Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s a strange flex to make in 2025. I thought the church wanted to distance itself from polygamy as much as possible because that’s what many outsiders with a passing awareness of Mormons automatically associate with the church. Granted he is preaching to the choir.
I’d give points for him being a little more progressive by bringing up a Heavenly Mother specifically rather than leaving it at Heavenly
Parentsbut he went out of his way to explicitly mention Heavenly Mothers (plural). No slip of the tongue, no gaffe, a deliberate emphasis. Like I said, odd flex.
We can’t speculate on Heavenly Mother, nor should we petition for revelation about it, but the one thing we do have on lockdown is that there’s more than one.
Heterosexual reproduction is the linchpin of our theology. Lots of people have been born, there must be more than one woman up in heaven to be able to produce all these spirits. Because eternity isn’t long enough for two people to work that out and because a spirit requires heterosexual reproduction and because resurrected bodies birth spirits instead of resurrected bodies and because a spirit must have a gestation period long enough to impact an eternal timetable. Gotta crank those babies out as fast as possible and the only way to do it is polygamy.
Centering the theology around heterosexual reproduction is also used to justify poor treatment of people on the LGBTQIA spectrum. Gotta have heterosexual reproduction to reboot the matrix when you become a god, so repent.
🙄 It’s human beings projecting what they understand about our world onto an eternal world. Humans have a very limited and very flawed perspective on eternity and it’s a shame we’ve projected our biases and limited understanding onto our conceptualization of heavenly parents. Then we later take those “understandings” that we ourselves created to justify bigotry, sexism, etc.
I don’t mean to pick on our church (too much 
Do they respect my boundaries?
I’ve had trouble with that one in the past.
We have a unique culture that makes boundaries especially tough for people to both set and to honor. Leaders with jobs that have to be delegated, otherwise they’re overwhelmed with having to do everything. A culture that teaches (or once taught) that it’s not okay to say no to assignments. A culture that has the mindset that all members should be all-in on all programs. A mindset of, “I know what they said but I also know what’s really best for them spiritually.”
Church can be a fun place with respect to boundaries.
The article talks about factors to consider when joining a church. I’ve mentioned many times, I did a thing where I visited a different church once a month. I wasn’t shopping around for a new church, I just wanted to broaden my perspectives. I quickly discovered that I’m just not a “joiner.” Had I not believed our church was true, I wouldn’t have joined or stuck with it. But on to the article…
Doctrine and Beliefs – I think the church is set up to attract people that are primed to believe the church’s doctrine and beliefs. Obvious, right? But what I mean by that is that if you differ in any way, the expectation is that you adapt to the church’s beliefs. People that expect the church to be more inclusive and accommodating will probably end up disappointed.
I think we’re seeing more movement towards inclusivity in recent years. It’s a strange phenomenon though. Members in local wards are usually way out ahead of the church organization on being more inclusive but the doctrines are still policed. We slowly move from orthodoxy to orthodoxy. People with different beliefs often starve on the vine waiting for more inclusive change.
- Worship Style – I can sum that up in one word. Boring. What can I say, some people like boring.
:angel: A church with loud energetic music where I’m expected to dance around and raise the roof is a complete non-starter for me. At the same time our meetings are a little too sterile, curated, predictable, boring, uninspiring… I better stop.- Community Involvement – I think we’re getting better but I think we’re still more insular than outreaching.
- Leadership and Governance – we’ve got too much of this in the bank. I think we should loan it out to other churches or do a massive giveaway. There’s too much power consolidated to one man and one small group of men. Ready to be more inclusive? Get ready to wait on a 100 year old man at the top of the hierarchy to arrive at the conclusion society reached a few decades ago before getting permission that it’s now okay to be more inclusive.
- Youth and Family Programs – we should probably start looking into those.
- Mission and Vision – we have the three (or four?) fold mission of the church. They either speak to you or they don’t. Personally the church’s vision always feels like it’s focused on growing the church. So much so that it comes at the expense of the individual member. Just my feelings on the matter.
- Inclusivity and Diversity – I’ll repeat what I said earlier, I feel members at the ward level are more inclusive than church culture inspires them to be… and that’s me being extremely kind based on my experiences.
