[grobert93]

Due to personal questions that I’ve been needing answers to, Elder Christopherson, Callister and Bednar (and Holland, but as a bonus) were my favorites. They are usually not the ones I appreciate in conference but their talks spoke to my soul and I’ve gained a greater understanding of my purpose.

Least favorite would probably be Elder Anderson, interestingly enough I fell sleep during his so I haven’t actually heard it yet but my wife told me what he talked bout so I probably wouldn’t have liked that. I also didn’t like Stevenson’s talk during Priesthood. I’ve never enjoyed sports (and the gender bias toward it with men) so it felt very stereotypical plus he was “only focused on the deacons” anyway.

[grobert93]

dande48 wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Years ago, when they revamped the Handbook of instructions, someone said it wasn’t revelation, simply the current leadership’s best understanding about how it should all work. THAT is a good example of church change.

…

I think as Mormons we might take a similar approach if we want to keep the phrase “the church is perfect but the people aren’t” credible. The leaders are people, and they make the policies. Let’s acknowledge they are imperfect and keep our testimonies intact in the process!!

The challenge with that is, it only works for policies either no one will notice, or no one will care about if they did. But if there are policies the Church leaders feel they should implement, even if they’re unpopular, people will have a much harder time following. I imagine if PoX had been presented as policy, and “what we feel is best”, there would’ve been a lot more room for people to feel outraged. I think, even at the local level, it wouldn’t have been followed. “Revelation” is a trump card, and people are more willing to follow it than “we talked about it, prayed, and felt it was a good idea” (which is how revelation usually works, I believe).

Callings are another thing which wouldn’t work if it weren’t for revelation. A lot more people would turn down positions or callings they didn’t feel qualified for, or simply don’t want to do. And for a select few, you’d have the sudden “office politics” of trying to get into the top callings… I mean, more than we do already.

I’ve never understood the phrase “the Church is true/perfect, but the people aren’t”. Last I checked, the Church was the people. Or at the very least, the Church is the top leadership. There is no discernible disconnect between the two. If the prophet makes a Church-wide policy change, and in hindsight it was a really bad idea, that means the Church wasn’t perfect. But… in the case of PoX, whatever the policy happens to be was right all along.

By using the trump card of “Revelation”, it usually gives the automatic preset of the following assumptions:

1. The individual questioning the change or announcement is questioning both the authority of the prophet (which you have to have a testimony of in order to get a temple recommend) and the lord (temple recommend again)

2. The individual questioning is not just accepting the information with faith (first principle of the gospel?), but is seeking for more. To some, faith should be adequate. For others, the truth is mandatory.

3. The individual questioning may have a history of not believing in leadership decisions as revelation and could have other problems (temple recommend)

Essentially by questioning anything claimed to be revelation, it puts you into an awkward situation where people can assume further sinful desires or imperfections that could disqualify you from a recommend or callings, etc.

I view the church as the people as separate. The church is a concept of the gospel being put into action by people, to me. The church has the opportunity to represent the will of the Lord. But the church isn’t baptism, or the priesthood, etc. So when the church makes decisions that are disagreeable or are policies, it is easier to see it as the human leadership of the church guiding the church (vehicle) so that the gospel can continue to help others.

[grobert93]

I remember reading the history of Joseph Smith and how he had convinced his followers that the second coming would be in their lifetime. There were patriarchal blessings given saying early saints would witness Christ’s descent. My dad told me that he received the “you are the chosen generation” speech as a youth and how “the second coming is around the corner” so everyone would behave and help the church grow. I received the exact same lectures as a youth, and I’m seeing it repeated to the youth NOW, ten years later.

I think the church will always tell their next of kin that they are the chosen generation for their generation, but also that the second coming is “at nigh” to keep us on our toes. I think it will come when we are not expecting it, likely without any major reveal. I have not pondered this much, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Christ came down and quietly setup his kingdom. As members, we have been taught to expect trumpets and Christ to show up in Missouri or SLC or some place the Mormon Church owns property at. I would laugh (at us) if He chose to start out in someplace where poor people reside or where the gospel in spirit is followed.

I consider these “relaxing” changes to be creating more pressure. Back then we had exact rules and guidelines as to how church should function, but now many of these rules are “you figure it out” or “follow the spirit” which in practice shouldn’t be bad, but because we are a membership that naturally judges and criticizes each other, I’m not surprised if we continue to argue about how ministering should be performed, just as we still have issues with deciding what the word of wisdom means or how to honor the sabbath.

