Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think lots of women stay in workout clothes all day as a great loophole to our legalistic requirements. After my FC it was hard to see the garment as anything more than a control mechanism, especially as a way to police what women wear and ensure it is modest. I guess I still wonder if it’s not a control mechanism, why do we ask about it in the TR interview? Do you think these new questions make it more difficult for someone with unorthodox views to get a recommend? I think a lot of these questions, if taken very literally could weed a lot of people out. Question 9 seems to cover personal views that go against the Church, even if they are not made public. If someone personally thinks gay marriage is OK, they could see Question 9 as disqualifying them from having a recommend. I wonder if we will see a dip in people getting recommends and if these will be quietly adjusted. I think that it’s hard to argue the Church has not been successful. Look at growth, devotion of members, staying power, etc. Most of the religious movements at the time of JS fizzled out and are no longer around. I think from outside, people are amazed that Mormons continue to be devout and we are seen as a cultural and religious phenomenon. I think we often forget this as we look at the people leaving the Church and slackening of devotion that has come with all the faith crises of the internet age.
I also think we forget that from the 80s to the 2000s the Church became more and more conservative in requirements and expectations of devotion. From what I’ve heard from my parents and grandparents, a lot of people were more lax across the board in the 50s, 60s and 70s. With everything from church and temple attendance, to Word of Wisdom, to Sabbath Day observance. Look at how many of the current apostles talk about growing up in less active homes. I think now that the pendulum is swinging back toward less devotion people forget how amazing it was that people were so devout during that 30 year period from the 80s to the 2000s. I predict looking back, that will be seen as the golden age of Church strength (growth, activity, etc.).
This is a hobby horse of mine, I’ll weigh in. I was really bothered by the old question because it inferred you’d made a covenant to wear the garment day and night in the endowment (which you never do). I thought this was manipulative and also really disliked the instruction about wearing garments while working in the yard (talk about being commanded in all things). I think the new question is designed to give people a little more leeway, which I like. The actual language in the temple is that you are instructed to wear it throughout your life. I think that just wearing garments in the temple would be in line with this and I see us eventually headed this direction. Our whole framework surrounding the garment has shifted dramatically. When I was growing up, it was literal, physical protection from harm and sin. That created a big incentive never to take them off. I heard countless stories of people not being burned on areas covered by the garment, being spared in car accidents, etc. We’ve totally pivoted away from this and now they are just a reminder of covenants. I don’t think this elicits the same need to wear them all the time. I think the older folks that grew up thinking they were a physical protection still hold to this belief and see the need to always have them on, I think the younger people who see it as a reminder are more lax in wearing them.
The reality is that people are getting more lax with garments. I would imagine my parents (who didn’t really exercise) took off their garments a few times a year to swim, but other than that did almost everything with them on. It seems like most younger people take them off to exercise, hike and do lots of other activities. I think this is trying to accommodate this reality. I find them uncomfortable and don’t like being told how to wear my underwear, so I am very lax with garment wearing (essentially just on Sundays, to ward functions and family events).
This question makes it easier to keep a recommend in the messy middle, but some of the others make it harder. Some of the questions, especially the one about doctrine contrary to the Church would be difficult for almost anyone to answer if they took it literally.
IMO the Church is venturing into very dangerous territory by taking positions that are so easily refuted by science and life experience. What about people who are born intersex? From what I understand a small percentage of the population is born with both sets of equipment and the parents usually decide which to go with. If the parents get it wrong and this baby could have been a boy or girl and they chose girl and the eternal gender was boy, what happens? It just seems so easy to poke holes in Oaks’ logic. I understand the desire to set boundaries and establish (create?) doctrine that preserves established conservative norms, but there is a huge risk that these stances make the leaders seem out of touch with science and reality and continue to lose legitimacy.
I love this quote by Richard Rohr: “If change and growth are not programmed into your spirituality, if there are not serious warnings about the blinding nature of fear and fanaticism, your religion will always end up worshiping the status quo and protecting your present ego position and personal advantage as if it were God.”
Those are harsh truths, but I think there is a huge temptation to attribute to God all kinds of things that are really our own desires and biases (even if they are well-meaning).
These changes are all bittersweet for me in that I think the actual changes are good and needed. But, they seem to reinforce the notion that the original policy/stance was wrong or just something someone decided arbitrarily at one point, the people who were critical of it originally had legitimate criticisms (even though they were often criticized and marginalized themselves for making the criticism) and things were easier to change than were originally presented. It’s doubly frustrating when I point this out to people and am criticized for being too rigid or nitpicky and holding the Church to an unrealistic standard. So many of these cosmetic changes were recommended by Nylan McBaine in her Book Women at Church 10 years ago. I think they are good changes, but it rubs me the wrong way that they are rolled out as revelation.
Roy, I agree that the plates were mystical and that the examples you presented of them moving, visions of caverns, etc. were visionary. However, there are quite a few people who “hefted” the plates while in a box or touched them under a cloth https://rsc.byu.edu/es/archived/coming-forth-book-mormon/hefted-and-handled-tangible-interactions-book-mormon-objects Bill Reel did a presentation where he looked at how much tin plates of the dimensions would weigh and it was 45-60 lbs. Critics are quick to point out that actual golden plates would weigh too much to lift and “tabunga” compound plates would work with the weight but would not be all that valuable.
