Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian Johnston wrote:
Here is the question: She has quoted to me several times that she teaches her children that “The Prophet” has stated that girls are only allowed to have one hole pierced in each ear, boys are not allowed to have pierced ears, tattoos are not allowed, and girls should not wear sleeveless tops and their clothes, from an early age, long before they go through the temple, should be designed as if they are wearing temple garments – dress length, sleeves, top length, etc. Also, “The Prophet” has stated that in order to be allowed to pass the sacrament, boys must wear either white or light blue shirts. These things are all taught by her to my grandchildren, which gives them a low opinion of their uncles who are great guys, who are crazy about their niece, but do have piercings, tattoos, and of their grandmother, who has been known to wear modest, sleeveless shirts on really hot days in our very hot part of the country, and has two holes in one of her ears.
Boy, I bet she really ate up Sister Beck’s talk, “Women Who Know,” didn’t she?Quote:I will not go on except to say, really, my bottom line question is do you know of any edict beyond “folklore” that specifically covers the piercings, tattoos, and clothing standards she imposes on her children I mentioned? To me, this kind of thinking is part of what exhausts less conservative members and makes it so difficult to feel okay with the choices they have made in order to be able to continue activity in the church. Thank you.
I really don’t have an answer for you but I will be very interested in hearing other people’s answers since I agree with your last sentence 100%.Andrew wrote:Anyway, any really excellent talks I should watch or read?
I missed over half of it this time, but of what I did see, I though that What Manner of Men and Women Ought Ye To Be? really was worth listening to. It on the Church’s website athttp://lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/what-manner-of-men-and-women-ought-ye-to-be?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/what-manner-of-men-and-women-ought-ye-to-be?lang=eng A sweet and obedient child will enroll a father or mother only in Parenting 101. If you are blessed with a child who tests your patience to the nth degree, you will be enrolled in Parenting 505. Rather than wonder what you might have done wrong in the premortal life to be so deserving, you might consider the more challenging child a blessing and opportunity to become more godlike yourself. With which child will your patience, long-suffering, and other Christlike virtues most likely be tested, developed, and refined? Could it be possible that you need this child as much as this child needs you?We have all heard the advice to condemn the sin and not the sinner. Likewise, when our children misbehave, we must be careful not to say things that would cause them to believe that what they did wrong is who they are. “Never let failure progress from an action to an identity,” with its attendant labels like “stupid,” “slow,” “lazy,” or “clumsy.” 2 Our children are God’s children. That is their true identity and potential. His very plan is to help His children overcome mistakes and misdeeds and to progress to become as He is. Disappointing behavior, therefore, should be considered as something temporary, not permanent—an act, not an identity.
As a parent who enrolled in Parenting 505 twice, and apparently failed twice, it gave me hope.
Old-Timer wrote:The only links that we don’t allow are those to sites that are openly and truly anti-Mormon.
We also can’t allow lists of multiple links – since it’s next to impossible to monitor them in any reasonable way.
We aren’t concerned at all about our regular participants posting such links, but we have to have a general rule we follow for something like that.
Okay, well the forums where I spend most of my time arehttp://www.religiousforums.comhttp://www.religiousforums.com” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/” class=”bbcode_url”> 😳 observant wrote:Last week a young boy came to church with us for the first time. He’s 10 almost 11. His sister is a member and she comes with us each week. He sat very patiently and was very well behaved. After the meeting while still standing in the pews I asked him, “so was that pretty boring?” It was F&T meeting which wasn’t really too bad for old members like me. But I felt bad for him.
I don’t think I’d ever take a non-member to a Fast and Testimony Meeting for his first meeting. It’s just too unpredictable, if you know what I mean. Also, I don’t think you get a real feel for what Sacrament Meeting is like on the other three Sundays. As far as F&T meetings are concerned, they are the ones I like least. I hope you guys won’t come down too awfully hard on me for being so blunt, but sometimes I think I’m going to scream if I hear one more 5-year-old’s rehearsed testimony: “I wanna bury my testimony. I love my mom and dad and I know the Church is true. InthenameofJesusChristAmen.” In my opinion, a big part of the reason people find themselves having a crisis of faith is that somewhere along the line they realize that they’ve been saying something over and over again since childhood, without ever really even thinking about whether it’s a true statement.mercyngrace wrote:Katzpur, do I know you from the MAD (now MDD) board?
That’s the FAIR-sponsored board, right? You could know me from there, as I do post there occasionally. I frequent two other forums much more often, though. (Am I allowed to post links to them?)Old-Timer wrote:The Bishop is focused on Christ and Christ-centered talks
Christ-centered talks? Wow! What a novel approach!
