[Daughter1]

They didn’t do a very good job publicizing it. I remember when the survey was first announced, it was some music-geek friends who shared it on Facebook. I wouldn’t have known about it otherwise. I think I’ll take it again. I’ve taken it twice already. I had long lists of songs to add or keep, and fewer requests for removal.

In Our Lovely Deseret is the only one that I remember really wanting taken out. It feels Utah-centric and paints this cartoonishly perfect image of how children in the church should be raised. I like the chorus, but the rest of the song is frustrating and pedantic. I know I had a couple of others when I looked through my hymnbook. But I really do like most of the hymns, so I was much more vocal about additions than removals.

I had lots of requests for more Christmas hymns. There are so many beautiful Christ-centered Christmas songs that I would love to sing. If we had more options, hopefully we would sing them for longer in December than just two weeks. I think the ones I suggested included What Child is This?, Do You Hear What I Hear?, God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen, O Holy Night, and Oh Come, Oh Come Emmanuel. (One of the times I took it was around Christmas, so I went a bit crazy. )

My top favorites match up with the summary article’s top 10 pretty closely and I probably voted on at least 8 of those. Since I did respond fairly early, I would guess they got me counted in these 400… A lot of my suggested additions came from songs on EFY CDs and from the TABCATS repertoire.

[Daughter1]

DarkJedi wrote:

Personally I think the best answer to the question is “That I have no sexual relations with anyone to whom I am not legally and lawfully wedded,” but of course most being interviewed for missionary service have likely not heard that exact wording (although Elder Bednar affirms we can certainly teach that to our kids).

I love his clarification of what can be taught outside the walls of the temple. So much more can be said than most people realize. And yes. This is what my answer would be if ever asked more specific questions.

[Daughter1]

I didn’t read the full article. I was too excited to see the topic and to share some related thoughts that have been rolling around my mind this last week.

Last Sunday I went to see Wicked (with the 2nd councilor in the RS presidency – I enjoy having friends on the Edge of Inside). I had listened to the music for years, but the play has a lot of dialogue that adds to the development of the characters and got me thinking about change and how to impact a monumental power as an individual.

For those who don’t know the story, I’ll be sharing a couple of “spoilers” to make these thoughts make sense. If you know the story, you can skip this paragraph. I’ll change the color so you know what to skip because of spoilers/already know it. If it’s a bit pale on your screen, highlight it to make it easier to read. Wicked is about the witches of Oz. Elphaba = the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda = Glinda the Good. We meet them at school/college where they become friends and start to see some of the injustices in Oz. Both of them are enamored of the Wizard and are excited to meet him. When they do, they learn he is the cause of much of the injustice and evil in Oz. Elphaba violently reacts and runs away to fight against the system with magic and power. Glinda “sells out” and stays within the system. This pits them publicly against each other. Eventually, Dorothy comes along, defeats Elphaba who has been essentially a demonized freedom fighter. She reconnects with Glinda right before the end and finally admits she couldn’t fix the wrongs. Glinda, who has been enduring the increasingly manipulative efforts of those who maintain the status quo, feels as defeated as Elphaba at the apparent triumph of evil. Elphaba hands over the magic book to Glinda and tells her not to try to clear her own name and instead try to fix the problems from within the system. The end of the play suggests that she is going to be able to just that as she takes some major steps in the right direction.

As I watched the play, the different approaches to affecting change struck me very strongly. I have always been someone who is in the Middle of Inside. I “drink the kool-aid” of whatever group I’m with. School, church, work, anything. But as my view of truth has shifted, that has become an impossible place to be. I want to be Elphaba. I want to fix what I see wrong and educate others to find their correct path, screw “tradition.” But that’s not who I am. I’ve always deeply believed that lasting change must come from inside, whether a person or an organization is under discussion. I’ve been Glinda – and over the past few months I’ve worried about that. However, watching the play, I was reminded that being on the inside gives a power that no one outside could ever wield. Someone inside knows what small actions will have great impacts. Someone inside knows the words to say. And they have a better sense than others of just how fast you can move to make changes that will be accepted.

