Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’ll always be grateful for this site. It helped me a great deal during some tough times when I felt pretty alone and had no clue there were and are so many people with the same misgivings and concerns as I had. I’ve sought solace here less as my faith transition matured into non belief in the church and my activity dwindled. I have attended 4 times this year. Special events like Easter, mother’s day and a missionary homecoming.
I’ve found less interest in church related news.
Still.. I’m here now. It seems I still need the therapy on occasion.
I will always be grateful to you all. Thanks.
Several years ago I was the stake SS pres. When called, I was told I could call two counselors and a secretary. I looked at the handbook to see if there were any specific requirements for SS counselor. I found none, so I asked if my wife could be one of my counselors. I pointed out that the handbook did not designate that job as a priesthood calling. I was told by the stake pres counselor who called me that he’d get back with him. He wasn’t sure. He got back to me and said, no, it had to be a man with the priesthood. I then asked if the secretary could be a woman. Nope, had to be a man. Ok. Why? He couldn’t tell me. I think there are lots of things that just are a certain way, but don’t have any scriptural or doctrinal basis. People push and the leaders of the church either change things or trench deeper. Usually the latter. Eventually “doctrine” becomes “outdated policy” and positive changes occur. But it seems to take decades and requires the deaths of a few old white guys in ties. I probably won’t live long enough to see gay couples marry in the temple and trans people fully welcomed and included, but I suspect it will happen. There are going to be a heck of a lot of temples. More than we need. Might as well have some rainbow colored ones.
From my vantage, and trying to be very objective here, it sure seemed like wards and stakes in my area “grew” several years ago. By “grew” I mean wards were added to stakes, but the consensus opinion of the people in those wards was that they were smaller. When wards were added, the reasoning presented was that the church was growing and we needed to accommodate that growth. More recently, however, these same stakes have consolidated to fewer units than they had prior to the “growth”. This time the reasoning wasn’t that the church is shrinking or that we’re losing active members, but so that leaders can better serve the stake and that more members will be blessed. The wards seem larger than they were after the splits, but no larger than they were prior to those splits when there were more total units than today. No matter how it’s framed, it appears pretty clear that there just aren’t as many active members as there used to be. No one acknowledges that, but it’s very difficult to not see it.
I’ve not attended the temple in several years, but I’ve been told that it’s more difficult to attend the two nearest temples because they are not open all the time. It’s best to make a appointment. I remember when one could just go any day, so long as it wasn’t closed for remodeling. Again, this seems to suggest that there aren’t as many members attending the temple, OR that there are too many temples. Not two decades ago there was one temple within a 2.5 hour drive. Now there are 5.
I’m very sorry to hear of cwald’s passing. I remember him well and enjoyed his many posts, particularly as I was beginning my faith paradigm shift and needed to understand that I was not alone. I know this forum is less active than it was back then, but it’s still helpful for me, and much appreciated, as are the members within. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and may good fortune and happiness be in your path.
I used to take our kids to the church parking lot when they were learning how to ride bikes or roller skates. We were never told to stop. The recent talk by general RS president Camille Johnson seemed to stir things up a bit for women as she promoted a traditional motherhood role yet spent decades working as a corporate attorney. Apparently, based on what I read, she did not respond to questions regarding her early decision to go against the counsel of then church leaders, including the prophet, who at the time she would have been getting her education and getting into law school were telling women to stay home and raise children. That she is now lauded and given what is the highest calling a women in the church can ever receive, feels like a slap in the face to women of her generation who chose to follow the prophet and neglect their dreams of a career and higher education. Great for Camille Johnson that she followed her path. This should be an example for everyone to follow their own path. Go against what you’re being told to do if it doesn’t fit with what you feel and believe is best for you. The church might eventually catch up. They certainly won’t acknowledge that the narrative changed or apologize for limiting women’s opportunities.
I went on a mission somewhat because I wanted to be a RETURNED missionary with all the perks, respect, and attentive young women that typically accompanied that position. It took a little while being out there before I figured out that the purpose was to serve God not to become an RM. I was also in that brief era of 18 months service, but had no choice in the matter. It changed back to 2 years very shortly after I returned. I have never regretted going and I think in the long run it was probably good for me. I likely would not have married who I did had I not served. Learning a new language was also nice and gave me confidence. I also better learned how to study and learned some leadership skills as I was called into missionary leadership roles pretty early, which likely related to the change to 18 months.