You guys are really making me feel like I’m not so completely alone. I guess there are probably a lot of people who don’t really enjoy church, but it’s like it’s seen as a sin of some sort to actually admit it. It feels good to be able to do that and not have to be called to repentance. Thanks! I’m a woman! (Just kind of “inactive” when it comes to this forum.) I actually spend most of my time posting on apologetics forums, you know… smiting the wicked who fight against Zion. A run-in with a fellow LDS on one of those sites made me decide to come back here and spend a little bit more time here from now on. It’s hard to leave the place “where everybody knows your name” and start posting regularly on a forum where you’re kind of a stranger. But here I am. cwald wrote:doug wrote:Hey funny thing, A different brother called me up yesterday, because he had heard of my recent troubles from the home front. This brother lives in D.C. and is in the military and staunch republican. I briefed in him on the whole thing, and he disagreed with me of course —- civilly.
:clap: I asked him after-wards if he thought I was gay and satanic. His response was “No. I think you areliberal,😈 which in the mormon world is a hell of lot worse than being gay or satanic.” We had a pretty good at that.
I’m just getting to know you, cwald, but as a liberal Mormon myself, I’m finding that I like you more with each post I read.MtnMan wrote:Hey forum! School has been keeping me extra busy, but I’m back for a moment.
I proposed to my wife that within our lifetime we might see same sex marriage in the temple. She didn’t agree. I said that 40 years ago many members couldn’t image that blacks would ever hold the priesthood. Yet here we are in 2011, and an African man blessing the sacrament on Sunday in my ward doesn’t even raise a brow. I believe that “same sex marriage?” will be the “blacks and the priesthood” of my generation. Any thoughts?
-Greg
I’m with your wife on this one. I don’t know her reasoning, but mine is this: The scriptures make it pretty clear that same-sex intimacy is a no-no. In other words, it’s doctrinal. The whole Blacks and the priesthood thing never was doctrine. It was strictly a matter of policy. There’s a big difference. (Personally, I’d be satisfied if the Church would just back off on getting involved in the issue of same-sex marriages, period. I’d think we’d taken a big step forward if we could just mind our own business on this issue.)cwald wrote:yes, thanks Ray for the mention.
🙂 behappy wrote:Nelson’s hijacking of the phrase Cafeteria Mormon was brilliant.
By taking credit for the phrase and redefining it he now owns the phrase and everyone in the church knows it is a bad thing to be a Cafeteria Mormon. It pissed me off to the point I turned conference off and enjoy the rest of the day with my family. He took a phrase that described members who struggle with historical evidence and changed it to someone who can’t hack it and wants to break the commandments. I saw this as a power play and a way of saying there is only one way to be and if you don’t follow the rules you are not welcome.Nelson knew exactly what he was doing. TBMs got a good laugh and think he coined a cute phrase and the doubters got minimized and painted as only wanting to sin. I feel like everything I have been trying to do as of late is for not. I want to look for the good in Mormonism, I want to stay involved but it has been increasingly more difficult as of late and this was just another do what you are told or you are not committed and less of a Mormon. Am I reading too much into the comment?
Yeah. I actually called my parents, whom I don’t talk with much, just to tell them how much I enjoyed conference today and thought it was gospel centered — and somehow they worked this talk into the conversation. I have used the terms “cafeteria’ and “middle way” before when talking to them. Anyway, in there own loving way, they told me that I need to repent, accept the prophet and agree with everything he says, or get out. They told me flat out, that “there is no room in our family for ‘middle way Mormons’ who lack faith in the one and only true church.”
It was horrible. At one point in the conversation, my good father said, that if Irefuse to accept everything the prophet says as “truth coming from god,”
that I am following Satan. They also used the whole, you only disagree with the prophet because you want to live a riotous life and go out and just sin indiscriminately. And that if I supported the homosexual movement, that god would never allow us to be a family together in the CK. This was after i tried to explain my concerns about the LDS church stance on gays choosing to be gay, which, I admit, I was in tears trying to express how I felt it was just a matter of love and compassion, rather than an argument with the churches rules about TRs. yeah, anyway, it hurt. I know that my parents, and my culture is crazy, even for Mormons, but I haven’t heard this kind of harsh rhetoric in a long long time. Hopefully this is the exception, and not the message that our membership heard today.
cwald, I would just love it if either of my grown kids had called me and told me they’d listened to Conference and enjoyed it. If that day ever happens, I will be on top of the world.cwald wrote:Lynn Robbins talk was phenomenally good. VERY VERY good
I didn’t hear as many talks this past conference as I usually do, but VERY, VERY GOOD doesn’t even begin to describe Lynn Robbins talk. I guess I’ve got a new favorite speaker.Thanks, Ray. I had said exactly the same thing — that once a month was considered “active” — and boy, did I ever get told that was wrong. So, could you just tell me where you got this information? Was it the Bishop’s Handbook or what? That was a really nice picture of him, too, wasn’t it? It showed his personality in a way that most non-Mormons don’t get to see in his “official” portrait. Dieter Uchtdorf’s talk was supurb. (Of course, he wouldn’t even have to open his mouth to impress me.) Biggest surprise: Sister Beck’s talk. I kept expecting another “Mothers who know…” talk and was prepared to get up and go in the other room at the first hint of a guilt trip. I was very pleasantly surprised and liked her talk a lot.