Walking downtown after the play let, I had a very clear realization “I’m like Glinda, and I’m proud of that.” Glinda is a perfect illustration of someone on the Edge of Inside and it really helped me feel better about where I stand now to see that.

[Daughter1]

Hi Love! I’m not going to address your main question, because it’s already been answered great. But I have some thought on how to stay inactive without the annoying reactivation efforts. I’m “on a break” right now, and I’ve found a pretty decent balance that has mostly kept me from being on the receiving end of those activities. This advice is all things I’ve tried and have developed from input from others, including some people here.

For context, I was a member of the RS presidency until January when I requested release, so I was going from “fully active, apparently TBM” to inactive more or less overnight.

I started by staying active and involved, but not coming to the full block every week. I genuinely had a lot going on in my personal life, and explained this to the people I spent the most time with (RS president). When I asked for release, I very specifically said that I wanted to keep a calling, but one that I could fulfill without attending church every week. A friend of mine simply told her bishop that she couldn’t have a calling at the moment at all. Then I immediately dropped down to only attending sacrament meeting. I have attended one RS lesson since January. And have attended sacrament meeting 3 or 4 times only. I didn’t go at all last month, and yesterday I literally only went to take the sacrament and then left – along with several other people, which made me laugh. I’m going enough to officially be “active,” (a friend who was a temple worker recently told me the requirement is once every 3 months) but not much more.

I know who my ministering sister is, and one of the sister I’m supposed to minister to. They are both personal friends and I stay in touch with both of them. One is fairly orthodox, but aware of some of the cultural issues. The other is following all the lists, but is pretty non-orthodox. If either of them ask about my activity, I wouldn’t hesitate to explain that I need a break and some of the “easier” reasons why. I do not make any effort to keep in touch with anyone else. But with those two, there is enough of a connection that no one else feels like they need to come and find me. I have invited both of them to outside activities since going on my break – including a Sunday night performance of Wicked last night with one of them (the one who also has wine on occasion). The more traditional sister does text me from time to time saying she misses me. Since I know she really does, I don’t feel pestered or harassed by it. I’m actually very touched that she cares. I do think that my friend who went to Wicked with me is largely to thank. She’s still a member of the RS presidency, so she can say she sees me and no one worries I need more support.

tl;dr – my formula for stepping away without being chased down: attend just enough to keep off the formal lists, keep in touch with people you actually care about who actually care about you and who attend more than you do. I’m almost 6 months in and have not gotten much in the way of “reactivation” attempts.

[Daughter1]

AmyJ wrote:

1. Modesty is mental attitude defined by becoming satisfied and grateful for what you have while maintaining an appearance that shows you thought about the messages you wanted to send the world.

I love this. The balance between your internal confidence and your presentation in the face of others is a central point of modesty. You summarized it very well.

I think an expansion of “modesty” as it is usually discussed is the way to go. Add to the discussions of dress the mindset of how you choose the outfit. Then expand from there. Why do you choose to wear jeans and a t-shirt? Why do you choose to wear a skirt or a button down shirt and tie? Asking the why helps get to what should be the driving motivation. And the driving motivation should come from a modest approach to life.

Regarding the unfair balance between men and women, I think For the Strength of Youth is a good example. Most of the “Dress and Appearance” article is targeted to both genders. I have quoted the main paragraph that addresses them separately below. (After this, each does have a specific address – women to wear only one pair of earrings, men to “dress with dignity” while passing the sacrament.)

Quote:

Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. Young men and young women should be neat and clean and avoid being extreme or inappropriately casual in clothing, hairstyle, and behavior. They should choose appropriately modest apparel when participating in sports. The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change.

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng

The young women are given very explicit directions of what constitutes “immodest clothing.” Young mend are told to “maintain modesty.” When I was young, young men liked to wear pants that were falling off so that their boxers showed. They dressed slovenly and sloppily in general, but the loss of pants was a frequent risk they ran. But does the book tell them to wear pants? Nope.

I was discussing this with my sister, and I decided that I will never be called to talk to the youth about modesty. Which is good, because I would spend 30 minutes detailing how young men should dress. And end by telling the young women “make sure you dress presentably as well.”

I wish I would get called to give that talk.