I definitely have regretted some of the things I did while a missionary, though I sincerely felt like I was doing the right thing at the time. I was not particularly sensitive to the culture, even though I thought I was because the MTC did provide some cultural training. I also pressed people, and especially young people towards baptism when they were not ready and were not really aware of what they were getting into. To my defense, I really didn’t know what I was in either.
Upon returning, I felt I would eventually go back as a senior missionary or mission president. After getting married, I pushed that long term goal a bit–to be a senior missionary with my wife–but she was less enthused. She really didn’t want to go to some faraway country. Fortunately, now neither of us has any interest whatsoever in serving a mission. We’d much prefer to be able to spend more time with family, kids, and grandkids. Even if we were both still true believers, I doubt she’d ever want to go on a mission. Fortunately, none of our kids served and they are all out. Our daughters felt no community social pressure to serve as far as I know, but our son certainly did. More than we realized. We never pressured him, but well-meaning bishops, friend’s parents, YM leaders, and others did. We would have supported him had he wanted to, but he never ever had interest in going.
nibbler wrote:
Cnsl1 wrote:
I feel it’s egregious to suggest that we may stray from loving God if we love our neighbor too much. That’s not what I believe and that’s not what I get from studying Jesus. What kind of leader would suggest this? What am I missing?
Disclaimer, this isn’t how I personally feel, just a guess…
I believe the train of thought is that if we show too much love, empathy, or support for people that we judge as sinning then the sinner may interpret it as their behavior not being a sin. If they do that, they’ll continue in their sin and bring damnation to their soul. What’s worse, society at large will start to believe it isn’t a sin, so people will start engaging in the behavior even more. Pretty soon what was once considered sin no longer is, and now god has his garments in a bunch with
usfor not being forceful enough to ward others off sin.
Thanks for offering a possible explanation. This still comes down to withholding love from some people. That some are less worthy of love than others. Jesus told those who were without sin to cast the first stone.. but he also indicated that those who abuse the little ones would be better off drowned with a millstone around their neck. So maybe abusers and pedophiles are less worthy of our love. They are certainly less lovable.
Ironically, the church does seem to protect child abusers, or supress some leaders from reporting abuse, yet has a history of marginalizing or casting stones at those who are different and those who have engaged in what are considered sins but not crimes.
When these top church leaders are suggesting we not forget the 1st commandment in our zeal to keep the 2nd are they asking us to follow their lead and marginalize those who are different? That we not stand with them, hug them, support them, weep with them. But that we love and support and forgive those who might commit a crime against children? No sane leader would put it in those words, I’m sure, so please tell us what you mean.
How does what you (Oaks and other leaders) are saying not twist the words of the very Jesus who reportedly offered them in the first place? Clarify. Say what you really mean. Skip the attempted pithy, quotable message and tell us why we can go wrong by following Jesus’s command to love.
I never really perceived the great two commandments as exclusionary. Love God and the second is like into it, love your neighbor. I kind of took it as this is how you love God. Do it into the least of these. If I remember correctly, once Jesus preached of these two commandments he was asked who is your neighbor. He then gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Your neighbor isn’t the just the folks nearby, but even those who don’t share our beliefs or cultures. Everyone. Love everyone. I feel it’s egregious to suggest that we may stray from loving God if we love our neighbor too much. That’s not what I believe and that’s not what I get from studying Jesus. What kind of leader would suggest this? What am I missing?
Sorry you’re feeling left out. I do think that part of a church community SHOULD be about social bonding around some shared beliefs. That’s one of the biggest draws for people.
It doesn’t sound like that’s working for you, and I think your consternation is pretty common. It is my opinion that it would probably be helpful to give yourself the freedom to seek social connections elsewhere. It doesn’t have to be a church, and it would probably help if you’re finding folks who share similar interests, beliefs, hobbies, etc.
I would also encourage you to reframe your thoughts from “maybe the church doesn’t want me” to “maybe I can find meaningful social and/or spiritual connection somewhere else”. For whatever reason, it doesn’t sound like the people in your current church have been very sensitive to your needs, which might be because they are too wrapped up in their own world, or you haven’t effectively communicated your needs to them, or any other dozens of reasons. As you probably know, typically when we reach out and seek to comfort, befriend, and help others, our connection to them grows. So, one might say that if you’re feeling disconnected and isolated within your ward, it would help to serve them and try to expand your circle of friends, which you indicate you’ve been trying to do and still hitting a wall. It doesn’t sound like this social arrangement is working for you. And it doesn’t sound like you’re happy in this culture.
