[Gerald]

There is a particular personality type that results in the kind of judgmental orthodoxy you described in your co-worker. Most members I know aren’t that extreme. One gentleman I know, however, is very much that way. He found out a co-worker (who was not active) was living with her boyfriend and lectured her about how she was sinning and the consequences she would most likely experience. The reason I know is that he rather proudly brought it up in a priesthood meeting one time. He also seemed a bit baffled when he reported that the woman didn’t appreciate it much. I think most people in the class (orthodox or not so much) thought the same thing “Why don’t you MYOB!” The thing is, he’s actually a really good guy who takes care of his invalid wife, helps his neighbors, and works hard to fulfill his calling. But there’s something about our difficult and confusing world that moves some people into the kind black and white thinking that can result in such judgmental behavior. I guess its comforting to believe the world is simple.

[Gerald]

I can’t speak to how this works in other cultures and religions but I know it is a big deal where I live. Obituaries, anniversary announcements, professional bios, and private conversations will almost always make some reference to number of children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and if they are ALL returned missionaries and/or card-carrying members with families of their own, you can bet that will get a mention. I saw it in my own father’s family in which every brother had been a bishop and every sister a relief society president. When my grandfather died (a wonderful man by the way), it was certainly brought up multiple times.

But, you know. there are some tough things that individuals in large families have to endure (fewer resources, less parental and grandparental attention, lack of privacy). It’s not my place to judge the number of children one should have or criticize anyone for that number. But having grown up in a family of eight, I knew that for me personally, once married, large numbers of children would simply not work (I have five). I knew a family of 16 children (a number often brought up when discussing this family with whispers of awe) but I also knew that the family struggled financially to support those children and that the constant competition for their parents’ attention created hostility between siblings and frustration in the parents. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that children in superlarge families rarely have families that large themselves.

It’s painful to put up with but it’s very human to brag. And if some of your accomplishments aren’t what you’d like them to be you’ll focus on those that are. If I can’t brag about my large numerous family, I’ll definitely find something to brag about. And, generally, I do.

[Gerald]

I live in a area full of Mormons (like 90% in our county)

Never heard of this.

[Gerald]

Quote:

You have to watch out with that because while there are perpetually “good” and perpetually “bad” wards, some wards do change with leadership roulette.

I agree. The policy on ward attendance is pretty black and white. Execution of the policy…not so much.

Many years ago, our ward went through some boundary changes which resulted a small number of our ward members having to attend not just different wards but different stakes. These family were at the intersection of the boundaries of three stakes. I discovered later that these boundaries had been adjusted for some time and bishops and stake presidencies had looked the other way. I think someone higher up the scale than the stake president said that something had to be done. The stake presidency of both the old and new stakes as well as old and new bishoprics (quite a delegation) met with each family individually to discuss the need to move their records to the new wards. One elderly couple flatly told their visitors “We aren’t moving!” and their membership stayed in our ward until they both passed away. I remember one lone elderly widow ended up all by herself in a new ward and stake. I was appalled that this gentle woman had to be torn away from a ward she had spent the bulk of her life in. But she went willingly and when I ran into her some time later she said that her new ward had been very good to her and had gone the extra mile to make her feel welcome.

I’m sure this is of little comfort to you but these things can be handled SO much better. Even if the answer had to be “you can’t move your membership” it might have been more palatable if the leaders had made an effort to be diplomatic. But in the end…what’s the big deal?? As long as you’re not “ward hopping” all over the place, why not let someone go where they feel more comfortable and welcomed? Particularly if there is major bullying or snubbing going on.

I’m just sorry that you have had to go through such unnecessary upheaval.

[Gerald]

My contribution:

Quote:

Abou Ben Adhem

By Leigh Hunt

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)

Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,

And saw, within the moonlight in his room,

Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,

An angel writing in a book of gold:—

Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,

And to the presence in the room he said,

“What writest thou?”—The vision raised its head,

And with a look made of all sweet accord,

Answered, “The names of those who love the Lord.”

“And is mine one?” said Abou. “Nay, not so,”

Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,

But cheerly still; and said, “I pray thee, then,

Write me as one that loves his fellow men.”

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night

It came again with a great wakening light,

And showed the names whom love of God had blest,

And lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest.