It’s not all sunshine and roses at the ward level though. Sometimes it’s just one other person in your Sunday School class that helps you feel included, sometimes it’s the majority of people in your bishopric, RS presidency, and EQ presidency, sometimes it can feel like it’s just you. The challenge is that the more inclusive people are working against the weight of the Leadership and Governance bullet point above. All it takes is one person in your Sunday School class, or a majority of the people in your bishopric, RS presidency, and EQ presidency to cite a figure that’s authoritative to shut the doors of inclusivity in a ward.
- Facilities and Accessibility – the buildings function. They’re less interesting than the box amazon uses to ship items, but they function. Well unless you want to use the kitchen.
- Financial Transparency – hahahahahhhahaaaahhahahahahaha [wheeeeeeeze] hahahahahahahahhaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
- Spiritual Growth Opportunities – on the one hand we have lay ministry, our experience can be far more engaging that other churches. On the other hand I don’t feel like people are free to color outside of the lines. You can grow to be exactly this, but there’s a spiritual glass ceiling. I feel that orthodoxy can often limit people’s spiritual growth.
I read a recent statement from Elder Cook that the church experienced more convert baptisms in the 12 month period ending June 30th than the church has seen in the last 25 years. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-of-jesus-christ-record-global-growth I share that because I was going to say that I don’t know whether a one true church is what people are looking for in the 21st century but maybe they are?
It’s hard to tell. People and cultures aren’t homogeneous. We’ve seen baptisms boom and disappear in Europe, boom and wane in the USA, boom and slow down in South America, and I think we’re seeing a boom period in Africa right now. I don’t know whether that boom reflects something the church offers that appeals to Africans in particular or whether the boom is just a byproduct of initial gains in an untapped market.
The two countries in Africa with the most members are Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The church does have the history of the priesthood ban to contend with in Africa but polygamy is still very much a thing in Africa and homosexuality is illegal in many African countries. For example, in Nigeria you can be arrested and put in prison for gay relationships and there are estimates that up to one third of women are in polygamous relationships. I only bring that up because two subjects that are often seen as strikes against the church in the USA are closer to the cultural norms in many countries in Africa.
I’ve veered far away from the subject. Coming back…
Minyan Man wrote:
The only questions emphasized had to do with:. Was Joseph Smith a Prophet?
. Is the BOM true?
When I joined the church is was all about establishing Joseph Smith as a prophet. Usually with the classic line of reasoning that if the BoM is true, that means Joseph was a prophet, and if Joseph was a prophet that means the church is true. Eternal families was also a bigger selling point back in those days. I think eternal families may have diminished as a selling point in more recent years because I think wider Christianity has transitioned to believing that an eternal family is the default position.
Reflecting back to when I joined the church, sometime very early after being baptized my mindset flipped from asking whether the church as a good fit for me to a mindset of whether I was a good fit for the church. I’d remain in that mindset for decades. If there was any discomfort with the experience I believed I was the one that was lacking, not the experience. That wasn’t a healthy mindset for me.
This is getting over-long. I’ll break it into two posts.
My first take is that I don’t see much issue with the church paying influencers (people with a large following on social media) for giving their testimonies of the church on their platforms so long as the influencer’s testimony isn’t dictated by the church. In other words, they’re using their words to say things they truly believe. If they’re being told what to say or even say things that they don’t truly believe then it starts to feel icky. Maybe they should add an, “actor portrayal, not a doctor” disclaimer for paid adverts.
You’ve got me wondering DJ…
Where’s the line for paid influencer? Does it only pertain to popular people on social media? Could a stipend qualify a GA of the church as a paid influencer? What about the perks a mission president receives? What about the revenue a member of the Q15 generates from writing a book?
Maybe the line is more clear in those scenarios, it’s a church leader talking up the church, even if they’re not exactly forthcoming with the compensation they receive. Compare that to an influencer where the link isn’t as clear. Is this something from the heart? Is this something that’s financially motivated?
I’m sure the church has more money than they know what to do with. Perhaps they could pay a few influencers to be janitors.
