[Carburettor]

DarkJedi wrote:

That said, we do need to be careful here. There could be people who struggle with the church as it relates to politics, but you’re not one of them Carb. Still, the conversation might be beneficial as long as it is kept neutral.

Thanks, DarkJedi. I accept that I may be poking the bear because these may be difficult days for you lot, but I’m only doing so because this situation is so opaque to outsiders (i.e., those outside the North American continent). I suspect the entire politics-and-church entanglement issue is something the rest of the world has scant idea about. Peeling back the layers is really rather enlightening.

[Carburettor]

nibbler wrote:

I’d be tempted to point to ETB as being a huge influence over many American members’ political views.

This is fascinating from an outsider’s perspective. Thanks.

It was only in recent years that I learnt that ETB was in any way a divisive figure. From where I sat when he was at the helm, he was simply the Prophet who went on a lot about reading the Book of Mormon. That was all.

I’m guessing there is a substantial filter that strips away certain stuff when the Gospel crosses international boundaries.

[Carburettor]

I accept that this thread may still be removed and/or my account may be blocked, but at least I have learnt something.

[Carburettor]

nibbler wrote:

Cognitive dissonance in hyperdrive.

Wow! Thanks, nibbler. That’s what I wanted to establish, and it’s utterly bonkers.

I have a sister-in-law who lives in the U.S., and my wife and I have distanced ourselves from her in part because she vehemently aligns her politics with her faith as though the two are interchangeable — no matter what happens — and we simply cannot grasp how blinkered that seems to us.

Where I live, I like to believe that a reasonable proportion of individuals listen to what the competing parties (and there are several) have to say — and vote based on that (with an eye on past performance to temper things somewhat). It disturbs me to think that a significant percentage of U.S. Church members equate government officials on both sides of the debate (and with all their associated scandals and questionable dealings) with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Honestly, I’m dismayed.

[Carburettor]

Old-Timer wrote:

Admin Note: This site has a very simple rule about posts that are written explicitly to criticize individual church leaders. It isn’t allowed. It isn’t our purpose. Our purpose is to help people “stay LDS” in some way.

This thread can continue IF it refocuses on a general issue in the original post – NOT a personal attack, which it obviously is, disclaimer notwithstanding. If that continues, it will be locked.

Thank you for the polite warning. My purpose wasn’t to attack an individual but to contrast the approaches of the primary leader of one world religion with the likely-soon-to-be primary leader of ours.

I fully agree that the Pope’s apology was simply offered in respect of the hurt his particular choice of words may have caused — not an apology over his personal beliefs. The same cannot be said of DHO’s history. I do not consider that to be a personal attack. I was simply making a factual comparison, supported by evidence, of how two world leaders appear to differ in their approach to controversy and apology.

I had my Stake Presidency temple recommend interview this week. When the member of the Stake Presidency asked me the question about the Word of Wisdom (“Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?”) I said I strive to obey it as far as I understand it, although I accept that I should be a vegetarian if I truly wish to align myself with D&C 89:13, which states, “And it is pleasing unto me that they [beasts and fowls] should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

He told me I was mistaken because it says “not only in times of winter, etc.,” and I went on to explain that the insertion of the key comma before the word “only” in 1921 was to make it clear that we please the Lord when we avoid eating meat — even though my own choice is to eat a little meat.

I don’t believe I was attacking him when I shared the following link so he could learn more about the wording and intent of that verse, here: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/questioning-the-comma-in-verse-13-of-the-word-of-wisdom” class=”bbcode_url”>https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/questioning-the-comma-in-verse-13-of-the-word-of-wisdom

My intention was to present the facts and allow a more enlightened assessment to be made.

If/when DHO replaces President Nelson, his approach and past history will represent my greatest-ever obstacle to StayLDS. It seems to me, therefore, both fair and valid to discuss how the Pope’s handling of things is different from DHO’s approach. Perhaps you can advise me how I could reframe my reservations (supported by evidence) to avoid them being construed as an attack. I support/sustain DHO in his current office.

[Carburettor]

I joined this forum almost a year ago to air my concern that those who identify as LGBTQ+ can never truly find peace as active members of the LDS Church (https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=10270” class=”bbcode_url”>https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=10270). I believe it is impossible on account of the many historical statements that have never been disavowed, and because of practice, policy, and culture. It is something I have battled with for decades, and that battle will come to a head when President Nelson is replaced by DHO.

