Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think I’ve come to realize I just don’t really care much for Nelson’s version of the gospel. It’s a version where God’s love is conditional, obedience is of supreme importance, and prophets always tell the truth. It’s just not very applicable. Too bad because I really like him as a person, just not the way he interprets and applies the gospel in his own life and subsequently what he presents as the absolute “truth” to members. Other prophets and apostles have presented a better version. I’m really excited for this change for two main reasons. 1) It will likely impact me as children, siblings, in-laws, nieces, etc get married and hopefully I can participate in a civil ceremony as I have no intention of renewing my recommend anytime soon.
2) I hope more and more LDS couples can experience the joy and excitement of a civil marriage celebration. As others have pointed out, the temple ceremony is kind of dull, impersonal, and somewhat anti-climactic. I get the joy of eternal sealing, but there is something to be said for a little more “pomp and circumstance” for something as joyous as a wedding. I hope more couples can celebrate and feel the special joy that should accompany this day beyond what is offered in the temple itself.
Definitely a sign of progress that a gay man can come out publicly like that at BYU. I can’t help but feel sorrow for his difficult sojourn in the church if he chooses to stay. Living a life devoid of the loving and intimate connections that are so fulfilling to the human experience and essentially becoming a marginalized member of his community.
I love seeing progress but the church is still not a safe space for those of the LGBTQ community.
Welcome! This community was a life saver for me. I no longer am “staying LDS” but my wife is and I stay plugged into this on-line community because I have loved it and enjoy the non-judgmental conversations that go on here. Wherever your journey takes you, this community will support you. This article on CNN summarizes what these changes look like to outsiders. Can’t say I disagree. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/05/us/mormon-policy-reversal/index.html Quote:
While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.
A heterosexual couple can hold hands, cuddle, kiss, even make out a little and none of these actions are considered immoral. Will the same allowances now be made for a homosexual couple? As long as they don’t cross certain lines, can a gay couple hold hands and sit together in church and still be considered in good standing and hold temple recommends?
I’m unclear on the full implications of this announcement, but I’m hopeful that those words can be taken at face value but I also doubt that’s the case.
I’ve heard this rumor so many times and in so many forums, and in every case there is never any proof. In this day of social media, if calls like this were truly going out, there would be at least one photo posted on-line. Instead there are none. Not a single one. It’s always “my aunt’s friend knows someone in her ward who got a call like this.” Meanwhile other kids are still getting regular calls for 24 months and still posting the call on-line. It’s a rumor – one that has caught fire is spreading rapidly. But never confirmed.
I wouldn’t be surprised if mission call lengths were changed to 18 months for everyone or if different service lengths were offered (6 mo, 12 mo, etc). But this rumor of mission calls where the length will be announced in GC I think is pure fabrication.
If I’m wrong and someone finally posts a picture of a call like this to prove it, I’ll happily eat my words.
Seperately from the issue of cost, my TBM feminist SIL was very bothered by all of the apostles and their wives going to the dedication but none of the women general auxiliary leaders. That thought didn’t even cross my mind until she brought it up which goes to show how far I still have to go in my attempt at being more progressive and feminist-minded in my thinking.
My opinion based on absolutely no social science experience or data to back me up, is that these days the trend of the younger generation towards becoming a “none” will continue to grow and expand. But the religions that will best fight this trend are the most fundamental religions where being a part of that religion is baked into the culture. What immediately comes to mind besides the LDS tradition is orthodox Judaism, Islam, and Jehovah’s Witness. Of course there are others too. But the religions that will best fight the trend towards disaffiliation are those in which religion is such an ingrained part of daily cultural experience that the social cost of leaving is very high. Of course, actually fulfilling a social need also helps retention, but I think the potential negative backlash is a greater motivator.
Free thought is always going to be dangerous for religion, and the more fundamental the religion, the more dangerous it becomes.