[Gerald]

This thread is interesting particularly in light of President Nelson’s talk yesterday at the Women’s Session of Conference. I’m just not sure how I feel about this issue and the Church’s response to it.

[Gerald]

I personally liked the shift of stake Sunday School and Young Men responsibilities to High Council members (I’ve always felt those callings at the stake level could easily be done by the High Council body). I see nothing wrong with any of the changes to Young Men’s and Young Women’s organization. I thought it interesting that they said they were retiring the word “Mutual.” I know some of the older generation still refer to it as such but I thought that label had been eliminated long ago. However, I don’t really have a pony in this race any more. My youngest daughter will be out of Young Women’s in a few months. That said, having had five children move through the youth programs in multiple wards, I do have some opinions.

The biggest red flag to me: placing more responsibility on youth presidencies.

From Elder Cook:

Quote:

Each of the adjustments is an integral part of an interlocking pattern to bless the Saints and prepare them to meet God. One part of the pattern relates to the rising generation. Our youth are being asked to take more individual responsibility at younger ages — without parents and leaders taking over what youth can do for themselves.

A terrific principle but it will not happen without appropriate training for bishops and other youth advisors. And by training I mean actual training and not talks about how “wonderful our youth are” and “how they have been reserved for this day.” Both of my daughters were presidents in their Young Women’s groups at different times. Both started out with excitement and interest in actually “leading” the group and “making decisions.” By the time they were done, both had lost interest in their calling. One daughter, while president of the MIA Maids, tried to make suggestions regarding activities which were quickly shot down by her leaders. Another daughter, while president of the Beehives. was actually criticized publicly by one of the leaders for “not doing her job.” Neither felt much engagement with Young Women’s afterwards. The leaders were generally well-intentioned but some of them really didn’t know what they were doing.

One of my daughters served on a stake youth committee with two other boys planning some component of a stake activity. The high councilman (to his credit) actually did try to place the decision-making responsibility on the group but the boys’ attendance at the group was sporadic (plus they tended to mess around when they did attend) and in the end it was just my daughter and the high councilman making decisions. It speaks to another challenge: taking on responsibilities in a youth organization is not very instinctive for teen-aged boys. This is not to say that there aren’t level-headed, responsible young men out there but I think they’re the exception not the rule.

Working with the youth is TOUGH! You have to strike the right balance between “being the authority figure” and “being the buddy.” I don’t think many people do it naturally (I know I dont!) There’s a reason the Baptists have “youth ministers.” They recognize that working with youth takes a unique set of skills. I’ll say it once more: I truly believe that without proper and effective training of leaders none of these changes will make any difference in the end.

[Gerald]

I was watching the devotional in real time and it seemed like a standard talk until President Nelson got to the discussion of the November policy. It got my attention and by the time he was done I said to myself, “Oh boy! There are going to be some mad people out there.”

However, Pres Nelson wasn’t speaking to that particular group (I’m not sure anything he said would change some minds). He was speaking to the faithful (many of whom won’t even know what he’s talking about…they just haven’t tracked that particular issue) or the somewhat wavering (who are aware of the issue, still faithful but troubled). I suppose time will tell what the ultimate impact will be.

But hey, at least it wasn’t boring!

[Gerald]

Quote:

Sometimes church leaders realize that how things happened in the past is not how they want them to happen going forward. They desire to make changes but do not wish to throw and previous church leaders “under the bus.” So then they can make statements that obfuscate the known origins of a particular policy or cultural norm. This can be church leaders trying to avoid passing around blame or pointing fingers. It can be frustrating. At least in this instance the church leaders have seen a better way and are making efforts to move in that direction – even without full transparency and mia culpa.

That’s a good point. It’s probably best not to get too caught up in “blaming” but rather focus on “changing.”

[Gerald]

I hope you don’t mind me commenting on an issue that is probably unrelated to the true message of your post. We all struggle to evaluate our own competence…it’s actually part of the human condition. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy/2017/01/24/the-dunning-kruger-effect-shows-why-some-people-think-theyre-great-even-when-their-work-is-terrible/#62c8700a5d7c

Of course, there is a difference between an inability to self-evaluate effectively and a more conscious self-deception. I took a slightly longer time to get through my education and told myself it was because I was spending more time with my wife and children. True, but I also had some significant fears about leaving the structured safety of school and moving out into the “adult” world. I can see that, in retrospect, I would be further along in my career and personal development had I not dragged my feet…had I not told myself one reason for doing it when it was probably another reason.