With the witnesses, I agree that it was more of a spiritual second sight thing, where they likely saw these things together. I think the 8 witnesses may have lifted the plates in a box or under a sheet.
Nibbler, you make some good points. I recently read a FB post by David Bokovoy where he put forward the view that the BOM has great value as scripture even though he does not view it as historical. The key point he made is that we have used the BOM as a tool to prove the legitimacy of everything. If you prayed about the BOM and received a testimony, Joseph was a prophet, we have the keys, the current prophet speaks with God and you should do your hometeaching. It’s a double edged sword tho and when people deconstruct, they often reach the opposite conclusion, the BOM is not true (a translation of a historical record), Joseph wasn’t a prophet, etc. I like Greg Prince’s statement that we still aren’t sure what it is, but let’s focus on what it does. I agree that if you take a very broad view of scripture, the BOM can fit in (but you may also include a lot of other stones in the process). I view it as the sacred stories of my people. I am at peace with not having it be a historical translation and having it be inspired sacred story (scripture).
There is still a part of me that wants to unravel the mystery and figure out how the mechanics of producing it worked. That was the spirit of my actual post. I’m fascinated by the different theories. My theory satisfies my read of the data and answers my questions. If anyone wants to hear my narrative on how it was translated, here it is.
1. Joseph had an encounter with the divine and felt called to bring forth the BOM (this was the original First Vision experience that was much more mystical and foggy than we have in our narrative now). 2. Joseph feared no one would believe him or take him seriously, he used his training in magick and showmanship to create buzz with the story and props of gold plates that were probably made out of tin. 3. That certainly generated buzz and got out of hand and he had to actually focus and produce the book. 4. The way he had communed with spirit and focused his mind was through the process of scrying (looking at the stone). 5. Through this process he was able to channel and tune into a narrative that he produced that answered burning religious questions of the time, questions in his family and put them all in the time frame of ancient America, which was of great interest to people at the time. 6. The fruits have been very good, it has been a narrative that has moved people for 200 years and stays relevant today, even though many of the questions addressed were more relevant to the 19th century.
These things have been on my mind too. I had this discussion with a friend a few months ago and his view is let’s not make it into a problem unless it’s a problem. Meaning, for married men (women too), is an interest in porn affecting your sex life and attention to a spouse? If so, it’s a problem. Is it affecting your performance at work? Taking away from time spent doing other productive things like hobbies? Are you spending a lot of time and money on porn? For teenagers, same questions, is an interest in this material affecting your relationships with friends, boyfriends/girlfriends, school, work, hobbies, etc. These things would all be instances where porn causes problems and affects quality of life. In our LDS world, I would guess that the main problems from porn are self-imposed. We view it as an addiction and that people who are acting pretty normally are broken. Spouses react the same as they would with infidelity. We have all kinds of shame, secrecy and compulsive behavior that comes from suppressing viewing porn. These are all real problems, but seem very unnecessary.
I wonder if we backed off on our problematic rhetoric if we would eliminate the problems we’ve created and people would generally avoid the real problems I mentioned at first (affecting relationships, jobs, hobbies, finances, etc.).
My prayers have also changed since my FC. To be honest, sometimes I pray in an unorthodox way and sometimes my prayers are by the book. I think the important part of prayer is an attempt to ping the divine mystery. Sometimes there is a connection and sometimes it’s routine and solely out of habit and obligation. This was a great podcast https://theliturgists.com/podcast/2019/7/19/prayer . Sometimes a quiet moment basking in the connection of the universe can be sacred and what I would now consider prayer. I was recently in the Teton mountains, early in the morning and basked in the sunrise, saw some elk and a moose and felt connected to God and nature. That was a sacred, spiritual experience and a prayer because it was like a divine conversation, rather than shooting off a one word text.Great minds think alike, sorry I used the same title. Great blog post. Maybe more human nature than generational. Sounds like you are teaching valuable life skills and build confidence. All the data shows that will help these girls in every aspect of their lives down the road. Great job! Katzpur, you raise a good point. Now that you mention it, I remember the celebration for President Hinckley and I had similar feelings then. I’m not sure if it’s that I don’t jive as much with President Nelson’s personality or if since my faith has changed, I’m much more aware of the problem of leader worship in the Church. Great discussion. I think the Satan idea can be a good motivator and would only cause harm in people not taking responsibility for actions or blaming decisions by others (like the decision to leave the Church) on them being totally influenced by Satan. Katzpur, I wholeheartedly agree on all counts. I love this quote by Richard Rohr and think it is very applicable to the hard line we’ve taken on this issue: “If change and growth are not programmed into your spirituality, if there are not serious warnings about the blinding nature of fear and fanaticism, your religion will always end up worshiping the status quo and protecting your present ego position and personal advantage as if it were God.”
We are trying to hold a firm line in the sand that was put there 100 years ago by leaders who were trying to rally us around the prohibition movement and assimilate us into white Protestant America. I agree that it does not make sense to try to justify this by saying it’s the will of the Lord, when he told us pretty explicitly that it was not a commandment.
