Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
Also, isn’t it a temple recommend question that asks if you attend symposia that are not in harmony with the gospel — and wasn’t that a result of Sunstone?
The temple recommend interview questions are available here (I think question 7 is the one you are referring to):http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Worthiness_to_enter ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Worthiness_to_enter There is certainly a lot of room for interpretation on this question, especially “accepted by the Church…” Even some teachings of former presidents of the church are no long “accepted by the Church” according to the essays on lds.org.
If I apply the question literally, I have to admit that I pay federal taxes and in doing so support an organization some of whose practices I see as contrary to those accepted by the church. Similarly, a literal interpretation means that pretty much any political group affiliation disqualifies me from receiving a temple recommend. I also affiliate daily with fellow graduate students whose “practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church…”
I don’t really think that any of these things disqualify from receiving a temple recommend, I am just trying to make a point. The point being that the question cannot be taken literally, and I have to decide for myself what sort of affiliation would make me “unworthy” to enter the temple. I don’t see attending Sunstone as that type of affiliation. My bishop might. My stake president might. But my being worthy of a temple recommend doesn’t depend on how they would answer the question for me.
Yeah, it’s churchwide. The policy was changed a few years ago. I am not sure exactly when, but it had been changed recently when I became ward finance clerk in 2011. As far as I know, before the change any remaining budget at the end of the year had to be returned to church headquarters. Now the leftover budget stays with the ward. Wards generally have a meager budget though. I doubt any ward could get rich off of it 🙂 . In my experience the Boy Scout fees and Primary usually eat away a large portion of it. Adults and YW are left with the crumbs (this could be very different in other wards/branches).It is hard to imagine being asked to provide such an expensive service and then not be reimbursed for the materials. I am sorry that happened to you. Sometimes as the finance clerk I was perplexed at where the bishop chose to spend money and where he chose to withhold it. I always figured I just didn’t know the full story. I’m sure your bishop felt like he was doing the right thing, but it is hard to imagine what his justification would have been.
I am reposting hawkgrrrl’s reply to my post in twolamps’ introduction thread so that I can reply. I hope that’s ok.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:1. Gathered followers for her own cause,
Or conversely, there are like-minded people who all came together and are independent thinkers who posted their own profiles. “Her” cause is also theirs.
Quote:2. Demanded change,
Or conversely, requested that leaders pray for revelation, which is what they said. I think the phrasing “Ordain women” sounds like a demand, but it isn’t. Also, the site’s mission statement said that nothing short of ordination would create equality, but it sounded more like an opinion when I read it, not a demand per se. It’s a matter of interpretation I suppose. Church leaders took it in the context of a demand. It was a poor word choice IMO given the church’s hyper-sensitivity to face-saving.
Quote:3. Disobeyed her leaders when they told her to stop doing 1 and 2.
And by “leaders,” you mean the PR department who didn’t so much tell her to stop as tell the press that they should stop. Or maybe you meant her local leaders who brought her in for a conversation. They “agreed to disagree,” then her leaders assumed she would take that as a cease & desist order, and she took it as a lively discussion. Isn’t Mormon Passive Aggression dandy?
hawkgrrrl,
Let me preface my reply by stating again that I do not think that what KK did was wrong. I respect her for her courage and I believe her cause (which is shared by many) is just. I do not like the way her local leaders handled the situation, though I believe their actions were partially a result of pressure from up the ladder. I am merely arguing the point that the church acted consistently with how it usually acts in these cases.
In defense of my original three points:
1. Definitely like-minded people came together and are still coming together in the gathering place she provided. She gave them a gathering place and became the leader. I see the six discussions on the OW website and the explicit instructions on how to start a discussion group and invite others to attend as an attempt to gather more for the cause. I am not saying those who she gathered were not already like-minded independent thinkers.
2. After giving this some more thought, I agree that this is a matter of interpretation. I chose to use the term “demanded change” for the very reasons you gave: the name of the cause “Ordain Women” and the subheading to the OW website “MORMON WOMEN SEEKING EQUALITY AND ORDINATION TO THE PRIESTHOOD.” I totally agree that church leaders saw it as a demand.
3. I meant local leaders. I was referring to a letter dated May 22, 2014 from KK’s stake president to KK putting her on probation. Her stake president says:
Quote:Sincere repentance will be demonstrated by your actions. In order to end this probation, you will need to demonstrate over a period of time that you have stopped and refrained from teachings and actions that undermine the doctrine of the priesthood, the Church itself and its leaders, that you have taken down or done all you can to take down
http://www.ordainwomen.org and disassociated yourself from Ordain Women. You must be truthful in your communications with others regarding matters that involve your priesthood leaders, including the administration of Church discipline, and you must stop trying to gain a following for yourself or your cause and lead others away from the Church.It is important that you understand that you are not required to change your thinking or the questions you may have in your own mind regarding the ordination of women, but you need to make it a private matter and work through this issue with your bishop or branch president.
hawkgrrrl, I am sure you have already read this letter, but I’ll post the link for the benefit of anyone who hasn’t:
http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-05-22-Informal-Probation-Letter-to-Kate-Kelly.pdf ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-05-22-Informal-Probation-Letter-to-Kate-Kelly.pdf I hope this clarifies my previous post
🙂 .willb1993 wrote:I don’t know. Can I even do this? Like just ask the bishop to be released?
Yes, if that is what you decide you need to do.willb1993 wrote:I teach the class with 2 other guys. One is actually my former bishop (Who actually helped me out with lots of things and understood my situation when I was a Priest age 16-18. And then this other guy who I’m cool with, we’re actually good friends.)
Do you think you could work something out with these other two teachers so that you only teach lessons you feel comfortable teaching?willb1993 wrote:And even when I do teach, I am unprepared, the kids don’t listen to me, and talk over me.
It is my experience that 11-12 year olds can be a tough age group. If you are not prepared, they catch on quickly and any chance of keeping their attention is gone. On the flip side, they are old enough to have an intelligent conversation. If you prepare well and teach by asking a lot of well-thought-out questions, they may surprise you with their wisdom. Just don’t waste their time by showing up unprepared. In my opinion, if you are not willing to prepare a lesson, then you should ask to be released.TragedianActor wrote:Argh – talking about this is just making me want to see it more! Where is that video!?
:crazy: There were some highlights of the 2002 interview of GBH by Tom Brokaw on a church dvd called “Friends to all Nations.” I doubt the church sells it anymore. If you live in Utah, your public library may have a copy. I don’t even know if it would have the part you are looking for since it only contains highlights of the interview. There are also some quotations from the interview in this Church News article:
http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/41387/A-better-understanding-to-come-of-worlds-visit.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/41387/A-better-understanding-to-come-of-worlds-visit.html I am so happy for you and your family, Ray! I hope you get to spend some real quality time with your daughter before she has to jump back in to regular life. I respect Sherri Dew for her accomplishments and her positive outlook. But I disagree with her when it comes to this issue. She has a lot of influence. I am sad to see her use it in this way. Old-Timer wrote:I guess shapely figures tempt other girls to become lesbians.
🙄 We really botch modesty badly, and this might be the poster child example.
More broadly, there always will be extremist zealots among us – both inside and outside the Church. Personally, I would talk privately with the Stake President about it – calmly but seriously. I think it’s an important issue, especially the discrimination against some of the girls – and I choose that word intentionally. I would frame it in those terms, to avoid some of the confrontational aspects that probably would arise if I focused on the leader. I would mention that issues like what can be worn or not worn need to be spelled out clearly beforehand – and that NOTHING should be subject to the personal views of individual leaders.
Yes. Another important issue that goes along with the discrimination is body image. By telling some girls they are too shapely to wear yoga pants, they are in effect telling the rest of the girls that they are not shapely. This sort of thing can cause long-lasting damage to the way a girl views her own body. This is something I would bring up with your SP along with everything Ray said.
twolamps wrote:
Then my son started talking about how much agreed with her and so I checked out her website. I can’t see that she did anything wrong.
I can’t either. However, she did things that the church does not allow of its members:
1. Gathered followers for her own cause,
2. Demanded change,
3. Disobeyed her leaders when they told her to stop doing 1 and 2.
The fact is, these three things together are almost a sure recipe for excommunication. I think KK knew this all along. Does that mean what she did was wrong? I don’t think so, but my opinion is coming from a very different perspective than most members.
Donna wrote:We found out from our HT that my son’s records were in our ward again. Our HT is assigned to visit my son. My son has been gone a lot this summer and hasn’t been to the singles ward. I guess when you don’t attend that’s what happens.LOL
Usually records are moved after a request from the new ward. Having said that, singles wards’ numbers get hit hard during the summer. As a way of counteracting this a leader may have records returned to home wards for anyone who hasn’t shown up for a while. They probably shouldn’t do this unless they know for sure a member wants to go back to their home ward, but in my experience there can be quite a bit of pressure to move “unknowns” out of the ward so they don’t hurt the numbers (home/visiting teaching, sacrament attendance, etc.) I’m not saying this is the reason why your son’s records were moved, but it happens.
As stated before, your son can choose which ward to attend. He should be able to just ask the membership clerk in that ward to keep his records there even if he is gone a lot.
Unknown wrote:I like myself more when I try to build my faith by reading, praying, and serving. So when my faith is weak, my new motto is, “Hope and Serve”.
Certainly do what makes you happy. You have chosen a good motto. You certainly can’t go wrong with genuine service. I have emphasized hope in my own life a lot lately. I hope certain teachings of the church are true, such as life after death, eternal families, etc. I don’t feel comfortable with the word “know” anymore. But the word “hope” really resonates with how I feel. Thanks for the uplifting post.
Steve-o wrote:I’d love nothing more than to fully believe the truth claims of the church but I don’t expect I can go back to the same belief I once had. At this point it would feel as unnatural as choosing to believe the earth is flat.
Yes. I have come to a similar conclusion. Welcome, Steve-o! This is a good place. There are several long-time contributors here who have successfully found a way to remain in the church after a faith crisis. Their advice has been critical for me during the last few months. I look forward to hearing more from you!
shoshin wrote:If someone wants to try to explain to me why the traditional answers don’t help folks here, I would like to understand that. It’s totally outside my own experience.
There are some good answers to this question already. I have my own question: what are the traditional answers supposed to “help folks here” accomplish? A return to TBMism? That is not likely (if even possible) for most of us. As far as I can tell we each have different goals, many of which are nontraditional. We each walk our own nontraditional path. For that, we each need our own nontraditional answers. These may or may not overlap with the traditional answers given in the church.
