Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I haven’t tried to correct anyone or even offer alternate suggestions. Internally I shrug and think, “They must need that.” and let sleeping dogs lie.
We’ll reach that ward baptism goal if we’re all obedient!
The challenge is how do you gently correct someone when they preach the prosperity gospel?
If someone just got through sharing a heartfelt personal experience during a lesson about how their obedience to a doctrine led to them being blessed to get out of a terrible situation you don’t want to say anything invalidating. The experience is real and personal to them.
I suppose the best we can do is chime in with something similar to Bednar’s “but if not” or something that the book of Job tried to teach (but failed because it still teaches the prosperity gospel IMO). In other words, give a comment that adds another alternative experience instead of a comment that tries to tear down an experience someone has shared. It’s a delicate situation.
Another challenge is that the prosperity gospel fully permeates nearly every aspect of church culture. Any time someone says obedience brings blessings? Prosperity gospel. Fasting? Someone could be fasting in a way that’s implementing the prosperity gospel. I hear infusions of the prosperity gospel in just about everything at church.
Even more troubling is the implicit lesson that can be absorbed without anyone intending it: risk is acceptable if God is on your side.
I believe this is also how scrupulosity starts, going something like this:
God protected them, god didn’t protect me, what imperfection is baring me from earning god’s protection.
It certainly is a tricky subject to talk about. I don’t see much appetite to tackle the issue of gun violence in the USA. The prevailing attitude appears to be that there is some number of gun deaths that is deemed acceptable in order to retain the rights of (one interpretation of) the second amendment. My reasoning is that if we had reached a theoretical unacceptable number of gun deaths then attitudes of the majority population would begin to shift. That doesn’t appear to have happened yet. My hope is that there actually is an unacceptable number of gun deaths and that change can happen sooner rather than later. My fear is that there is no bottom, that the number of acceptable deaths is infinite.
I get why the church released a statement. Many people look to the church for hope and guidance in troubling times. Many also scrutinize the church and look for implied meaning for when the church does and when the church doesn’t issue a statement. We live in very politically charged times. That said, condemning violence and calling for peace is a no-brainer.
Nearly every time there’s gun violence in the USA the phrase you mentioned, offering thoughts and prayers, often becomes a stumbling block. Of course people want to offer their condolences . Prayer can feel like the only refuge from the fear over things that feel far beyond our control. At the same time, anyone that has grown frustrated with inaction has grown frustrated with limiting our actions to only offering thoughts and prayers. When that frustration is vocalized people offering thoughts and prayers can interpret it as an attack on their faith. We go around in circles, seldom meeting in the middle.
I will say that the first presidency’s official response does not include the phrase thoughts and prayers. Theirs is more of a call to action. Advocating gun control is probably far too political of a stance to take for the church but they do call on people to seek peace and be more kind. Their statement does more than call for people to stop bad behaviors, it calls on people to build understanding and kinder communities.
You know how when we teach about sin how we teach that thoughts lead to actions and a good way to change our actions is to start with our thoughts? I read some of that into the first presidency’s message. Things their statement mentions, violence, hate, a lack of understanding, differences, lack of compassion, lack of respect, etc. Those things are occurring before a trigger ever gets pulled. I read the first presidency statement as addressing those issues as well.
If I haven’t already gone overboard, I’ll get a little more political. We live in interesting times. We live in a society where there’s a very strong market for selling people’s fears, prejudices, and hatred back to them in the form of confirmation bias coming from a supposed authoritative voice. People are exploiting others’ deepest fears to drive profit. You see it on any side of any political aisle. What we’re consuming as a society is driving a lot of the division. If we want to be more unified we need to decrease our appetite for division.
The article gives one woman’s account of being in an abusive relationship, joining the church, and being skeptical of the criticisms that women are treated like second-class citizens. One thing that drew her interest to join the church was that none of the missionaries she interacted with attempted to make sexual advances at an age and time in life where men are “at their most destructive.” Again, I’m not a fan of the mindset that portrays members as angels and non-members as demons. The WoW can help with many things that get people into trouble but the church still has domestic violence, poverty, substance abuse, sexism, etc. We’re not immune to it and we may even see the same averages that non-members see. I’m just not a fan of the implications that this article makes about people outside the church.