[Daughter1]

thegreythinker wrote:

I’m so happy about this change.

It’s been my dream to have a civil wedding, (even before my faith crisis) but I didn’t feel like I could until now.

Now couples can choose how many people they want to invite or none at all to their sealing. Instead, they can invite most of their friends and family to a wedding ceremony.

As another single woman, I agree with you whole-heartedly.

I didn’t find out about this change until my mom came into town at the end of last week. She got to tell me and I am sure she can share my reaction better than I can. I was happier than words could tell. I haven’t said anything here until now because we’ve been having fun, but she’s back home now, so I wanted to come and celebrate.

Before I jump in, I want to acknowledge the hurt that people who didn’t get to take advantage of this policy change must feel. I watched every one of my close friends get married without being able to attend, with one exception last summer – and that was a sealing after the year, not a full “wedding.” Two of my friends were unable to have their parents with them. Most of them had most or all of their siblings outside. I have been part of that and have been hurt by it. Knowing my dad couldn’t attend my wedding has been one of the hardest things of processing his faith transition.

That said, I think this thread has been sadly negative. Since many of the people on the site are already married, I guess that makes some sense. I want to share how I feel – to highlight the joy that this announcement brought me.

1. My dad can be at my wedding. As can my sister and brother. And no one will question. It won’t cause sideways looks or rumors about my own “worthiness.” I had made up my mind sometime fairly recently (by which I mean the past year or two) that I would push for a civil ceremony first and deal with the waiting period. I also at about the same time realized I wasn’t all that dead-set on marrying a member, which would make the question totally moot. But if I marred a TR-holding member, I was going to push to get sealed on our first anniversary instead of right away. Now that discussion will be much easier, should the day arrive. “I want my dad at my wedding – we are having a civil ceremony.” And the hypothetical fiance will have no valid reason to disagree.

2. As I move into the realm of dating non-members, I do so with no intention of expecting them to convert to Mormonism in order to continue a relationship. However, I do intend to ask them to take the full missionary discussions. Not with the intent to convert, but simply to understand where I am coming from. This does come with the “risk” as it were, of them coming to believe in the church (since that’s the goal of the missionaries) and deciding to be baptized for their own reasons. Just as I would never try to coerce someone into joining the church, I would never try to stop them joining if they so choose. With this new policy, we could have a civil ceremony in the religious tradition they were brought up in, and a sealing after. Which I think would be a really cool way to include their family. (I am not seeing anyone – I just have a very vivid imagination. I have, in the past few days, considered the possibilities of both a Jewish and a Hindu wedding ceremony.)

3. While there will still be people who judge those who choose a civil ceremony first, there will now be so many reasons to do so that it will be less intrusive feeling. I remember when a friend of mine was married civilly instead of in the temple, I wondered why. I couldn’t help it. I really didn’t care, but I still wondered. Now, the default assumption won’t be sin/unworthy/unrighteous/etc. The default (I hope at least) will be “someone important can’t attend the temple.” It will be a lot harder at most weddings to identify that “one” person, especially as for most people, it will probably be more than one.

4. I’m going to have a wedding party. At a temple wedding, bridesmaids really don’t do much. But now my sister and my two best friends can actually participate in my wedding. Even though two of the three have active TR, there isn’t anything for them to do. And one of them has little kids, so it’s tricky. This would be easier. And more fun.

5. I have wanted to write my own vows for years. Ever since I realized my dad wouldn’t be at a temple wedding, that was part of my plan. For my “ring ceremony” or my civil ceremony, when I started to consider that, I wanted to write my own vows. For a ring ceremony, you are explicitly told not to exchange vows. No one can stop me now. I can write flowery, personal, special, silly, dorky, intimate, memorable vows if I want to. And I do.

6. My friends can all come. My brother is hitting the age where his friends are pairing off and starting to get married. They aren’t LDS, so he has been able to attend the weddings. I couldn’t even do that. It was really hard for me to miss out, and more so as each one got married and was able to attend the next wedding. I didn’t even go to the temple for a couple of them because it wasn’t worth the effort to get to town. I don’t have many friends who couldn’t attend a temple wedding, but I don’t want to leave even one out, because it’s so much harder to be the only one outside.