It’s a similar issue to this thread because the black-and-white of it might easily lead us to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

One of my children went off to university, and, as my wife and I understood the situation, she was immersed in the YSA experience. Little by little, however, we learnt it wasn’t her thing and that the YSAs weren’t her people. Then she told us she had a non-member boyfriend. And the next step was that he became her partner while she was still living in student accommodation with her female friends.

Next came the issue of visiting our home with her boyfriend/partner. To us, it was the same complication of which you speak. This was our daughter for whom we had hoped for a temple marriage — and she wanted to bring her boyfriend to our home and share a bed with him because she said they were already sexually active. She said they wouldn’t do anything under our roof — but for us it was the principle. We insisted he sleep in the lounge on account of our still having teenage children at home.

Fast-forward three years, and they live together. When they visit, we make up a double bed. Have our standards changed? No. Do we respect their right to make their own choices as they see fit? Absolutely, even though it took some adjustment. We taught our daughter our principles, and now she governs herself. And we love her just as much.

We had to accept that her adult choices were hers alone to make. She knows what we believe, and we expect her to be considerate of that. However, it is easier for everyone when we treat the two of them as a married couple — which is how they behave in every other way.

I’m sure there won’t be many Church members who would welcome same-sex couples getting up to monkey business while visiting as guests because that would be a serious line-crossing for anyone in such a situation.

There is a marked difference between performing a gay wedding and attending one. May we all have the wisdom to see that.

[Carburettor]

Thank you to those who have posted so far. What you have each shared is really insightful.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

At church, I am similar to a secret anthropologist embedded with a tribe of people with customs far different than my own. I labor to understand them, and to value the meaning that they give to their traditions, even if it is different than how I understand myself or my world. I can speak the language, but it no longer feels like my native tongue. I hope that makes sense. It is no longer a faith crisis but it is not “peace” either.

Same, Roy, same. You’ve offered a shrewd analogy with which I can relate entirely.

My childlike, gullible faith has been replaced by something more analytical and questioning that makes me feel fraudulent while I appear on the surface to acquiesce, so I simply avoid mentioning tricky issues to anyone (although I occasionally address things with my wife while at the same time trying to avoid sounding like I’m in crisis). I feel like a Dorothy figure after Toto pulled back the curtain to reveal that the great Wizard of Oz was decidedly less than how he had presented himself.

I sit in meetings where leadership discusses those who are falling by the wayside. Insufficient prayer, faith, Book of Mormon scripture reading, and commitment are always top of the list of reasons offered in those settings.

Well, I am highly committed, I have faith in the Gospel at a macro level, I pray, and I have just finished the audio playback of the Book of Mormon — having taken only four weeks to complete it (this time around) while listening for about 45 minutes each day. I am different from the folks they discuss. I am not someone who can’t “hack it.” The problems lie elsewhere.

If/when Oaks takes President Nelson’s place, I have resigned myself to stepping away for a season. I won’t have my name removed from the records or anything like that; I shall simply say that I’ll be back when the Church, its programmes, and its leadership all look less like the mighty wizard trying to avoid having that curtain pulled back.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

The good news, I believe, is that all religion is conjecture.

Ah, yes, good point. We are collectively quick to testify that we believe in truth rather than conjecture. In reality, however, it is conjecture, else what is faith?

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

He hasn’t communicated with us since we met in November, and he hasn’t texted since July – ergo, we are not worth his time to visit us and get to know us (because where he is with his testimony does not support prioritizing friendships with less active/inactive people). Honestly, it’s his loss much more than ours.

From your POV, it may seem that you’re not worth his time. However, if my current leadership calling is anything to go by, it may just be that he simply doesn’t have the energy to fight the fires in his personal and professional life while also trying to be all things to all people. As you know, no one gets paid for sacrificing their time to do something they never asked to do in the first place.

I no longer have expectations of anyone in leadership, although it is all too easy to slip and be judgmental on occasion when I feel like someone is publicly “bigging themselves up” for all they do. If they want to do something, that’s great; but I feel it’s deeply unfair to hold a grudge that someone hasn’t spent more of their personal time on me or others. They don’t actually owe me anything, but we are each guilty of treating leadership like they are contracted to work unceasingly for our betterment — even while we ourselves aren’t doing anything of the kind.

