[Carburettor]

Minyan Man wrote:

Have you been in conversation with another member of the church & they admitted that they wish they

hadn’t gone on a full time mission?

Please forgive me! A few responses back, I referred to some text in my Patriarchal Blessing about serving a mission with my wife. This seems to have derailed your thread about mission regrets.

Humble apologies. This is my attempt to bring it back on track.

The primary regret I have felt about serving a mission is that no part of it was a genuinely pleasant experience. It felt to me like military service for pacifists.

[Carburettor]

I have been an active member since the 1960s, which explains why I feel acutely uncomfortable when I turn up to church wearing anything other than a suit, white shirt, and tie. It feels tantamount to rocking up smoking a Cuban cigar. Such is the power of culture.

However, I’m delighted that the Church is finally waking up to the idea that people around the world don’t and shouldn’t all groom themselves in the same way — and that our individual spirituality isn’t an outcome of our appearance. The pandemic did a great job in helping to finally dismantle objections about facial hair that crept in around the 1960s to offer a clean-cut alternative to the drug culture. I hope there will continue to be a shift away from our obsession with certain styles of clothing and grooming. My wife even feels comfortable enough these days to dispense with a skirt or dress on Sundays — and she’s the Relief Society President. I mean, seriously, women can’t wear trousers/pants to church? How absurd is that?

By way of reminder, the General Handbook now states:

38.8.14

“Members of the Church are encouraged to show respect for the body in their choices about appropriate dress and appearance. What is appropriate varies across cultures and for different occasions. For example, for sacrament meeting, individuals wear their best available Sunday clothing to show respect for the sacrament ordinance. This same principle applies to temple attendance. Disciples of Jesus Christ will know how best to dress and groom themselves.”

The final sentence is my new mantra.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

I recently had occasion to do some research on my wife’s family tree. They have a copy of an 1868 patriarchal blessing that says “You shall behold the destruction of nations, kindred, tongues, and people, and you will rejoice that you have a mountain home among the Saints.”

And did they live through either the first or second world wars? I mean, those would qualify, right?

I’m playing devil’s advocate, of course.

As I understand it, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have in the past set multiple dates for the end of the world. Each time it failed to happen, they simply celebrated that God had heard their prayers and spared them. Nice one. Can’t go wrong with that. :crazy:

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

SIDE NOTE: I understand that I am considered “less active/inactive” and that my limited participation of essentially “Christmas and Easter and Service Projects” does not fit most paradigms/expectations and makes it harder to “judge me”. I understand that I am “to be courted/rescued and brought into the fold” at best and “tolerated” at worst – so there is that.

You have reminded me of an LDS paradox right there. We (active members) are so constantly judgy (both overtly and in subtle ways) on account of our being subject to such far-reaching scrutiny — what we wear, what we eat, how we pray, how we spend our time, etc. — that we constantly face pushing people out of activity because they feel they aren’t good enough, they don’t fit, or whatever. And then, the moment they stop attending because we were so awful and uncharitable to them, we are duty-bound to go after them in a bid to bring them back into the fold. It’s almost like a relationship of abuse.

If our church experience could somehow be less demanding, “competitive,” and suffocating, people might feel less judged — or perhaps they’d feel nothing at all. Who can say?

[Carburettor]

nibbler wrote:

If you were called into the stake president’s office and he decided to flex his authority, how likely would you be to:

Scoff/Laugh/Roll your eyes/Facepalm: [Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]

Whatever my parents’ intent was in respect of grooming me to give deference to Church leadership, the outcome was that I grew up with a palpable fear of being judged by them. Consequently, if I have ever been challenged by someone in authority, my default response has always been to figuratively throw myself on my sword. I might even have done so literally if a sword had been present.

However, now that I am reaching old(er) age, this whole localised judgement scenario feels more “culty” than Christlike — so I no longer wish to afford anyone an opportunity to assess me as substandard. It was bad enough dealing with those feelings a child. Do we really need the same throughout adulthood? It’s so demeaning.