😈 I find it easier to skip first Sunday. I don’t get much out of hearing testimonies and 2nd hour is Sunday School on first Sundays. I find that my spiritual goals and the spiritual goals of Sunday School in particular don’t align, so it’s easier to give myself a break from church on first Sundays. AmyJ wrote:
a) Certainty – It removes space for Doubt, alternative life experiences, and creates Isolation and Division.
Certainty also removes space for revelation. If you’re already sure you know everything, you have no incentive to learn more.
Minyan Man wrote:
I have to ask myself: What would Jesus do?
I can’t speak for Jesus but I would point out that flipping tables and spending 40 days alone in the wilderness are things he’s been reported as having done.
My line is always, “If Jesus is perfect and still needed 40 days in the wilderness to sort things out, it’s okay for me to spend as much time as I need, even up to several decades in the wilderness because I’m not perfect.”
I think the only way to have the discussion at church is to get out ahead of the lost keys comment. Say something like, “There was a time in my life where I needed God but I could not feel his presence. Sometimes when people share stories about lost keys it makes me wonder why God was there for them over something relatively trivial but not there for me in my desperate hour of need.”
Again, the key (pun) is getting out ahead of the lost key comment. Say something like this
beforeanyone has had a chance to bring up lost keys. If you make a comment like that after someone’s already made the lost key comment then it feels like you’re shooting down someone’s personal spiritual experience. If you say it before then you’re sharing your personal experience and don’t have anyone in your crosshairs. Minyan Man wrote:
Why doesn’t the leadership of the ward or stake stand & correct the message being “taught”? (The SP was in attendance.)
That’s a tough one.
I’ve had some challenges in life that I felt broke me. One of the harder things to process during a faith crisis was the notion that yes, I’m going through a rough spell, but there are other people out there that had it far worse than what I’m going through right now. God didn’t come to their rescue, surely god isn’t coming to mine.
Then you hear a lost keys testimony at church.
I don’t think you even can correct someone in that scenario. It’s real to the lost keys saint and you don’t want to tear them or their story down. When I’m in a lesson or meeting where something like that is shared I conclude that the most charitable thing I can do is accept their story at face value and quietly swallow any offense. Doesn’t feel good but I don’t know of a way to correct those beliefs or help people be more sensitive to others who feel as though god wasn’t there in their hour of need.
One way to look at it is that it’s an extension of the kind of faith where people attribute god’s hand in any happy or good thing that happens in their lives. The weather is nice. Thank you Jesus. Here’s a picture someone posted on social media of a rainbow with a kitten under it. Thank you Jesus. I found my keys, what a happy coincidence. Thank you Jesus.
That kind of thing.
The JRH quote sure is interesting. It’s unfair to read things that weren’t actually said into his comments but it’s hard not to. Mostly just a reiteration that it’s an absolute obligation for YM. There should never be a second class citizenship for women but for men…
He did say that not serving shouldn’t preclude someone from getting access to “association and admiration” and love of the Lord (Yikes! It’s more of that obey all the cultural obligations or you won’t have the Lord’s love messaging on full display) but the way he leans in extra hard to say that shouldn’t be the case for women implies that it kinda sorta is okay if the men get some dosage of that.
They don’t want the women feeling inadequate, left out, or tarnished for not serving but for men…
So it’s more than just access to the dating pool. It’s being second class saints with an artificial ceiling placed on access to admiration, association, and the Lord’s love.
Push and pull motivation. The mission is presented as mostly push motivation, do it to avoid all the negative things that will happen if you don’t. It would be nice (and less prone to manipulation tactics) if missions were mostly driven by pull motivation. Check out all this cool stuff that you can do as a missionary!
But humans are gonna human. Any time one outcome is presented as the favorable outcome, or in the case of a mission they only favorable outcome, then anything less is going to be unfavorable. Even with pull motivation.
In short, you catch more flies with honey. The mission program ain’t honey so they have to resort to guilting, shaming, and obligating kids into going in order to keep the numbers up.
