Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
IT_Veteran wrote:
Heber13 wrote:
I think it debunks the sometimes suggested accusations that church leaders seek out to discipline alternate voices in the church. She mentioned “kindness” … and it is good it is newsworthy to note this as well as the times there is lack of kindness.Her leaders may not agree with her or even approve…but if there is no threat, there doesn’t need to be action taken. There is a place in church for alternative voices and ideas.
Sort of…
Perhaps they didn’t prescribe an outcome in her case, but she did talk about the times her SP would let her know that he received a notice from Salt Lake about something she said.
What does that mean to you? Is that a bad thing?
I don’t think it’s good or bad on its own, but it does show that Salt Lake is both aware of her and communicating with her SP. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say definitively that Salt Lake was pushing for discipline, but I think that it suggests there is
someevidence of that. Heber13 wrote:
I think it debunks the sometimes suggested accusations that church leaders seek out to discipline alternate voices in the church. She mentioned “kindness” … and it is good it is newsworthy to note this as well as the times there is lack of kindness.Her leaders may not agree with her or even approve…but if there is no threat, there doesn’t need to be action taken. There is a place in church for alternative voices and ideas.
Sort of…
Perhaps they didn’t prescribe an outcome in her case, but she did talk about the times her SP would let her know that he received a notice from Salt Lake about something she said.
nibbler wrote:I believe number 5 is in play here. I think Gina formally joined another church through baptism. If you go with the strictest of strict interpretation of number 5 you have to account for the word “and.” One leader could interpret that by reaching the conclusion that formally joining another church isn’t enough, one has to formally join another church,
andadvocate it’s teachings. John Dehlin read the charges in the letter she was given and discussed this with her. They actually said that the baptism alone likely wouldn’t have resulted in a DC.
Gina explained it pretty well – outside of the LDS faith, baptism isn’t typically considered formally joining a church. I’ve watched videos of friends baptizing their kids at home in their bathtub, with no church authorities anywhere around. It’s seen as a baptism into what Gina referred to as “The body of Christ.” From the way she explained, I took it just to mean that you’re trying to be more Christlike. Gina doesn’t consider herself as formally joined the Anglican church even after the baptism.
Welcome, I completely understand that struggle even though I made the decision to not remain a member. SamBee wrote:
IT_Veteran wrote:
I think you’re vastly overstating how often someone changes pronouns. Most people that change at all aren’t shifting on a daily basis.
Some gender fluid people do this on a daily basis. I’ve met them.
Personally, I think offense should be related to intent. I may be annoyed at something someone says, but it should be related to whether someone intends to be rude. In some cases, they may not know, but that’s another matter.
In the case of the pronouns, I think a practical solution is used. I just wish that someone would come up with a single use pronoun (better than it or singular they). It lessens social friction which is something which seems to be actively encouraged these days.
I think you’d find most people agree with you. Any of the gender fluid people I’ve met generally use the pronouns they/them, though I’m sure that exceptions exist. I have no problem trying to use the pronouns that they prefer, as long as people can acknowledge that I’m not perfect and will likely make mistakes in this regard.
They/them seems a pretty reasonable solution as far as pronouns go for someone that doesn’t consider themselves male/female.
SamBee wrote:But how much? I’m getting to the point where I would prefer to drop pronouns altogether in some cases, because there are people who want specialized pronouns, or feel themselves to be one thing one day ans another the next. I can’t always know which people want to be called xyr or heesh or whatever, or will be insulted by he or she or another pronoun. Especially if I don’t know such people or have met them for less than five minutes.
I think you’re vastly overstating how often someone changes pronouns. Most people that change at all aren’t shifting on a daily basis.
SamBee wrote:
Instead she claims I should say “person with albinism”, which as far as I am concerned is a synonymous phrase, which contains the same root word. I have a good friend with a different genetic condition, I’m not blind to that fact, but at the same time I treat him as an individual. I would do the same if I ever got to know this lady’s husband. I might like him, maybe not, but that’s nothing to with his albinism.
This is not synonymous. In using “albino” his wife feels that you’re reducing him to his genetic condition. By using “person with albinism” he’s a person first. It may seem arbitrary but as noted previously, words do have power.
This is something I was really worried about when I was going through my faith crisis. I’m in a similar spot, belief-wise, and didn’t want to participate in things I didn’t believe in. I spent the first ten minutes of every sacrament meeting that I attended hiding in the bathroom so the young men wouldn’t locate me and ask me to assist with sacrament. At the time, my son was a year or two away from mission age and I wondered how I could support them through everything. How would I go about sending him on a mission for something I didn’t believe in, not be able to ordain him, etc.. I imaged that I would have to rely on my dad (who lives four hours away) and the local leaders that clearly cared about my kid.
In all honesty, I kind of lucked out. When I told my wife I was done with the church, I told her I would support their beliefs (hers and the kids), but that I couldn’t participate in blessings anymore. I wouldn’t attend weekly church, but I’d be there for milestones.
Part of the pain of leaving the church, for me, was recognizing that I couldn’t do those things anymore. Others can – there’s a member of my wife’s ward we recently learned hasn’t believed in decades, but he’s sent all his kids on missions and he participates fully in that process. For me, it just wasn’t an option.
My son has also recently left the church. He waited several months after I came out to tell us that he was done too. Turns out he hadn’t believed for several years, but didn’t want anyone to think he left just because I did. He never told us before that because he just assumed that he’d have to keep quiet until he was 18. My relationship is better with him now that we aren’t battling normal teenager stuff (because now we recognize it as normal teenager stuff).
My 13yo is still figuring out what her beliefs are, but my disaffection from church and shift to acceptance of LGBTQ+ (which I wasn’t doing as a believer) has improved my relationship with her as well.
I guess I say all that to say that sometimes we fear the worst, only to find out that sometimes we were not giving enough credit to those we care about. It’s entirely possible (maybe even likely?) that your son will stay a believer and remain in the church. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a stronger and more meaningful relationship with him anyway.
Haha, I have had some moments where its been made clear to me that I’ve perceived others actions in the wrong way – I appreciate the reminder. I’ve definitely had some comments about facial hair (which I currently wear) and the short mohawk I wore for about six months.
dande48 wrote:
But the thing is, if you were meeting Jesus Christ, in person, face-to-face, what would you wear? A suit and tie? Probably not. Your temple clothing? … … … No. Heck, I’m not even sure I’d go with a white shirt. I’d make an effort to look nice, but I wouldn’t want to look presumptuous, or fake. I want to come “as I am”, my very best self. But wearing a white shirt… it’s just not me.
I’m pretty sure that some people would hear about Jesus’s second coming and run home to change into their white shirt and tie.
It’s funny though, because I also started wearing non-white shirts as I was transitioning out of the church. It kept the young men from asking me for assistance with sacrament.
Roy wrote:
IT_Veteran wrote:
That would be a welcome change – even outside the mission field. I’ll never forget being chastised by a counselor in the SP for showing up to a recommend interview without a white shirt. Thing is, I’d come straight from work and was wearing a dress shirt, slacks, and tie. I just didn’t have time to go home and change into a white shirt.
Reprimanding a fellow brother for not wearing the “right” color shirt to a meeting in which you and he are the only attendees (eliminating the possibility that the reprimand was intended to help other meeting attendees with weaker testimonies than you have)?!?!
That seems like unrighteous dominion to me and stands in opposition to everything that Jesus taught in the gospels.
My mother attended BYU in a time when it was required dresscode for women to wear skirts and dresses. BYU changed Halleluya!
Now the sister missionaries are permitted to wear dress slacks. Halleluya!
He pulled out the “representative of Jesus Christ” card and reminded me that a white shirt and tie are required for meeting with said representatives.
I should have mentioned it – this was less than five years ago.
Heber13 wrote:
This kind of goes along with the things my missionary son said was told to them by a traveling general authority…that the church recognizes it needs to relax on some things to be more practical.It wouldn’t surprise me if “white shirts” is also going to be something that goes. For one reason, the typical white shirt and tie look is a target…for good or bad…but can be a safety issue in some places.
That would be a welcome change – even outside the mission field. I’ll never forget being chastised by a counselor in the SP for showing up to a recommend interview without a white shirt. Thing is, I’d come straight from work and was wearing a dress shirt, slacks, and tie. I just didn’t have time to go home and change into a white shirt.
Roy wrote:
One of the defenses that was put forward about the recording was that Bill did wrong but then took ownership of his action – while the church seldom admits wrongdoing.This report from this MS interview sounds cagey or evasive to me. Bill may or may not have recorded anything. Bill may or may not have signed anything. It depends on your definition of the word “is”. (reference hearkening back to the evasive responses from the Clinton-Intern sex scandal)
I think there’s some question as to whether he did or did not sign anything and he was certainly cagey about that.
He was pretty clear about saying he did not record or take part in recording.
I finally got around to listening to Bill’s post-DC interview on Mormon Stories this morning. John asked him about the recording and signing the agreement. Bill left it somewhat vague because he doesn’t want people to be unable to pursue similar action if they feel it necessary. According to Bill, he knew there would be an attempted recording that night. He did not have the recording device. He did not push record on the device. He didn’t record it himself, in any way. The picture he took of the form to be signed was with the permission of the person that handed him the form.
When John asked if he signed it, he said he was handed the form and then they walked away, no one watched him sign it. He said he’d just leave it at that.
How, if at all, does that change anyone else’s opinion of what happened? If Bill knew an attempt but wasn’t involved in the planning or execution of it, does that still call his integrity into question? If you still see that as unethical, does it take away from the charge of hypocrisy (as he doesn’t appear to have lied about it)?
I think my mom is a pretty good barometer of how believing, orthodox members receive these types of things. So far, she seems to really appreciate the changes coming out. Excited Facebook posts and comments to my wife about all the wonderful changes being made and how exciting it all is.
No signs of cognitive dissonance from her.