Yet, who knows? Maybe I’d be exactly where I am. Maybe I’d be in some different, less positive place (careerwise and personally). In many cases (but not all), there are no “good” decisions or “bad” decisions, just decisions. What becomes important is how we deal with the consequences.

Hope that’s not too far afield from your original question but it’s what came to my mind.

[Gerald]

I have always been a bit uncomfortable using the term “addiction” to describe porn use. It forces the issue into a “black and white” conceptualization (you’re either addicted or you’re not addicted). This is why a member of the Church casually viewing Victoria’s Secrets website may be described as “addicted to porn.” Is this really what we mean? I’m not for one moment suggesting that viewing such a website is okay but these problems are definitely on a continuum.

If you look at pictures of naked individuals, say, once a week, is this a problem? Well, it may have spiritual ramifications that need to be considered but is probably not something that requires an intense intervention (but may need an intervention nonetheless). If you are viewing hard porn sites to the point that you can neither hold down a job nor maintain a relationship, is this a problem? Definitely! And it will probably require an intense intervention (what that might be I leave to the experts). What about the individual who is holding down a job and interacting with family and friends but spends a couple of hours each night on computer and phone viewing inappropriate sites? This person is somewhere in between and needs an intervention of some kind. The point is that each of these hypothetical examples can be classified as a “porn problem” but vary greatly in terms of expression and consequences. Is the term “addiction” truly useful? I suggest it is a term so emotionally loaded that it’s no wonder people work hard to hide their problems OR use it as an excuse for their compulsive behavior.

Finally, I believe that very few people have “porn problems.” They have “life problems” and they use porn to temporarily mute their pain and suffering. It may be that if you can address THOSE issues underlying the compulsive behavior that the behavior itself will go away. But our culture (while better than it used to be) is such that the social consequences for an individual whose porn use is made public are dire indeed. If we can help and support our brothers and sisters in a way that appropriately addresses their struggles without shaming them into silence, that would put ALL of us one step closer to living a Christlike life.

[Gerald]

My thoughts. There’s a schedule that’s followed (though not necessarily strictly). Children are relatively clean as is the home (I put emphasis on “relatively”). The dynamic between parents and children (as well as children and their siblings) seems healthy. Children may be quiet but not sullen or high-spirited but not out of control. But I do think it comes down to some sort of structure imposed over the family activities.

There’s a young woman in our ward with four small children (I think the oldest is eight). From what I see, she’s a great mother. She’s stays at home while her husband works and always seems busy caring for the house (and her children help), doing things with her children (I seem them out bike riding a lot), and efficiently carrying out her calling (she’s in the primary presidency). I’m sure their lives aren’t perfect (I sense the father is as laid back as she is “no nonsense” which can lead to conflicts though, as an outsider, I see no evidence of this). I think they have a good spirit about them because of it.

[Gerald]

Tough question! I can’t comment on whether it is or isn’t grooming behavior but it is certainly borderline inappropriate. Can you politely ask the couple to not give your children such gifts? Assuming the the worst motives of this couple, this would let them know that you are watching them. Assuming benign motives on the part of this couple, perhaps they’ll dial back the attention paid to your children. Or maybe the bishop can be the go between? Does your state have a sex offenders registry? Anyone convicted of such a crime has to register there. You could check it out. Or talk with the bishop and ask that if this couple must substitute in primary, that the husband be paired with a man and the woman paired with another woman. Those are the ideas that pop immediately into my head but it’s a dilemma. We don’t want to be paranoid but the world is a dangerous place and children are so vulnerable.

[Gerald]

Interesting idea! They would spend two years mastering some kind of ability and then go off and be ambassadors for the Church in a variety of contexts. I’m not sure how many would choose proselyting over that kind of mission but it would certainly generate some publicity.

[Gerald]

There have definitely been some changes but I suppose it depends on what you define as “substantive change.” For some, the changes are not enough and for others, too much. I’ll be honest and say (I think I may said it earlier) that I don’t care much for the changes made. But that has more to do with my nature (change averse) rather than any particular issues with the adjustments themselves. It’s a matter of getting used to things.

[Author]

Posts