[grobert93]

Roy wrote:

I got emotional texting my wife about this announcement. I wanted her to contact her openly gay cousin to tell him the good news.

She reminded me that her cousin has long since left the church and is not consumed by LDS issues anymore. This news would likely bring to him a mixture of emotions and should be handled delicately. We cannot burst into the scene like people at a surprise party, “Happy SSM is no longer automatic apostacy Day!” That would be insensitive of us.

Which has me ponder to what extent any previous excommunication and other damages will be reversed or given the opportunity for such reversal? Will people who were kicked out of the church desire to come back? Is it too late?

[grobert93]

I am stunned. Elder Oaks has done a good job clarifying the changes and in a sense, asking for “forgiveness” for the pain that has been caused. I am very excited and hopefull, as he said… last year I think, that the church was “not familiar enough” with the transgender side of the community and this change could be a stepping stone into seeing how the church handles situations in the future. I am so excited!

[grobert93]

DarkJedi wrote:

grobert93 wrote:

The problem I see with the word of wisdom is

1. The name itself vs how we treat it. A word of wisdom is advice that could be beneficial to follow. It’s not a commandment, rule or requirement like other commandments have been presented. Yet this word of wisdom is treated as though it were a word of commandment.

This is very much the same as we treat modesty and other things. I suppose at its heart it’s an argument about the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. As a people we tend to take things that are meant to be sort of vague and open to interpretation and attach rules to them. Hence hot drinks become coffee and tea (but not hot chocolate or herbal tea) and modesty becomes no cleavage, shoulders or knees (unless you’re male and then almost anything goes). In my own mind I see no difference in this and what the Pharisees did in trying to make sure everybody obeyed.

For sure! Look at the sabbath day and how depending on who you ask you will get an different answer to how they perceive keeping the sabbath holy entails. Even the law of chastity, while pretty straightforward, has been extended to include all sorts of guidelines that are treated as strict rules.

Which is why I hope for a clear stance on having open interpretation so we can rely on the spirit and our relationship with God to determine what He would deem appropriate for us.

[grobert93]

While I’m not in leadership, I do find it funny that once HT was scrapped, my surprisingly active home teachers stopped visiting (after months of visits). I looked in the directory and found out that I am no longer assigned anyone, but my wife is. Super interesting as we seem to still be confused and not have stuff figured out yet.

[grobert93]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

The one change that I have scoffed at as being utterly ridiculous is a relaxation of the WoW. The only persuasive argument I see is that it is a huge block for winning new converts (although not as big an obstacle as chastity, and I don’t see that going anywhere). So maybe on that premise there could be some relaxation, but the church is loath to give up control in general. We shall see.

The problem I see with the word of wisdom is

1. The name itself vs how we treat it. A word of wisdom is advice that could be beneficial to follow. It’s not a commandment, rule or requirement like other commandments have been presented. Yet this word of wisdom is treated as though it were a word of commandment.

2. The do not’s are blurry; different apostles have given different opinions and even places such as BYU or temple recommends are often giving a biased perspective of a blurry set of guidelines. We all seem to agree that “Hot drink” means coffee / alcoholic drinks. And tea is evil, except herbal tea. But we don’t always talk about things such as using illegal or other people’s medications. And then sometimes people think soda is evil. Lots of detailed trivial confusion.

3. The do’s are almost never mentioned, or done so vaguely. Excercing and caring for your body is important, but I personally haven’t heard much of that being emphasized. Moderation in all things is part of the word of wisdom. Not just “don’t have too much sugar” but also “don’t overdo physical excesize”. The open interpretation is a blessing in my view, but a curse when someone in authority has the final say in what it means.

[grobert93]

Minyan Man wrote:

As I was reading through this post, I was wondering, Is there a downside to some of the changes?

Has the Church membership been able to absorb & understand the changes made to date?

Are they ready for the BIG ones that maybe coming in the future?

For some, this is a BIG test.

I saw on facebook a lot of negative, scared or opposing reactions to the two hour church block due to fear of not obediently or exactly following the new Sunday school lessons that were presented for home use. So even something that I personally saw as a miracle others have seen as a curse.

If something radical such as gay sealings were revealed not only would it strike hard with all the believers against gay marriage, but it would require temple sealers to be open minded and willing to seal gay couples, which would likely be a massive challenge. so I ponder the consequences of these changes both how they will affect us but how we would react to them.

[grobert93]

I somehow stumbled upon a gem of a talk that supposedly was given a decade ago concerning the atonement. It consisted of very deep thinking including the intelligences talk that has been mentioned previously. Im unable to attach it to this reply so let me know if anyone is interested in it and I’ll see how to get it to be sharable.

[grobert93]

Holy Cow wrote:

mom3 wrote:

GC is a week away. The web is rife with rumors. Most of them totally bogus. So…what is left to change?

Thus far, [list]

[grobert93]

nibbler wrote:

grobert93 wrote:

I’m certainly not asking the church to create programs just to keep 25-35 year olds busy, but it sure feels different once you’re a real adult and have a family to care for, and are making choices that you feel benefit your family that otherwise would be viewed as straying off the path.

That’s probably it. That at some point the programs started to feel like all they did was keep me busy instead of something I derived any benefit from. It’s one thing to derive benefit indirectly (children receiving the benefit) but I feel like there’s got to be at least a little direct benefit to recharge the battery. Some give and some take.

What frustrates me is the attitude / miscommunication that I received from leaders locally and in the leadership of the church that these programs were inspired by God / revelation and that means if you don’t attend you are not active as a member. In a sense, if I did not attend mutual it was as though I skipped church one day, or I declined receiving the priesthood, etc. These programs are great socially and I am grateful for the scouting program I was involved with back in the day, I was grateful for the feeling of being in a group of people with similar standards. But now, I realize that the cultural expectation to be active included attending scouts, attending mutual and attending any other programed activity that was hosted by the church. I wish that it was relaxed more. That not attending mutual because of school or work or even family obligations wouldn’t result in frowns and a hidden status in the ward as a “trouble” member.

AmyJ wrote:

grobert93 wrote:

I think that you are right about the perspective of the programs. Once you check off the last few boxes and are left with “endure to the end”, it becomes more difficult to stay motivated and find purpose in the “extras” of the church, even if it involves witnessing your kids go through what you did 10 years ago. I’m certainly not asking the church to create programs just to keep 25-35 year olds busy, but it sure feels different once you’re a real adult and have a family to care for, and are making choices that you feel benefit your family that otherwise would be viewed as straying off the path.

Our Relief Society is hosting monthly (some are bi-monthly) activities for the sisters. This is not a new thing. They used to hold low-key activities on Saturday afternoons. Some of them I bluffed bringing my 2 girls to (I had a cute baby, so I played the “baby card” to bring her to her adoring wannabe grandmas and my other daughter has always been quiet, quirky and well-behaved child I could unleash in the nursery). I did confirm with our Relief Society President before each activity. I got some raised eye brows – but I made no secret of the fact that my husband needed a break from the kids (the way that a stay at home mom could relate to) and I wanted to be at the activity and spend time with my daughters as a pre-emptive cultural strike. It helps we are in a small branch.

But now, deciding to go is a different ballgame. They hold the activities on Friday evenings. When I go to an activity (it means peopling – but it means being away from my girls among friends). I can choose to go knowing that my toddler is going to scream her head off as I head out the door, the oldest one may have a problem with it (or be entirely oblivious to it or both), and that my husband is stuck with the kids again. I don’t really want to people that late sometimes. Sometimes it is a solid choice of handling the home executive labor (aka chores and laundry) that I would be giving up to go. On the other hand, it is my community and I should support my community. It is made complicated by the fact that there is a good chance that if people in the community knew where my testimony was, they wouldn’t speak to me – let alone be my friend.

That is wonderful! And I am so glad to hear that you are open minded with realizing the benefits but the disadvantages of these cultural socials. You leave your husband with “screaming kids” but at least you’re present at a church social. It’s a tough environment that I ponder how the church can better manage in the future.

It’s fun for my wife and I when we go to church. I usually keep the kid in the foyer and have him run around and be distracted while she’s in the chapel. People sometimes ask where I am and she says here but with the kid. Again, it might be regional but it’s funny watching people seem disappointed that I’m managing the children while she’s performing her callings and “appearing more active”.

[grobert93]

AmyJ wrote:

My husband stays at home with our children and I go to work. It works for us for right now on a lot of levels. My husband is currently studying history – which has helped him realize where “big government” came from (among other things). He didn’t share how big a deal it was for women to gain the right to vote until he finished studying a segment of world history where it spelled out some of the historical landmarks and challenges of that path.

I am pretty sure that the generation ahead of us (we are late 30’s/early 40’s) has had a few words (or at least a few unspoken conversations) with my husband about it (which did sting my husband some), but it’s what is best for us for right now. People our generation or the next generations after us don’t even bat an eye (I think – they know better than to bring it up to me. My respectfully honest approach throws some people off kilter). Plus, I am very much of the “this-is-what-we-do-not-asking camp” which tends to shut down some of those conversations.

I don’t know if it is a matter of “letting” people make their own choices instead of micro-managing them to the same degree, or whether the church is going to provide the overall structure and bow out of the arena as it were.

The institution needs to assist in defining success to keep people in the community. It gives them a reason to be there. Life gets much more exciting when you realize that you can’t define success the way the institution does – then you have to figure it out yourself.

Each couple is different, each family circumstance is different and I think that the two points I want to make with what I have said so far is,

1. Couples should make financial, academic and other important decisions together, in unity, with the spirit and no outside influence. If the wife wants to work and the husband wants to attend school and it works for them, then God speed. If a more traditional family setup works better, likewise.

2. There is no easy solution or answer, and it is very complex, however I hope that the church can start to promote more of a unified couple or family approach to the gospel than a traditional mindset. This change is already happening, and many bishops, stake presidents and members are a lot more accepting of alternative parental roles in the family. But the pressure, expectation and social characteristic from prior generations of an ideal family that they feel God would approve the most is unhealthy and often toxic. Historically I understand why the attitude existed, but it’s 2019 and the 90s youth and young adults are now raising families and even becoming grandparents and have a different life experience.

My parents grew up in the 60s. My dad is a lot more “liberal” in his view of family roles, while my mom is very traditional and “closed minded” for lack of better phrase. My dad wants my wife and I to be happy and is mostly concerned that we can pay our bills and put food on the table and be happy. My mom has struggled to accept the choices we have made, with the hope that we can become more traditional because that’s how she grew up.

Different generations, different life circumstances.

All of this is just interesting to me, I am not intending on creating drama.

nibbler wrote:

grobert93 wrote:

I think that not only does the church have reason to be worried about the youth but also young adults, especially those who finish their mission and get married. As a youth there was always something to do, a program to be involved in and a leader to guide me. [snip]

This probably indicates a change in me more than a change in the programs or even the approach we take to the programs but I enjoyed the church experience more as a YSA than I have as an “A.” So the question is, why, what’s changed?

The YSA programs felt like they were more focused on building a social community. Programs as an adult feel like they all have ulterior motives to better some ‘key indicator’ stat or other. Maybe this was a function of the YSA ward I was in and the wards I have been in since, meaning it’s highly ward-dependent.

As a YSA the programs and get togethers were something I wanted to do, whereas as an adult the programs feel more like an obligation, something I’m required or expected to do. There may be no difference in the programs or how they are presented, it could have everything to do with life circumstances. As a YSA I had more time and more desire to have a social life, plus I was in the market for a mate. I wanted to get out there. As an adult I’ve got a lot more responsibilities and when I have free time I prefer to go back to my hiding spot under my bridge.

When I have hidden under my bridge I’ve had experiences that make me feel as though the programs are not optional. Participation feels more like an obligation or duty, and when programs start feeling like obligations it starts to eat away at my desire to participate.

It goes back to the obedience lessons. You can obey out of fear (god won’t be happy with me if I don’t feed this program), obey out of duty (gotta do what you gotta do), and obey out of love (I want to participate in this program).

I may have loved the programs as a YSA, felt duty bound to the programs as an adult… and I’m not going to fear god will be upset with me if I don’t participate anymore. It gets really tough when you allow yourself some space and start thinking along the lines of, “I don’t have to love this program. I can love other things.” because then you’re often left with others reminding you of your duties to participate, and I’ve found that existing on pure duty, or pure expectations of others simply isn’t sustainable over the long haul… and that’s what’s left after getting married in the temple, the long haul.

I had the fortunate/unfortunate experience to serve in a special program on my mission where I saw more of the church’s functions and how it affected members. I was not as involved in baptisms and tracting as a traditional elder might be. I saw struggles in the salt lake leadership that resulted in my program being unique, requiring extra resources and having different results. After coming home and living in a more “normal” ward environment, I relized how much happier I was on my mission, not just because of having a two year purpose, but because I saw so much more behind the scenes and was able to directly impact choices. Now as a YSA my new goal seemed to be to get an education and get married. The culture shock was hard to adjust to, and resulted in my decision to become less active overtime.