I completely agree that porn (and masturbation) are not part of chastity. Whether or not they are sins or should be avoided is a separate conversation. The chastity covenant as I recall it, says something like only having sexual relations with the person to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. I do not consider porn or masturbation sexual relations. They may be vices that one should work to overcome, but even that is up for debate and is a separate issue in my mind from chastity. Why miracles? Humans like to tell stories, the more incredible and miraculous the better. Over time, some of those stories become embellished or become scripture. It is no coincidence to me that miracles seem to disappear the moment we have verifiable and recordable history. So obviously, I’m of the opinion that there are no miracles, just stories. Those stories can still serve an important purpose though. But then, according to the Book of Mormon “if these things have ceased then has faith ceased also.” So maybe I’m just fulfilling prophecy. Maybe my lack of belief directly leads to the end of miracles. But then I have to wonder about those stories in scripture where miracles happen specifically to convince people to believe, rather than to reward them for belief. Until one of those miracles happens to me, I’ll keep seeing scripture miracles as stories, and modern miracles as amazing coincidences that have a naturalistic explanation.
I also am much more affected by individuals and also the church leadership response to those who doubt, question, or have different beliefs than the orthodox member. I am currently a non-believer, although I would actually enjoy continuing to participate in the community as a non-believer. I find value in rites of passage, opportunities for service, discussions of following the Christ of faith, etc. However, I am simply not allowed to participate (openly) this way, so I don’t. It’s disappointing that Mormonism isn’t yet large enough to allow a non-believer in the literal power of the Priesthood to stand beside a believer and officiate together.
I brought this up to my wife and it offended her that I would want to participate (i.e., ordaining my son to the Priesthood) in something that was so sacred and so real to her when I don’t believe the same way. I tried to explain the value I still see as a rite of passage, as an entrance into a brotherhood of service, and acknowledging the authority being real because the church has the right to define who gets to participate in such ordinances. But she wouldn’t have it. It hurt her that I would want to participate without the belief because others do believe and hold it sacred. So I won’t because it would hurt her. I think her reaction is reflective of many in the church. I simply can’t yet participate and be open about where I’m at. Maybe someday. Sigh…
These are clearly positive changes towards a more comfortable and egalitarian ceremony. I imagine only those who hold to a view where the endowment is a literal revelation divinely revealed in exactness and not to be altered would have a problem. Those who know much about the history of the endowment know this isn’t the case and that it’s changed many times throughout history, including changes to make it a more comfortable experience for participants. Those who separate the presentation of the endowment from the endowment itself will have even less of a problem. I think most temple going members will see these changes as revelation and be grateful for them. I applaud these changes and hope it is just another step towards full female participation including priesthood and all church positions eventually being open to include calling females. One can dream…
Holy Cow wrote:
DT,I can definitely relate! However, I think before giving a real answer, I would have to ask a question. You’re asking whether or not you ‘should’ ordain your son, but you don’t say whether or not you WANT to ordain him. Or, whether or not he WANTS to be ordained. I think that makes a big difference.
My son wants to be ordained. He has been excited and I think it’s an important rite of passage for him. We haven’t spoken about who he wants to ordain him as that is a conversation I was hoping to be able to have sometime next year rather than next month. Also, my beliefs are not spoken of in the home much. My kids have a vague sense that dad believes differently so doesn’t participate in the church the same way mom does, but my wife has requested I don’t speak specifically about why I believe differently as she doesn’t want me to sway them as a way of supporting her. I have qualms with this but honestly my faith transition has been incredibly hard on her and is still very raw for her so I haven’t pushed back on this point.
I’m assuming my son would want me to ordain him, but I don’t know how he would feel about someone else doing it. We don’t have any family close by. As for me, my only reason for wanting to be the one to ordain him would be his own desire, since I don’t believe in the Priesthood anyway. Would my son still want me ordaining him if he knew the full extent of my disbelief? I’m not sure, since that’s not a conversation my wife is comfortable with me having with my son. Also, I wouldn’t want this type of conversation to taint my son’s experience. “Son, I don’t believe the Priesthood is real and I think it’s sexist to exclude women, but I support you in getting it.” Seems like this would put a damper on his own excitement and experience.
Maybe I’m making this more complicated than it needs to be. I simply wasn’t expecting to have to even think about this for many months.
Whether or not the glory of the restoration is diminished or not is up to the individual to decide. But this is completely independent of the fact that Joseph did borrow. One cannot be honest with the history and not see that Joseph borrowed at every turn. I think that was part of his great genius – a master syncretizer of the cultural milieu of his day and repackaged into something that was inspirational and transformational for his followers. But the facts of history are clear that Joseph borrowed from everything around him. He admitted as much himself. I think he saw this as part of his role as prophet – to take all the good and truths that were already available and add to them.