[Carburettor]

nibbler wrote:

Correlation/causation: “Person A doesn’t read scriptures every day and they don’t hold this opinion. Person B does read their scriptures every day and they do hold this opinion. If we want members to hold this opinion, we need to get them reading scripture every day.”

Oh, absolutely, and I wouldn’t have minded if it were anonymous. However, the survey link appeared to have unique elements to it for traceability (such as an ID), so I felt that was uncool.

Imagine if the results were forwarded to your Stake President or Bishop because you were deemed to be a person of concern — and suddenly you’re called in for a PPI.

[Carburettor]

SilentDawning wrote:

Side note — I have a dream every now and then that I was called on another mission when I was in my late twenties and early thirties. I don’t baptize anyone in it, but I get brownie points (internal ones) for serving a second mission as a young man. Strange dream. Freud would have a field day with it.

That’s funny; I occasionally have a similar dream, even though it’s been a full 40 years since returning from my FTM.

My Patriarchal Blessing says I will serve another mission with my wife for a long time when the Earth is ripe for destruction. However, that doesn’t sit comfortably with me. My first mission was mostly an unpleasant experience, so I rather think I have no intention of subjecting myself to a repeat of it.

I used to consider stake patriarchs to be prophets in their spheres of responsibility. I have since grown to know two in my stake who, as somewhat openly flawed individuals, tarnished that idea for me. I’m left suspecting that much of the content of my patriarchal blessing is “aspirational.” Thanks for the seeds of opportunity; I think I’m good.

[Carburettor]

I have twice been selected for a survey. On both occasions, I was several questions into it when everything began to feel a bit pharisaical (e.g., how many hours each week do you spend reading the scriptures? What is the frequency of your personal prayers?)

I don’t recall it being anonymous, so I concluded, “That’s none of your business. Go and judge someone else.”

On both occasions, I exited the questionnaire and didn’t return.

[Carburettor]

SilentDawning wrote:

UK is very socialist compared to the United States (correct me if I’m wrong), and reminds me of Canada in many respects.

You have reached an intriguing conclusion — which, to me, sounds a bit like saying “Utah is very Jewish compared with Papua New Guinea.” While it may be the case statistically, it isn’t the case in principle.

In the UK, the “Conservative Party” is equivalent to your “Republican Party,” and the “Labour Party” is equivalent to your “Democrat Party.” Like the US, voters in the UK vote in one party for several years until they tip over the point of cumulative and collective dissatisfaction, at which point they vote for the primary opposition. Unlike the US, however, the UK has long established the principle of offering care for its entire population, paid for by taxes.

Also unlike the US, the UK is far less of a two-party state. We also have a left-of-centre party called the “Liberal Democrats” — which recently formed a coalition government with the Conservatives — and there are other fringe parties that also depend on forming coalitions to govern.

A fair political assessment of the UK is that is espouses “caring capitalism.” That is, it is committed to a free-market economy with dignified levels of social care to avoid anyone slipping between the cracks and being left to die. Sure, there are still plenty who consciously reject what they see as state intervention and live on the streets — but these individuals tend to suffer from mental, emotional, and other challenges that make it difficult for them to conform to state and societal expectations. Our social care system is one of the reasons so many migrating peoples cross multiple safe European countries and risk life and limb to navigate the 20+ mile dangerous sea boundary to reach the UK.

Since 1979, when the Conservatives (Republicans) came to power, we have seen: [list=]

[Carburettor]

Disclaimer: this response may get me banned

If the story is true, I would roll my eyes and declare “there goes American culture doing its thing again.” As a non-American, I (and the rest of the world) have as much interest in American Football as you folks have in cricket, rugby, and standard international measurements.

I increasingly view the Church as an American corporation performing American business functions and peddling cultural exports. It was exciting and engaging before the internet came along and ruined everything by documenting all the bad stuff and making it accessible to everyone. [Deleted by admin.]

