, but they sometimes do. My mom, who was raised in the church and raised us kids in the church but is no longer active, wants me to insist upon being present in the room when my kids are interviewed in order to protect them from inappropriate questioning by priesthood leadership.

True, they aren’t supposed to, but with such a big church and thousands of leaders, there’s no standardization of understanding, so there will be differences in behavior. I think protection from inappropriate questioning is wise, as these early interactions form the basis of a relationship with the church. I think we need to do everything we can to make it a positive one.

squarepeg wrote:

But, I am concerned that this will make the bishopric member feel that I do not trust them, when that is not the case, at least not on a personal level.

Maybe I should just explain my reasoning to the bishopric member. But I thought I’d post here and see if anyone had any alternate suggestions or thoughts about this issue.

I understand you not wanting to make a leader feel as though you don’t trust them, but I think this could open a very needed discussion in the church on not trusting men/women blindly and on appropriate interview discussions.

When I was young, I was assaulted by a boyfriend. We were kissing, we were alone, but those things by themselves aren’t breaking the LoC, they’re just inadvisable because they could lead to it. Now, as an adult, I can see that. As a youth in the bishop’s office, I was made to feel as though I had sinned, because somehow I was asking for *his* behavior.

My s.i.l. had a similar circumstance of inappropriate interviewing. She ‘confessed’ to inappropriate petting in a bishop’s interview, and her bishop questioned her in explicit detail about sexual acts she’s never even heard of, despite her saying early on that nothing further had taken place. She felt violated by his using authority to question her about sexual acts.

The imbalance of power and authority in a questioning setting can lead to intimidation and foster an environment where inappropriate questions don’t feel inappropriate to the questioner, and make it difficult for youth (or anyone) to call those questions out as such, especially if they don’t have the knowledge to identify what is inappropriate and what isn’t.

Here’s my solution so far:

Talk to your kids about what questions might be asked, and give them options for answers, i.e., “I’d rather not discuss that with you, but I don’t feel it impacts my worthiness”, “I’d like to bring my parents in for the rest of the interview” “I don’t need to go into detail”, etc.

Talk to your bishop about what you feel could be inappropriate questions, and ask what takes place in interviews. Ask if it’s standardized throughout the bishopric, and if not, ask them to standardize it.

Talk to your kids about what you feel is appropriate behavior in interview question responses. Is caffeine breaking the WoW? masturbating breaking LoC? etc., and ask them to get their own answers so they can set and answer to standards of behavior that they understand and agree to long before an interview.

Talk to your kids about consent. In my situation, I strongly feel that I did not break the LoC because of another person’s behavior, and now I wouldn’t feel the need to divulge that information to a bishop unless I felt the need for counsel or healing. I carried a lot of guilt and hurt for a long time about that.

squarepeg wrote:

In truth I don’t know them remotely well enough to make that determination.

I think so many people trust too lightly. A few years ago, we moved into a new ward and after only 2 days there, there was a 11yo scout campout. I told the Primary President my son wouldn’t be going to campouts for a while till we got to know people in the ward, but she still felt it appropriate to pull my son aside just out of my earshot and whisper to him that if he wanted to go he needed to tell me and that she was sure he could trust the leaders.

I wasn’t okay with a leader trying (even with good intentions) to coerce my son into trusting a strange man his parents have never even met, in the name of church activity. I informed her again that we restrict sleepovers in our family to people we know well, and that includes campouts.

No amount of adult hurt feelings are worth the safety and health (emotional, physical, spiritual) of your children. We need to empower ourselves to be advocates for our kids, because the stakes are too high.

This doesn’t mean it’s helicopter parenting, especially when you empower your kids to advocate for themselves as well.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts