[mcarp]

silverboh wrote:

I don’t feel that they made the members accept it then as section 132 wasn’t published publically until several years after arriving in Utah. So why was it ok to change that stance then, when it was so important to Joseph that Emma accept it before she could receive those blessings in the temple? It justs stinks of deception and coersion to me.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and understanding mine better.

I’ll vote for coercion.

[mcarp]

Rix wrote:

Jeriboy, of course I don’t know about your situation, but I think it’s quite possible that at least as it relates to gays, that many have misinterpreted what God really means regarding “chastity.” I mean even in our short history, chastity has evolved from one man and many women to one man and one woman. Was that God changing? Or was it our incorrect reception of God’s inspiration?

Good point and well said. Not to drag this back into a political discussion, but I found it ironic that the Church and/or members of the church were so militant about “one man, one woman” during the Prop 8 campaign when 120 years ago the Church was lobbying the U.S. government that it was “one man, many women” and BY (reportedly) said that having only one wife was a sin.

[mcarp]

jeriboy wrote:

Touchy subject but I will give it a try. If this is not the church of God I can see the church become accepting of gays and their lifestyle, assuming that’s what you meant. If it is the church of God I can see same sex attracted holding the priesthood, holding positions, going to the temple, full fellowship and keeping the laws of chasity just like any other single member.

Go look up some of the things Mark E. Peterson (then an apostle) said about blacks never holding the priesthood in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although it isn’t well publicized, there actually were people that left the church after 1978 and cite as one of the signs of the church no longer being true that the priesthood was given to the blacks. The same is true of polygamy back in the early 1900s.

The definition of “keeping the laws of chastity” will be tested when gay marriage is widely accepted.

Not looking for a fight. Just sayin’.

[mcarp]

Valoel wrote:

I’m 40 years old and see lots of my generation peers dealing with this change. I’m telling you, the up and coming adults, late teens and 20-30 year old people, my children … They swim in information like fish in water.

I’m almost 50 as long as we are doing true confessions… As part of a BSA Venturing training I attended this spring, we watched a training film and had a very enlightening discussion on generational differences. The bottom line is that not only do the younger generation swim in information like fishes, but they won’t stand for moving slowly. If a meeting is boring, they’ll be texting or leaving without waiting for it to get better.

My oldest is 26. I was in a bishopric when I was 29. (No, I’m not special, the ward was just that desperate.) Within 5 years, we’ll have these “kids” in bishoprics and things will have to change. It bores me to tears to sit in bishopric meeting, then PEC, then Welfare or BYC and discuss the same things over and over. In 5 years we’ll have Elder’s Quorum Presidents and bishop’s counselors that won’t stand for it.

So, while I’m not sure General Conference will change in the next 5 years, I think you are going to see more change than you can believe at the local level. It will probably start with consolidated leadership meetings, then a 2.5 hour meeting block. Along with a quicker pace, most of this generation have grown up with gay friends, in households where the mother makes more money than the father or in fatherless homes. That will spread more tolerance for women and homosexuals.

That spread will be a localize phenomenon in 5 years. The tolerance will be widespread in 10 years. In 20 years, the first of this generation will be approaching 50 — my age! — and will be stake presidents and some even members of the 70. At that point, the tolerance will become more institutionalized. I know it sounds crazy, but I think in 20 years the idea of giving the priesthood to women and homosexuals will not be out of the question.

Within the past 20 years stake presidents have been given more and more local control. As younger and younger stake presidents are called, you’ll see lots of change. Two years ago our stake presidency changed from men who were 63, 60 and 58 to men who were 47, 52 and 50. This has changed the direction of the stake noticeably. The younger men are less concerned about certain things and as they call bishops they are calling younger and more forward thinking bishops. (Although the opposite is true of the high council for some reason.)

Sure, there are old timers who are grumbling about certain changes, but that doesn’t stop the changes from happening.

As a thought experiment, pick someone in your ward who is 30 years old and ask yourself you your ward would change if he were called as bishop of your ward and served for 5 years. Pick someone under 50 and think about how they would manage your stake if called as stake president next week.

[mcarp]

Valoel wrote:

Did JS think he needed to restore polygamy because he was so Bible-focused, a “restorationist” and found it in the Old Testament? That is possible.

Know what I don’t like about that line of reasoning? It tries to explain some things as restoration of all things, but then selectively picks and chooses which things get restored.

If you are going to restore “all things” and go back to the O.T. to restore polygamy, then what about stoning disobedient children? And, what about marrying your brother’s wife if he dies without leaving seed? There are all kinds of crazy laws in the O.T. that didn’t get restored. I’m not arguing that they should be, just that the logic is a little inconsistent.

[mcarp]

I escorted two different people on their first time in the space of a year or so (about 3 or 4 years ago). On one of those trips, the temple president said, “Everything we do in the temple is symbolic.”

The endowment ceremony states something to the effect that it is “symbolic as far as the man and the woman are concerned.”

Frankly, I no longer believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. So, the only way I can reconcile the temple is strictly symbolic. I don’t believe that there actually were an Adam or Eve, so the story is purely metaphorical to me.

Two things bother me. First, way too many members take most of it as literal. (Both the temple and the Bible, IMO.) Second, while I can accept it being symbolic or metaphorical, it seems like “the church” (meaning mostly the leaders of the church at various levels) uses it as a club for obedience.

So, why changes? Let’s say we agree that death oaths were symbolic. What was their purpose? Why are they no longer needed? Are they still implied? I promised to kill myself rather than reveal things, but my son made no such promise. So, do we have different obligations WRT the ceremony, tokens or symbols?

If the washings are symbolic why has the symbolism changed? In Kirtland, they washed the entire body in spirits (whiskey, I think) and spices. The way I read the journals that means the *entire* body. Then, it eventually progressed to just touching certain parts with oil and now just hands on the head. Why?

If the actual actions of the symbolism don’t really matter, maybe we’ll get to the point where we walk in, say the name of the person, dip a finger in holy water and cross ourselves and that’s it?

Of course, I have pretty much come to see the temple as a tool of manipulation of the masses, both in the early church and today. Since I believe it is all made up anyway, I guess it isn’t critical that it gets changed from time to time.

[mcarp]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I also like to ask myself sometimes “What is the purpose of speaking up?” If the purpose is worthwhile and will have a good outcome, I do. But I don’t have to enlighten people with my wisdom 24/7.

Lately, I haven’t felt very wise, so maybe I do need to have you enlighten me with your wisdom 24/7…

[mcarp]

trill wrote:

I find that often times when I speak up in church the experience is rather disorienting. On the one hand, these are good experiences, because often my comments are responded to and supported in some way. On the other hand, they are negative because I wonder how or whether I should try to carve out a place amongst people who seem to think so differently than me.

…

I apologize for the length. In short, those are my experiences in regards to speaking up and keeping quiet. I appreciate Hawkgrrrl’s question of, “What is the purpose of speaking up?” and agree with Ray’s thoughts on paying attention to inflection and phrase choice. I appreciate these both as a way to examine past experiences of when I have spoken up and to keep in mind as future comments & questions bubble up in future classes.

Thanks for sharing those experiences. I’ve had similar experiences and have similar doubts about whether it is worth the effort to try to “carve out” a place among those who believe differently than I do.

[mcarp]

I came to work one Monday in December with a feeling of complete and awful dread. Nothing happened. The following day, we had an impromptu meeting for our department and were told that 6 people had been let go (out of about 80). I was told that my job was relatively safe (although I think there is no such thing) because of the new product contract we just signed.

The week after we came back from vacation, they announced that our product is on permanent hold and will likely be canceled by our customer. So, it is hard not to have an awful dread again.

I’ve felt for a while that I need to change careers (not just jobs), but this just seems like a terrible time to switch, especially since any switch would dramatically lower my total income. With two kids in college and one about to graduate from high school, I would hate to make that kind of change, but I can feel the life being sucked out of me.

We are on the downhill with our mortgage. We’ve been in this house for 13 years and we’ve looked at moving several times, but it just never made sense. So, we have 6 years left on our mortgage, which is now under $100,000 which seemed like a magic number for us. The first statement we got that was under $100,000 my wife turned to me and said, “How much life insurance do you have? I think if you died I could pay this off.” So, I’m officially worth more dead than alive now.

😮

[mcarp]

I don’t know how it applies to “our situation”, but in “my situation” when I read that I don’t feel particularly happy or successful.

I was thinking today that some of my unhappiness stems from making compromises that don’t satisfy either myself or the other party. (Whether that party is my wife or church leaders or friends.)

[mcarp]

katielangston wrote:

Quote:

It isn’t our place to stop everyone in their tracks and correct them. I don’t even believe I am right, so I am not inclined to force my opinions on to other people. I am very likely to damage other peoples’ faith in the Church, or push them off the cliff into disillusionment. It is *not* my place to decide that path for other people

.

I agree with this, and in fact this is one of the biggest questions I have right now. How MUCH to let on to others about my doubts, experiences, and newly-forming paradigms? On the one hand, I don’t want to go on “pretending” to be someone I’m not: it feels disingenuous, and I think it damages the community. For example, it perpetuates stereotypes about who is and isn’t doubting (i.e. people trying to justify sin)…it adds to this “all or nothing” paradigm that actually LEADS many of us astray once we find out about difficult doctrinal/historical issues…and it makes it tough to form a support system if you can’t find people who relate to your situation.

That sums it up pretty well for me, too.

I was in Utah this weekend and visited with some friends that just moved to Lehi from San Jose, CA. It is a mind-blowing experience for them! (They are both California natives and have never lived in Utah before.)

One thing we discussed was that it isn’t that someone holds an opinion that bothers us. It is the fact that they won’t allow for anyone else to hold a different opinion. I don’t want to “correct” people and I’m not trying to “destroy their testimony.” I just want them to realize that maybe other people have differing opinions that might be just as valid as their own.

[mcarp]

Valoel wrote:

We are all in wards though. We are everywhere, just not as visible as the more vocal orthodox members.

My wife and I drove (without the kids) from Boise to SLC last night and talked a lot about this. She said she wondered how many other people in our ward are thinking these same things. I know of at least two or three who don’t ever come that are experiencing issues with doctrine, but among those that are there (most) every Sunday I really don’t know.

So, if we all just sit there silently we never find each other. To be honest, until I found NOM and FLAK earlier this year, I thought maybe I was the only one! (The only one who doesn’t believe the doctrine, but I’m still at church every Sunday and I hold callings, etc.) I kind of wish there were some way to find like-minded people. My wife, for instance, would really like to find someone who she could talk to about my disaffection. But, she’s afraid to tell anyone because they’ll “freak out.” That’s certainly true for our bishop, and most of the people in our ward — at least it seems so on the surface. But, hey, unless I say something maybe everyone else is thinking the same thing about me.

Valoel, don’t interpret my personal frustration (I’m mostly just venting here because I don’t have IRL friends to talk to about it) as attacking you. (As SallyM says, I’m not really a mean person. )

[mcarp]

Valoel wrote:

*People* in the Church promote the “all or nothing” paradigm. Sure, it is a majority of the active and vocal people. I concede that. It isn’t all people though. I see many still that don’t follow that idea. The leadership does not march in lockstep. They disagree on lots of things. The “all or nothing” camp might be a majority. It doesn’t make them right though. The Church doesn’t belong to them. The Church is an illusion. They can’t lock it up in a box.

My intent in quoting Pres. Hinckley was that it isn’t just “some people” but it is the guy at the top! I realized he isn’t “The Church” but if you go looking for what the people in Church believe (or at least are being taught to believe), wouldn’t you consider the prophet’s conference addresses as one source?

I guess what I see (and I realize that others live in more “liberal” (for lack of a better word) wards) is that people in the Mormon Internet community are much more liberal and open than the people in my ward. On this (and other) boards people are very willing to say, “Believe any part of it you want and leave the rest.” But on Sunday, in my ward at least, I hear a very different message. In fact, on General Conference Sunday I hear a different message. And that message is “There is one way.”

Several conversations I had over the Thanksgiving weekend are still bugging me and I haven’t had time to really sort it out and write it up coherently, so I’ll just blather…

I came back from my in-laws in Idaho Falls thinking that forums like this aren’t very good for me because I get lulled into thinking that everyone is as open as you and others here are. Now, I happen to like you guys and gals. At the beginning it was like a breath of fresh air. But, now I’m more acclimatized to it and when I go to church or to my in-laws I get shocked at how closed minded they are.

In fact, one night after dinner with the in-laws, my wife — without anything being said by me — said, “I’m sorry for my family.”

And, I have a hard time dealing with some of the closed minded things they say and do. I keep thinking, “Ah, this is the perfect response for when my FIL says such-and-such.” But, when he actually says it, I can’t say it, so I just bite my tongue and burn inside.

I’m not expressing this well. I’ll have to think about it more.

[mcarp]

Two of my problems with all or nothing thinking are (1) that’s how I was raised and (2) that’s what the church teaches.

Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:

We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.

When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”

That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens. (November 2002 Ensign, an October 2002 conference address)

So, if you come across information that shakes your foundational testimony of Joseph Smith, then it looks like “this work is a fraud” and it is tough to deal with. So, it seems like the church itself is perpetuating this idea.

I’m not trying to contradict anyone, I would just like to hear your thoughts (esp. hawkgrrrl and Valoel).

[mcarp]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

This comment may be totally irrelevant, so take it for what it is worth. I grew up in an area with few church members (we had six high schools in the same branch). Our seminary teacher was someone who had a lot of struggles, but as kids in his class we really didn’t perceive it. He was open to our questions, and he enjoyed his time with us. He just cared about us and listened to us. Not long after we graduated from high school, he left the church because he was having an affair. His wife also left the church after a few years to marry a minister of another faith (she was one of our YW leaders).

hawkgrrrl,

How did their leaving the church affect you?

Did you look back and say, “What a liar!”? I sometimes think about this and wonder if I just walk away how will it affect all the youth that I’ve worked with over the past 13 years in this ward. I have a really good relationship with almost all of the boys I’ve worked with. Even the ones that are now 24 or older come up and talk to me when we meet around town. Will they look at me differently if I quit going to church?

I know that what I think other people think shouldn’t be allowed to run my life. But, that doesn’t keep me from thinking about it.

[Author]

Posts