7. I can choose my venue. I am not a fan of cultural halls. As was mentioned earlier, they are free, and that is still a really nice feature. Depending on where I am in life, I still may go that way. But I have been admiring an event center for several years, wishing it could be where I have my reception. And that’s a lot of money for a reception. It feels more justifiable if I have the entire wedding there.

Basically, I’m over the moon. I’m sad for the past: for the weddings I’ve missed and those who couldn’t have loved ones with them. But I’m far more excited for the future.

[Daughter1]

One from my grandpa.

In his ward, a few years prior to him telling me this story, they had an excellent music conductor. Her name was Hope and her family had been in the ward for many years. She knew everyone and loved everyone. She was constantly happy and friendly. When she and her husband moved back into the ward she had grown up in, everyone was happy to see her again, and she was called to lead the music. Soon, as is the way of things, especially in Utah, she became pregnant with their first child. She continued to lead the music cheerfully every week as the delivery date neared.

One Sunday, only a week or so before the baby was due, the whole ward burst out laughing in the middle of a song. She continued to conduct, her grin only growing bigger.

The hymn was “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet” and no one missed the line “There is Hope smiling brightly before us, and we know that deliverance is nigh.”

[Daughter1]

Arrakeen wrote:

I’ve come to believe something that could be described as the “flawed, but useful” hypothesis for prophets. Instead of thinking that God strengthens prophets to overcome their weaknesses, I prefer to think that God uses prophets for what they’re good at in spite of their weaknesses. For example, David clearly sinned, but he was a good political and military leader to build up the kingdom of Israel. I disagree with most of the doctrine Brigham Young taught, but he was a very strong leader for leading the saints across the plains and building a city from scratch. Nephi may have been an annoying self-righteous younger brother, but he was pretty good at building things like a bow and a boat to get his family to the promised land. Moses got himself into a lot of trouble, but he did have the guts to challenge Pharaoh and get the people out of Egypt.

I think maybe God doesn’t even need prophets to be righteous. Maybe he just needs them to have certain skills at the right time for his purposes. I guess it’s a pretty unorthodox opinion, but it helps me make sense of the behavior of prophets in the scriptures as well as in church history.

I love this idea. It’s a great way of understanding why God put His trust in these people. It takes the idea from flawed individuals to the even more relatable reality that everyone has strengths and weaknesses. We cannot focus just on one or the other if we want to truly understand and appreciate the person. I started the thread because I think we often focus only on the strength whole ignoring the great lessons the weakness teaches. But I love even more your juxtaposition of the weakness alongside the strength. They couldn’t have been the leaders they were without both.

[Daughter1]

Roy wrote:

I believe that we tend to follow certain schemas or formulas in our systematic religious beliefs.

….

(as an aside, I do not believe that we have a record of Jesus claiming to be perfect – that came from people that followed after. Also, when Jesus returned to Nazareth the townspeople rejected him saying “is not this the carpenter’s son?” Therefore, whatever “perfection” Jesus might have displayed in his youth must not have been overly impressive to the people that he grew up with.)

I want to connect to both of these points. First, those schemas are a very true thing. Thanks for putting it into words. For many years, that was what my testimony relied on. I feel very fortunate to have questioned the validity and value of those sorts of chains prior to coming to a point where I questioned any of the solid points in my own testimony.

Your mention of Jesus claiming perfection made me realize that He did claim perfection. But it also makes me modify my timeline for when He attained it. He only claims perfection after His resurrection. When He visits the Nephites and gives the Sermon on the Mount equivalent, He ends with the admonition to “be perfect even as I and your Father in Heaven are perfect.” When He gives the original Sermon prior to His death, He only says “be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” So He is not perfect until after His death and resurrection. I think dande’s point about Christ’s thoughts on how we interpret His story today ties in really well with this, as well as Curt’s point about the Atonement covering Christ too.

dande48 wrote:

But I don’t judge them for it, flaws and all. A lot of who we are stems from factors outside of our control. They tried to make the best sense of it, and find comfort and purpose. They did the best they could with what they had. They grew up in a different world, in different societies with different values. I don’t even think many of what we percieve as “flaws” they felt (or their societies felt) were flaws. They are very human. Christ was very human. And I think that makes them very relatable.

This is the beauty of it to me as well. I felt sad when I was told “No, Nephi isn’t proud – he’s very humble.” I saw all of the signs of a proud sibling who didn’t get along great with his siblings, and that meant a lot to me because of my own interactions with my sister. It was the first time I saw the weaknesses of one of these scriptural heroes, and I was told that I was not seeing rightly. I think there is less of an overt objection to the idea now days (I’ve seen less, at least), but I think it’s really cool to examine them in more depth. I’m really enjoying reading about what flaws stand out to other people. Especially in the Old Testament, which is my least-read book of scripture. I want to go and read or re-read these stories. Knowing the weaknesses draws me closer to the people.

Thank you everyone who has shared! I can’t wait to hear more. And then go and read the stories.

[Daughter1]

Hi Grey!

It’s nice to have you here. I only came on recently and have found a lot of the support you are looking for. I love the positivity of the group here.

Welcome.

[Daughter1]

nibbler wrote:

The thread title made me think the tread was going to be about how the authors of the scriptures were flawed so it stands to reason that the scriptures themselves are flawed. You took it in a different direction. It was a nice surprise.

…

If you want a window into Jesus’ childhood try reading the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGoT for short). I think you’ll quickly see why that book was left out of the Bible.

I do believe that flaws existing in scripture is a natural and logical conclusion from the authors being flawed. The BoM prophets multiple times state that any errors are the errors of man. This strongly suggests there are errors. Else why would the warning have made it through abridgment and translation? I lean on this when I find contradictions and try to determine which version is applicable to me through prayer.

dande48 wrote:

To be very blunt and maybe a little too honest… what about God? We say God is perfect, and “good”, and has the best interests of humanity at heart. But here are some evidences I feel that show God (at least as described by prophets) is kind of a butt:

This is one I’ve had to put on my shelf. Why, if the God I know and love, is kind and understanding and full of grace and mercy, does the God of the Old Testament (in particular) seem so angry? Scriptures often reference that He has run out of patience. Or is vengeful. Or is fierce in anger. Is this a situation of human authors anthropomorphizing Him? Or selecting what they attribute to Him (suggesting He wasn’t all that involved actually)? Or do we not understand what perfection really looks like? For me it is easier to look at some of those options before assuming He is flawed, since I cannot understand why a flawed God would deserve the level of worship He demands. But the examples you provided as well as other stories do suggest that if He is flawless, it isn’t what we would imagine a flawless being to be like.

DarkJedi wrote:

I think if we looked closely at what records/stories we have we’d see that all of the prophets were flawed, some very seriously flawed. This includes Joseph Smith and the original Twelve Apostles (and maybe even especially Peter). I think there’s a lesson in there. Being flawed humans does not mean God cannot work with us and through us because we are all flawed. And the human being flawed does not negate the work of God.

Yes. And for me, this makes them more relatable as well. It’s hard to emulate and try to follow in the footsteps of someone flawless. It’s easier to try to follow someone who isn’t perfect because it gives hope when I stumble.

[Daughter1]

Bringing it back to topic.

On my most recent reading of the BoM, this question was very much what came to the surface. I started my reading to gain a testimony and instead really came to distill the essence of what Christ and God care about. That’s one of the things I think is really great about the BoM. Both the NT Gospels and the BoM really hammer home the core of the true gospel of Christ.

A note from my journal as I read compares the teachings in Mosiah 25 to Matthew 22. In Mosiah, it is said that the only doctrines taught were repentance and faith in God. Jesus says that there are two great commandments upon which everything else rests: love God and love your neighbor. All throughout the Book of Mormon, the doctrine is taught very simply. There isn’t a lot of ceremony, policy, or other fluff. Everything comes down to God. I loved this as well as found it very distressing. It spoke to me – it’s what I have for years thought the gospel should be. But it was not what I expected or what I was familiar with, in this church of handbooks and policies.

The other lesson that really stood out was the realization that our “keystone” manuscript teaches quite explicitly that we don’t have everything. Again and again, especially in the second half, I found references to the fact that God would withhold some truths from the earth until the day of His coming. So the references to fullness that were being debated prior, I think are quite explicitly settled within the text itself. We do not know everything. God does not intend us to know everything. And this includes the prophets and the leadership of the church. Along with this is the statement that Jesus had “other sheep” still to visit after He came to the Americas. He explains that the Jews were confused when He referenced “other sheep.” Because they misunderstood, He didn’t explain to them. He says this. Then He tells the Nephites “I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister. … I have received a commandment of the father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice.” So we also have the text quite explicitly telling us that there are more people who saw the resurrected Christ that we know nothing about. They likely had records. So there is again more proof that we don’t have everything.

So to me, the primary lesson of the Book of Mormon is twofold: the gospel is simple – live it; there is greater truth to come – wait for it.

[Daughter1]

I need to go to bed, but I am so excited to read this interview tomorrow. I have half-joked over the past couple of decades that I have two quad combinations: the “standard works” and my copy of LotR and The Hobbit. And that I would be hard-pressed to say which is more dear to me. More recently (7 years or so ago now), I saw a quote from the Dalai Lama. It hangs on my wall, and if it were’t too long it would be my signature here:

Quote:

All religions share a common root, which is limitless compassion. They emphasize human improvement, love, respect for others, and compassion for the suffering of others. In so far as love is essential in every religion, we could say that love is a universal religion. But the various techniques and methods for developing love differ widely between the traditions. I don’t think there could ever be just one single philosophy or one single religion. Since there are so many different types of people, with a range of tendencies and inclinations, it is quite fitting that there are differences between religions. And the fact that there are so many different descriptions of the religious path shows how rich religion is.

Actually, just typing it out again, I think I decided my favorite part of the quote which might be short enough.

[Daughter1]

Roy, I do not understand the pain you must feel from that loss. And what I am about to say is not meant to try to compare my experiences with yours. But I want to clarify that I do not always feel these nudges. When I do, they are not always related to what I am wanting or asking for. If you had asked me what I most wanted guidance and help on right after college, I would have had two answers (and each one took priority depending on the day.) I wanted to start a successful company. And I wanted to get married. All my friends were married or engaged. And the tender mercy I had sent me to a totally new city and state that I had never been to. Where I am very happy, still unmarried, employed at a massive firm, and able to afford to visit my best friend every couple years to spoil her children.

I love your use of “tender mercies.” I do think that they are inconsistent in most everyone’s lives. This is not to say that you ought to apply this model to your life – I only add this because I do not want to come across as if I believe they are the way God speaks to everyone or that every prayer will be supported by a tender mercy. They are given by God’s will and that is beyond my comprehension to explain.

[Daughter1]

On my latest reading of the BoM, I had a thought about this. It indicates that after wandering around the desert near Jerusalem for a while, the whole group heads more or less due east for eight years. If you assume they walked an average of 6 hours a day, walking east on the Sinai Peninsula would take around 150-200 days. Less than a year. If you assume 6 hours a day going straight east, it would take about a year to get from the Red Sea to Vietnam. Since any version you look at must assume they didn’t walk every day for 8 years, you have to then consider which makes more sense in other contexts. And the ship journey from Vietnam to the Americas is much more direct. Also, that allows for their party to grow. In 8 years, it is difficult for me to imagine that they didn’t add people to their party. For genetic diversity to avoid inbred dysfunctions alone we need to assume that there were other people within a generation or so for them to marry. (This same logic applies when I consider who married the kids of Adam and Eve – the scriptures even state that there are other people whom the kids married.)

I really enjoy this sort of thing. Regardless of the historic accuracy (which is non-essential to my appreciation of the book as a work of scripture), I find considering what it would mean if it were accurate quite fascinating. Also, just further evidence that we aren’t fully understanding or equally discussing all the evidence in the book – physical and spiritual. No one ever notes the fact that Nephi says they traveled pretty much straight east. And no one ever mentions that after telling the Nephites that they are “other sheep,” Jesus then repeats his statement that He has yet other sheep.

[Author]

Posts