I don’t wish to sound critical, but if you’re on the fringes of activity then I’m guessing it may have been awhile since you served in a leadership capacity. From where I sit, it’s an exhausting and thankless position to occupy, and sometimes I just want to tell people to demonstrate a little self-reliance and stop waiting for someone else to fix their problems.

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

“Heavenly Mother” is about representation and respect for women’s authority. I suspect that the increase in the “Heavenly Mother” narrative has been about “women’s autonomy” in the culture wars of birth control (1970’s the first time around), ERA (“do we respect women enough to pay them equally”), and a host of other arenas where women’s voices were not listened to with the intent to learn and share authority and decision-making power. I suspect that there is an increased connection to Heavenly Mother because women are being stretched thinner and thinner and need more support and need change. We need that nurturing and empathy as a balm to our souls.

“Heavenly Mother” is about “shared power of creation and decision-making”. As power and decision-making authority are concentrated into fewer and fewer wealthier individuals, the topic of a “divine mother” who comforts us and mediates our fights is comforting.

“Heavenly Mother” is about “…”

Is that for you, or for everyone? I am 100% certain there are many Church members who believe in a literal Heavenly Mother figure simply because it fits comfortably into their mortal paradigm.

While I have no qualms about ridding ourselves of many of the tired old trappings of patriarchal society, I’m unconvinced about a literal figure for whom we have nothing but conjecture.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

After having skimmed the whole talk, I do not think that (at the time Apostle) Monson was talking about Heavenly Mother. However, if the church ever became more serious about remembering Heavenly Mother then I could see these quotes come out to support the change.

I confess to finding the entire Heavenly Mother concept utter schmaltzy nonsense. In my admittedly worthless opinion, it is yet another projection of humanity onto deity. We are all adept at doing that because it helps us to relate to the unrelatable.

What if the scriptures are correct when they say that Christ is both the father and the son in the context of our Earthly experience? What if, when we pray to the Father, we actually pray to Christ as the Father? Imagine how crazy we would therefore sound if we start including Christ’s wife, who isn’t even part of the Godhead that we know of. May as well get all Catholic and pray to Mary; even more entertaining if it’s just a statue of her.

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

But then, I would always go up to our ministering people and say something like, “I know you are assigned to visit us – let’s talk logistics about when this month you are visiting – we can make date X or date Y work…”.

I suspect you may have set yourself up for disappointment if you have forgotten (or missed the memo) that “Ministering” replaced “Home and Visiting Teaching” awhile back.

Technically, they aren’t assigned to “visit” you; they are assigned to “minister,” and what that looks like depends upon the individuals involved.

I visited my assigned families for decades (whether they wanted it or not!) as a home teacher, but now I keep in far more relaxed contact over social media and visit if/when they ask (e.g., to provide a blessing) or to deliver treats on special days.

I certainly don’t want an assigned robot visiting me at inconvenient times simply to check a box.

[Carburettor]

You’re angry and/or frustrated, and I can appreciate that.

I must say, however, that the title was a bit like clickbait. The $5K had nothing to do with the Church; it was the result of unreasonable people. If everyone were reasonable and devoid of pride, there would be no divorce and no issues like this.

Sadly, pride is a default human condition.

Sorry you got stuck in the crossfire.

[Carburettor]

nibbler wrote:

All that said, I think that paragraph in the temple introduction leads people to conclude that it’s literal.

Although I’m a temple-recommend-holding active member, I’m increasingly cynical about the literal nature of anything at all in our version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Too many concourses of disciples (think faith-filled individuals right back through time) have participated in absolutely nothing like our “true” version of the Gospel.

We ascribe spiritual greatness to considerable numbers of groups and individuals mentioned in scripture, despite their having performed a religion we simply wouldn’t recognise as Christ’s church today. Suffice to say, I increasingly suspect that absolutely everything is symbolic.

If something increases our faith on an individual level, that’s great. If it sucks us down a rabbit hole of confusion, nitpicking, and Mosaic Law-style observance, it’s probably counterproductive.

On a related note, anyone who has ever studied foreign languages will understand that English is not God’s language; it’s a bastardised mishmash evolved from successive waves of invasion of the British Isles. Many faith-promoting constructs we find in English and the scriptures (like 16th-century prayer language) don’t even exist in other, purer languages. I suspect a hefty amount of the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome is involved here, but you do you — as they say.

[Author]

Posts