I think that you are right about the perspective of the programs. Once you check off the last few boxes and are left with “endure to the end”, it becomes more difficult to stay motivated and find purpose in the “extras” of the church, even if it involves witnessing your kids go through what you did 10 years ago. I’m certainly not asking the church to create programs just to keep 25-35 year olds busy, but it sure feels different once you’re a real adult and have a family to care for, and are making choices that you feel benefit your family that otherwise would be viewed as straying off the path.

This is a very interesting conversation. Thank you!

[grobert93]

AmyJ wrote:

grobert93 wrote:

Few thoughts in response to some others.

Back when priesthood and relief society were broadcast on lds.org I found myself watching the sister’s as well. And my mom would watch priesthood with my dad and i. So I learned quickly that the gender separation was more cultural and focused on separate responsibilities than anything else. Of course for me as a young man back in the day, I viewed priesthood session as a rebuke and call to repentance while the relief society was more on loving each other.

I think that not only does the church have reason to be worried about the youth but also young adults, especially those who finish their mission and get married. As a youth there was always something to do, a program to be involved in and a leader to guide me. Serving a mission made my purpose clear for two years. Being a young single adult, while fun was also difficult because of the culture I personally experienced which was “get married as soon as possible”, implying that the YSA ward’s purpose was to lose it’s members. Now that I’m married with a small family, suddenly all of the programs and support I have felt leave me. Yes, soon my children will experience the levels and programs that the church offers, but at the same time now my purpose has become vague. Raise my kids up in righteousness and have a happy eternal family. Maybe im in a poorly supported area of the church, but I found myself without much support or things to do unlike when I was a youth and even a YSA.

Yup. The larger world of adulthood means more diverse life circumstances and its a lot harder to figure out what the program is to provide something for everyone.

For women in the church, culturally it meant teach (and run) Primary/Y.W. for the first 10+ years of church service (unless called into R.S.). While I possess the ability to teach children, I do not get the same level of joy from it. While it has concerned me greatly (“Am I being more honest in my experience because teaching Primary is not rewarding to anyone – and I just admit it?”, or “Am I just a non-traditional female (used to insert defunct but realized that it didn’t help the situation) who can add ‘teaching primary’ to her list of cultural non-accomplishments (including baking, running kid play dates, or crafting)?”)

It’s very interesting because even the youth are diverse depending on where you live and the family structure, yet because of adulthood and agency the church seems to let us make our own choices the older we are?

I find it funny since my wife works and I stay home to care for the kids, which is very untraditional. While it is accepted by most people whom I talk with, it is still clear that the end goal seems to be taught that I should get a career so she can stay home. It’s very sad that a traditional historic gender role (which was established for the purposes that were needed historically) is seen as a doctrine of sorts not just in the church but society as well. It’s unfortunate that I am currently studying sociology in college, because I am learning of the loopholes, the weaknesses and the conflicts of trying to live an 1850-1950’s lifestyle in 2019.

The church and us members still have a problem with calling = success. General conference still squeezes out talks about a less active or investigator who found their way back on the path and are now a bishop or stake president. Regardless of intentions, we shouldn’t be taught and have the mentality of being righteous and working hard so that we can receive leadership or “important and rewarding” callings in the church. It’s similar to how for the longest time missionary work success was based on staying your full mission and getting a large number of baptisms. We are a numbers society and a numbers church that wants to have the appearance of success and positivity.

[grobert93]

Few thoughts in response to some others.

Back when priesthood and relief society were broadcast on lds.org I found myself watching the sister’s as well. And my mom would watch priesthood with my dad and i. So I learned quickly that the gender separation was more cultural and focused on separate responsibilities than anything else. Of course for me as a young man back in the day, I viewed priesthood session as a rebuke and call to repentance while the relief society was more on loving each other.

I think that not only does the church have reason to be worried about the youth but also young adults, especially those who finish their mission and get married. As a youth there was always something to do, a program to be involved in and a leader to guide me. Serving a mission made my purpose clear for two years. Being a young single adult, while fun was also difficult because of the culture I personally experienced which was “get married as soon as possible”, implying that the YSA ward’s purpose was to lose it’s members. Now that I’m married with a small family, suddenly all of the programs and support I have felt leave me. Yes, soon my children will experience the levels and programs that the church offers, but at the same time now my purpose has become vague. Raise my kids up in righteousness and have a happy eternal family. Maybe im in a poorly supported area of the church, but I found myself without much support or things to do unlike when I was a youth and even a YSA.

[Author]

Posts