Why do you say you’re broken and have nothing of value to offer? Is it because you don’t feel like you fit into what is expected of you within the church culture, or some other reason? You say you’re seeking therapy, but have low confidence it will work. I’d encourage you to give your therapist a chance. If you don’t trust that the therapist is competent, qualified, and wants to help you, find another therapist. They have to also trust that you’re giving them accurate and honest information.
I feel like everyone has value. You are young. Find what works for you that also doesn’t harm others. If church isn’t helping you feel better, do something else. Maybe a different ward, a different church, no church at all, a walk in the woods.
That’s my opinion based on the evidence you’ve presented.
Good luck.
Many many years ago when i believed differently, I had the thought that once same sex marriage was legalized it would not be long before polygamous marriage would also be legalized then the church could resume practicing it since the reason they stopped was to comply with the law of the land. Then I felt the church would never do that since they’d spent decades disavowing the practice and moved more into the “mainstream” of Christian churches, or at least tried to.
Now here we are. Gay marriage is legal. Polygamy isn’t really but it’s not being prosecuted. Also, the “fruits” of Polygamy as a social experiment seem dismal in terms of mental health, risk of weird genetic mutations, and propensity of pariarchal abuse. I imagine some consenting adults could practice it just fine, but as a church-influenced and supported practice would be, in my opinion, about as much of a train wreck as we’ve seen with the fundamentalist faction of the church.
And also, it’s obviously still too far on the social fringes that it would alienate the centrist population of “saints” that the church is desperately trying to hang on to. You can’t really argue that we don’t believe it anymore, just that we don’t practice it. But if the church readily admits it’s still God’s law and that there will be polygamy in heaven, the hardliners or true blue faction will press for legalization and resumption. I suppose it’s possible that prophet roulette would eventually get us to a leader who would RE restore it for our temporal earthly state, but that seems highly unlikely given the dispositions of our corporate manager “spiritual” leaders.
That’s just my opinion.
As to why it started? Based on my study, I don’t know if Joseph already had the idea in mind, but I’d say it was to cover things initially, then he probably convinced himself that it was God ordained.
A lot of people like McDonald’s. They sell a lot of burgers. And a Big Mac is a Big Mac wherever you go. They’ve correlation the menu for the most part. Sure they’ve changed and adapted quite a bit through the years in response to social pressures but they’re still a restaurant that tries to appeal to the masses by offering correlated junk food. If you’re starving, their product tastes good. If that’s all you eat, you might feel that’s all you need. The church feels a little bit like McDonald’s to me.
I can find something to eat there but it really doesn’t fill me up, and I usually feel yucky afterwards.
This forum was my island in a storm several years ago and I will always be grateful that I discovered I was not alone in my misgivings and changing beliefs. I felt a lot of comfort in reading your stories, experiences, and methods to navigate a changing faith. For a long time, I persisted as an active nuanced believer, hoping to lift where I stood and doing small things to help the church become an easier and more accepting place for folks like me or folks outside the normal TBM mindset– at least in my little corner of the desert. I then moved to become an active non-believer, deciding that I could not affect any real change, but still determined to be a great example of love and compassion to my fellow humans, despite feeling a fair amount of normal animosity towards this corporation that I felt had duped so many people. I wasn’t angry at any person, but it became more difficult to sit through a normal church mtg. I had for years already been very bored but I could usually find a tiny morsel of edification though eventually I felt like my spiritual soul was not being very well fed so I found better ways to spend my time. I still attend some meetings and will go with my wife if she wants to go, but I wouldn’t consider myself active. I consider myself an agnostic theist. I don’t know but hope there is a loving God. It’s a nice thought and I chose to believe it, which gives me some comfort. I don’t think it really matters whether or not it’s true.
This is a long way to get to the StayLDS and NOM comparison. Sorry.
Along my journey, I discovered the NOM forum, which I found to be more active and intellectually stimulating. It’s a bit looser
I can let fly a profane word and it doesn’t get edited. It’s not like I curse frequently or find the need to do it, but that’s just one example of the difference. People don’t curse at each other and belittling comments towards another user gets edited or warned.
Another difference is that some folks there can get into political arguments and discussions. As might be expected, Trump is not particularly favored among a NOM crowd, but there are some who feel the need to defend him and extol his virtues, which causes some contention as you might expect.
And like previously stated, the focus of the NOM forum is not to help people stay LDS but to support them wherever they might be in their faith journey. That’s my take. But honestly, I feel like this forum is the same in that regard, with just a little more press towards supporting and pointing out where the church does well or is helpful.
I look and post on NOM more frequently primarily because it’s more active. But I greatly appreciate both forums.