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

On the other hand, I am wary of what an Oaks presidency might bring and play that President Nelson can hold out longer.

President Nelson’s life has been worn out in the service of his beliefs and his God.

I truly believe that President Nelson is a genuinely good guy who tries to serve the Lord and love the people.

I also truly believe that DHO has convinced himself that he is a genuinely good guy who tries to serve the Lord and love the people.

These are far from being the same. When DHO takes the stand, there will be two stake officials (and their children) missing from my congregation — for starters. Some will say, “It’s a sign of the times when even the very elect shall be deceived.”

I will quietly say, “It’s a sign of technology and progress when the true, unflattering nature of certain individuals is available for scrutiny.”

[Carburettor]

SilentDawning wrote:

The Good.

1. Mormons are generally very good people. They want to do good, care about relationships (most of them, anyway), and are committed to service.

2. The commandments kept me free of sexual sin and problems such as children out of wedlock, which would have been problematic for me without the law of chastity for example.

Thank you, SilentDawning. I very much enjoyed reading your points.

In respect of your good point #2, I have felt the same way for many years — at least for a couple of decades. I figured I would have died in the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, but I’m slowly beginning to wonder if it may actually be the Church that conditions us to catastrophise about how our lives might have turned out without it. There are plenty of people out there who don’t have the Church in their lives yet who aren’t rampaging sex fiends. Could there be some type of subliminal messaging going on that convinces us that we would be trashy, unprincipled lowlifes if it weren’t for the Church? Perhaps we all allow those thoughts to “reassure” us that we have been protected, yet I wonder how much truth there is in that. Certainly many ex-members seem to go wild when they turn their backs on the Church, but is that simply a deliberate overreaction to previous feelings of repression? Perhaps some make deliberately poor choices simply to demonstrate their self-determination — despite being aware of the negative outcomes.

Have you ever wondered what type of driver you’d be if there were no rules of the road? It’s tempting to think that you’d be like Mad Max, tearing up the streets — but would you really? I suspect most people would be careful and sensible to avoid collisions, yet it’s tempting to think that if you had no restrictions you’d descend to the lowest, Neanderthal-driver version of yourself. I’m not so sure.

[Carburettor]

Minyan Man wrote:

The older I get, the more I find this life to be very interesting to navigate.

Sometimes you do it well on our own. Sometimes you need support from family, friends & professionals.

Each of us may navigate the same common situation differently.

The event your family experienced (which has become a permanent feature of your lives) is truly heartbreaking.

Like you, the older I become, the less my life is turning out to be the way I imagined it.

[Carburettor]

Minyan Man wrote:

5. I have outside organizations & activities from church.

Great point! I mean, really great. I used to believe that my most wholesome associations would be found within a circle of gospel-centric friends. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

During the pandemic, I realised I was starved of friendships beyond my immediate family (whom I love, but that’s not the point). As soon as local laws permitted, I initiated a weekly Friday-evening ping-pong event at the chapel with a couple of other members of similar age. No one else was interested, but it spurred me on to set up an elders quorum WhatsApp group for the express purpose of arranging activities. I organised a couple of hikes, but no one attended — so I hiked alone. And then, within a couple of weeks, the group deteriorated into a chat room for jokes and arranging teaching or service assignments. I renamed the group from “Elders Quorum Activities” to just “Elders Quorum” and muted it for me.

I have since focused on organisations and activities outside church — basically, with people who aren’t coerced into being together. I’m a member of two evening sports clubs, and I regularly hike with Facebook groups focused on that interest. I once thought it would be great to foster supportive relationships with my EQ brothers, but that ship has sailed.

[Carburettor]

kotm wrote:

This is such a silly and immature way of looking at this. If you broke your hand, and someone told you to see a doctor would you have the same attitude?

I don’t mean to be rude – but I find your attitude to be incredibly tone deaf.

I believe you have repeatedly misunderstood my response(s) as an attack when I was actually trying to express support for you. No harm done; I’m not that easily offended.

[Author]

Posts