I’m also not a fan of the other argument the article makes. I don’t know how to articulate it, but it goes something like, “It’s not a problem for this one woman so I don’t know what you are complaining about.” The environment is fine for that one woman, or some subset of women. That doesn’t mean it’s not an issue for
allwomen or the general membership of the church. My wife isn’t interested in holding an office in the priesthood but that doesn’t mean that women that
wantto hold an office in the priesthood shouldn’t be given an opportunity. In the church we have men that aren’t interested in the PH but it’s quasi-obligatory for them to have it and we have women that do want the priesthood but can’t have it. It’s kinda nuts. I think rising generations are seeing the inequality more and more with each passing year. The contrast between the roles women are filling in the wider community (the dreaded non-LDS people out there being all destructive
:angel: ), the roles women can fill in the church, and the gulf between the two. I’ve heard anecdotes on that end, that the church is the last remaining place in many women’s lives where they are told, “No, you can’t because you’re a woman.” Propping up women that say, “That’s okay, I don’t want to anyway.” is not a solution.Roy wrote:
Overall, I understand it to be saying that men outside of the church can be terrible “unrestrained, irresponsible, uncommitted and uncaring” while men inside the church are much more respectful, kind, and family oriented and this equates to women being treated better in relationships by LDS men.
My initial gut reaction. It’s a claim that’s so ridiculous on its surface that it’s not a notion that can be seriously entertained.
I can see how an article written by an LDS person and published by LDS owned media would firmly believe that’s the case but I’d put it firmly in the category of just that, a belief. I also think it can be a particularly dangerous belief.
At best it’s something innocent, something akin to, “My family has the best chili recipe in the world.” There’s bias and it’s subjective but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t matter which family has the best chili recipe.
At worst it can be a belief that creates an environment where abuse can fester. Like if you are thoroughly convinced that your church has the absolute best safety precautions for children than any other church out there or that it’s all the other churches that have problems, not us. In that mindset you can let your guard down or worse, cover things up to maintain an image. It’s only not a problem because people refuse to acknowledge it.
The other danger of that mindset is that it puffs up our pride and becomes an excuse for why no change is needed.
Utah is considered the state with the highest level of affinity fraud and I think one of the reasons is that mindset. A belief that it’s the other people that have the problem, our people are always trustworthy, and bam. Someone gets taken advantage of or exploited.
My challenge is that 95% of the time when someone brings up the two great commandments at church it’s really code speak for telling people not to be too accepting of people in the LGBT community. They want to make sure people understand that loving god (the commandments as they understand them) comes before loving your neighbor. It’s unfortunate that the two great commandments have largely been reduced to a dog whistle in church. I’m reminded of the platinum rule. The golden rule, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. The platinum rule, do unto others as they want done unto themselves.
When it comes to strict obedience, I don’t find much opportunity for growth in the model: Entity A: Do this.
Entity B: Okay.
I find more learning and growth in the model:
Entity A: Do this.
Entity B: Why?
Entity A then goes on to teach the reasoning behind the request and entity B can decide whether that reasoning is sound or whether it applies to their situation.
LDS narratives have the story about Adam and Eve, how they offered sacrifice without even knowing why, just out of strict obedience. After they had shown that they would be obedient they were blessed with the knowledge behind why they were commanded to offer sacrifice.
It’s a good story but I don’t know how well it works in real life.
Entity A: Do this
Entity B: Why?
Entity A: I’ll tell you after you do it.
It feels like a setup to get someone to do something that they might not otherwise do if they understood the reasons behind the request. I also appreciate how we’re not always in a position to understand things until later.
I’d also point out that we’ve got to crawl before we can walk. Sometimes situations call for strict obedience, sometimes they call for relying on personal spiritual inspiration. Sometimes the same situation can call for moments of both. Sometimes strict obedience can establish habits that lead to personal spiritual inspiration.
End game in Mormonism, or the end game before we watered down some teachings to fit into wider Christendom, if we’re meant to become like god, I think that means we’re meant to rely less and less on strict obedience to someone or something else and rely more and more on strict obedience to self.
Roy, out of curiosity how far back does your patriarchal PH line go? Is it just you and your father, or does it extend back more generations? Roy wrote:I am somewhat conflicted because if Roy jr. does get the higher priesthood then it will come with all these expectations and strings attached, like serving a mission, paying tithing, and temple marriage.
I fully understand those concerns. I had a time setting a boundary around home teaching/ministering and one of the tools in their toolkit was applying the you have a duty/you already agreed to this pressure. In fact I’ve heard anecdotal stories (and seen videos of talks posted online) where leaders use baptism at eight years old as tacit agreement for young men to serve missions.
One thing to be aware of, and I’m sure you know this, is that there’s a “prospective elders” list. Men that have reached the traditional age to receive the MP but they still remain a priest. Sometimes wards will use such a list to track people down and apply pressure to get involved with church. Typically to dangle the MP in front of people as an incentive to reactivate.
My kid never got ordained to the MP, though it was briefly talked about in our ward. It’s his choice, he’s just not interested in church to even have an opinion on it, so I don’t see it happening.