Roy wrote:
Men are strongly discouraged from requiring that their potential marriage partners be RMs.…
Females have historically been encouraged to require that their potential marriage partners be RMs (I looked but did not find an LDS GA giving this advice. I think it is mostly done through the YW program). This teaching has not been repudiated despite clear opportunities to do so. However, I like to think that it is being quietly deemphasized.
Are you talking teachings or culture? I’ve heard murmurings that the only marry RMs cultural practice has been semi-adopted by men as well. Now with so many women serving missions men are starting to add that to their wish list for a partner. I can’t imagine a YM lesson teaching that but I think men decided that if it was good for the gander, it was good for the goose.
Perhaps it is as you say Roy, that men might receive teachings to
notrequire potential marriage partners to be RMs precisely because more and more YM are adopting that mindset. I’m also hearing that the stigma associated with returning home from a mission early is far less a thing than it once was.
I haven’t attended church much over the last few years and I certainly don’t attend youth meetings so I don’t know what messaging they’re receiving. I do think the “it’s an obligation” messaging worked though. Currently our ward has several youth out on FT missions. Maybe seven or eight kids out of a ward with SM attendance in the 150-200 range. That seems a lot to me.
I’m not sure whether it’s the same training I took several years ago, I forget when it started up but it was pre-covid. The training consisted of a series of situations and was animated (cartoon). I remember it also counseling leaders to contact church authorities instead of the police when there was something to report. If I’m remembering correctly, that counsel was only for the bishop and stake presidents. Counsel for everyone else was to contact the police. Minyan Man wrote:
We were told that there is training online that we had to take & our participation would be monitored.
When you complete the training you get a checkbox on your membership record that indicates you’ve taken the course. An individual marking the course complete is on the honor system and wards are also on the honor system of enforcing the policy to not extend callings to youth to people that aren’t current on the training.
It’s also not a one and done. People have to retake the training every few years.
We had a semi-related discussion during EQ about being welcoming to all. It was in reference to the growing political divide. The conversation began and ended with saying that we shouldn’t let political differences divide us and that we should find ways to discuss differences civilly. That’s fine and everything but it felt like we were still dodging the issues. It’s easy to
saywe should be nice to one another when we’re talking in generalities and avoiding specifics. It’s quite another thing when the rubber meets the road. “Let’s talk about [hot button political issue where one camp feels wronged], remembering that the goal is to heal the divide.”
In other words, don’t have a discussion about hypothetical discussions,
havethe discussion. That’s how these panels feel. They tend to be more focused on theoretical welcoming. It’s often been my experience that theoretical talks help us feel like we’re more welcoming without actually having to make any changes. It is a start however. I’d rather the discussion occur than not.
One thing that I often hear that I fear is detrimental to the discussion is when leaders focus on how we’re all god’s children. They typically frame it as something that
supplantsa LGBTQ+ identity rather than it being an identity in addition toa LGBTQ+ identity. I fully understand that leaders are looking for something that unifies all of us, I just caution that it’s not either/or, it’s and/also. You are LGBTQ+ anda child of god. DJ, I think you’re in a more rural area, correct? It’s interesting that you’re having this discussion because I usually make an assumption that more rural communities typically lag behind more urban communities on being more welcoming of people that are LGBTQ+. Maybe something to do with relative isolation and limited exposure.
At any rate, it starts with a discussion and it’s good that the discussion has the goal of being more welcoming.
I apologize in advance where my pessimism bleeds through in my post. First the optimism. This is a baby step. Baby steps have to occur before babies learn to walk. I’m echoing your bullet points #1 and #5 with this.
It’s not lost on me that this panel mirrors a larger systemic issue in the church, it points down the hierarchy. It’s stake leaders putting on a panel for members of the stake to listen and learn. When are we going to have a panel where LGBTQ+ people in the stake speak to stake, area, and general leaders, where it’s the
leadersthat are sitting, listening, and learning? DarkJedi wrote:
1. It’s great for individuals and families to try to help LGBTQ+ members feel more welcome, and I try to do so on a personal level myself. BUT we’re swimming upstream and not getting far because the church as an institution (and it’s senior leadership) actively opposes and works against those efforts (in other words, LGBTQ+ folks are marginalized second class citizens at best);
Not even a year ago the church updated their policies on church participation for people that identify as transgender. Those included the following:
[list][*]For overnight activities for a specific gender they can only attend for the activity that corresponds to their biological sex at birth.[*]For overnight activities that are not for a specific gender theymust leave the activity at night. They’re not allowed to stay the night like everyone else. [*]Must have a calling that corresponds to their biological sex at birth.[*]Can’t be called to a teaching role.[*]Can’t be called to work with children or youth.[*]Must use single occupancy restrooms or have someone check the gender specific restroom to make sure it’s completely empty before they can go inside.[/list] This isn’t directed at anyone specific, this is me venting. So have your little panel discussion to talk about how everyone is welcome at church… so long as they bend the knee, conform, and comport themselves just so. Once you’ve beaten your individuality into submission then you’re one of us. If not, you’re the sinner, just know that we welcome you with open arms.
🙄 But it’s a baby step. In an organization that is thoroughly controlled from the top down, this is the only way change can start, by grassroots meetings where people try to show a little love and empathy towards people while still trying to color both inside and outside the lines.
From a more orthodox perspective the covenant path breaks down into two areas, the first is making the covenants and the second is keeping them once we’ve made them. I’m assuming that most people that are actively attending church have already made the covenants and would probably be bored with hearing another talk or lesson about what the checkboxes are so I’ll try to focus on the keeping of covenants once their made portion.
I think the covenant path is nearly synonymous with repentance because no one is perfect, all will fall short of honoring covenants, therefore to remain on the covenant path is to be constantly repenting.
I’ve heard many at church refer to repentance as a process of becoming, not an event. Similarly I think following along the covenant path is a process, not an event. We tend to get fixated on talking around the checkboxes of the covenant path (events) and not so much on the process (becoming a disciple of Christ).
I think it’s not so much the path itself (the fixation on the one true church/path), it’s the journey (process of becoming). We’re all unique, god knows this, so the “covenant path” that god has laid out before us will look a little different for everyone. The path is custom tailored, forged by the union of ourselves with Christ. My next step along the path will not look exactly like your next step on the path. Luckily god’s mercy allows for us to take the next step, even steps off the path that imperfect people absolutely will make, but we can orient our next step from whatever position we happen to find ourselves in to be pointed in the direction of Christ.
Where following the covenant path looks less like conformity with church culture and more like walking a mile in Christ’s shoes. Serving as he served. Loving as he loved. Going to and ministering to the people that perhaps our imagined rigid “covenant path” wouldn’t have led us to. Christ didn’t always do or say the things that were expected of him. So too must our covenant path me malleable and adaptive to reach the people god intends us to reach and to experience what god intends for us to experience.
I have a never-Mormon coworker that will occasionally ask me a question about the church. I try to present both sides when answering a question. E.g. this is where I’m at personally but the more orthodox viewpoint on the subject is this. If it’s a member I play it by ear. I might take an I didn’t volunteer my opinion, you asked, so here’s my actual opinion approach. I might take a speak Mormonese as best I can to expose a masked portion of my actual opinion approach. I don’t have people in church asking me doctrinal questions in the hallway so I usually take the sit in silence in a lesson approach.
I did serve as the ward mission leader well into my faith crisis. It wasn’t easy and when you go on exchanges missionaries absolutely will put you on the spot in the middle of one of their visits. “Brother Nibbler, how does it help you to know that the church has been restored?” Oh boy, here we go. How to manage this one? Thankfully I no longer have that calling.
Were I in your shoes in interacting with a recent convert I’d probably take a softer version of my coworker approach. Let them know my own personal opinion and contrast that against the more official answer. I’d do it for a few reasons. For the sake of authenticity and sanity and to communicate to the new member that it’s okay to hold opinions that are different than the company line.
When I was a newly joined member I would have appreciated learning the lesson that it’s okay to retain some of my own identity and uniqueness in a culture that applies a great deal of pressure to conform in actions and beliefs.
Heck, I think even many orthodox members out there would feel greater connections with people in their wards if we got more comfortable with expressing how our beliefs can be slightly off script. We might be greeted with a lot of, “Hey, me too!” responses.