I never had the generational pressure but when I was more orthodox I did carry around a lot of pressure where I felt like I was the start of the chain, that it was all on me to link my ancestors with my progeny. I no longer carry that weight.
Netflix has a documentary called ‘Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey’ about the FLDS church. It’s a series that shows some of the traps groups that practice polygamy can fall into. I think there are many commonalities between the FLDS practice and the LDS practice from the 1800s but there are also many differences. Among the key differences is that I don’t think BY ever reassigned wives and children from one family to another, nor did he separate children from their families. At least not that I’m aware.
Either way, the documentary is worth a watch. Women were treated like possessions. The number of wives dictated status in the community.
It’s not a competition of the sexes for who had it worse, if it were I know where I’d place all my bets, but I think in the case of the men it was the ones that were expelled by the leaders because there weren’t enough women to go around or because they were seen as competition for acquiring more women.
Roy wrote:
I disclosed that there is some pressure within the church to share the gospel with friends with the imagined scenario of being up in heaven without your non-member friends and they feel betrayed that you kept this saving knowledge to yourself all that time despite having multiple opportunities.
You dredged up a cringey memory.
It was a session of stake conference, I can’t remember if it was an adult session or just the regular Sunday session. Conference was very missionary themed. One longtime convert, meaning they were a convert but had been a member for several decades, got up to tell their conversion story. A big part of their story was recounting an experience where they actually chastised kids that they went to high school with that they later discovered were members of the church. The kids apparently never shared what they knew about the church with them so they were angry and lamenting the wasted years between high school and when they found the church via someone else (just a few years later).
Now I don’t know what happened during those few short years, maybe missing out on serving a mission, they didn’t say, but the anger felt unwarranted. It was probably just the speaker’s way of communicating the importance of doing missionary work but it didn’t come across the way I think they intended it to come across. At least not with me.
That particular teaching has never sat right with me. Maybe because I’m a convert myself and have been on both sides but I have the attitude that people join the church when they’re ready. If I’m up in heaven with my non-member friends that feel betrayed, the obvious comeback is, “If I did ask you to join church back then what would you have said? Yeah. Didn’t think so.”
It’s an imagined scenario meant to preemptively rub, “see, we were right all along” in people’s faces and serves the double purpose of serving as a motivational tool. Even then hindsight bias is a thing. We can all safely say we would have joined our friend’s weird church when we find out it’s true later in life but until the point where we find out it’s true it’s just our friend’s weird church that we have no interest in.
Sharing the gospel shouldn’t be about creating opportunities to judge and feel judged. It should be about creating opportunities to expand the church’s ability to love more people.
AmyJ wrote:
One of the things I have thought about is that humans have an assumption that “true = always true” for statements and that those statements don’t always hold true as different pieces of reality shift.
The example I use for this is wearing a coat. In the winter wearing a coat is appropriate, necessary even. In the summer wearing a coat can be deadly.
Just because wearing a coat is the correct or helpful thing to do in the winter doesn’t mean it’s the correct or helpful thing to do for every circumstance.
Relating that back to church; church can be very helpful for people in a certain demographic, people in a specific phase of life, or people at a specific stage in their faith development. That doesn’t mean it’s always the right thing for absolutely everyone. There may be times where you put on the church, like a coat, and take it off in warmer weather, or even put it on and take it off multiple times per day as you transition from indoors to outdoors.
I had a different take. I don’t think it was a slip of the tongue. I think a slip of the tongue would go something like, “So we know that we have Heavenly Mothers… Mother.” You slip up, then immediately correct yourself.
Oaks said, “So we know that we have a Heavenly Mother or Mothers.” That comes across as an intentional clarification to me. I think Oaks is very legalistic and he intentionally added the caveat to make sure his comment was as technically correct as possible.
I also don’t think it’s an
expansionof an official doctrine, I think it’s a callback to an older official doctrine that we’ve been to sheepish to acknowledge in the last 100 years. Roy wrote:
Did he know that he was being recorded?
I doubt it but it’s hard to tell post-covid. Some wards still broadcast their sacrament meetings. Even still, I think the expectation is that people don’t record the meeting. There’s a difference between a live broadcast and a recording.
When someone that high up in the church hierarchy visits, local members are given a spiel about protocols during the visit. Not recording the meeting is heavily emphasized. Probably for this exact reason.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction though. If it’s something that can be said to people attending sacrament meeting in Belgium why isn’t it good enough for others to hear via a recording? Or to turn it on it’s head, if you don’t want it getting out in public, don’t say it.
A private meeting sure, that communication is private, but it was a meeting open to the public.
