Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
:problem: This will be tough.
A member of the bishopric asked if we could talk the other day…I didn’t get his message until late at night, so we haven’t talked yet…but I know it’s coming.
Like many of you, once I commit…I’m committed.
I just spend a few years (yes, years) in a calling and at the end was so incredibly exhausted that I almost cried with joy when I was finally released. I did the very best I could in that calling.
Now, here we are…and due to the dynamics of the calling, I am not the one for the position – it all boils down to the ward bully – and me as a target. It’s emotional, it’s personal, it’s not healthy…and everyone is afraid of the bully, so I’m left to “stage manage a grizzly bear”.
:wtf: The other day I realized that I AM learning a few things from this. I’m learning who to trust, where my “safety net” is, what my family really means to me, and most of all…I’m learning that my once-a week calling is NOT my religion. My 3 hours on Sunday is NOT my life…it’s something that I choose to do…time to give…but it’s not “me”. Does that make sense?
And so…now I wonder…do I keep trying at this calling and hope to learn how to manage a bully? You know, exercising faith and all that?
Or…do I simply break free from the anxiety-filled meetings and let someone else take over…maybe someone who has the training to handle those with attitude?
I mean…just HOW much would the Lord expect me to endure, ya know?
At what point is it simply toxic?
I need to know what my head and heart are telling me before I talk to the bishopric member.
My head says, “You can do this. You promised to do it. You might learn from it.”
My heart says, “Uh, no. No way. Who wants to be bullied? We left 5th grade a long time ago.”
:think: 
I feel for you. A dear friend of mine had a husband who was emotionally abusive.
She had her own problems (always the victim, etc.).
During their divorce, she went in to renew her TR.
The SP member asked her if there was something about her marriage that she wanted to share.
She told him that she had nothing to share with him.
He asked if her husband had any issues – she told him to ask the husband.
He then said something like, “Oh, I know your husband. He’s a good man.”
But then…and this is the kicker…he said, “I feel very strongly that you are withholding some information and for that reason I must keep your recommend.”
She was stunned…she walked out of his office without her TR.
She got it back after some time…even when no new information surfaced.
But…her now ex-husband has kept a TR the entire time.
Maybe some church leaders are afraid to upset the man for fear of what the fall-out will be?
Maybe women are easier targets b/c we are truly more “submissive”?
I don’t know the answer…but I dare someone to ask me a question NOT in the TR script.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but thought I’d add one more quick one… A woman must cover her shoulders and her thighs, but some of the G tops are cut into a V-neck…which leads to cleavage. Now, me? I have little cleavage to show, but am fully aware of my low-cut tops exposing what I do have…when I CHOOSE to show it off. Other women, however, can safely wear their G’s and their clothing and can claim “modesty” while fully exposing their line of “boob”.
I think there is a disconnect there.
:crazy: Wowsers. I am sure we could come up with a few diddys ourselves here…
That song gave me the “ick” factor….that a man has to be “blessed with more than thee?”
‘Cause…one wife just isn’t good enough.
How about changing it to…”He doesn’t know what sort of gem he has with you and he better work hard to keep you” ??
:clap: You know…in my ward we didn’t even acknowledge Pioneer Day…at all. No activity…no song in any auxiliary (well, I don’t know about primary), but at least for the adults, we just sort of pretended that it wasn’t even on the calendar.
What’s really great is that when a ward member mentioned it on a social media site, several ward council members scrambled to explain it away.
So very sad.
I don’t really care if a boy or a man is gay. But…I don’t want an openly gay (celibate or not) boy sharing a tent with my son.
So glad we are almost done with scouting.
And…no…as far as I can tell…openly gay men (celibate or not) are not permitted to work with scout troops (BSA guideline).
There is a disconnect there….gay boys can play, but gay men cannot.
An interesting thought I had this morning… How can section 132 be so muddled if it was recorded as it was being dictated by the Lord, but the temple ceremonies can be so perfect and exact (assuming the signs and tokens and verbiage were inspired)?
Maybe the ceremonies … or the origins … are part of another thread. I’ll have to look for that one.
On Own Now wrote:QuestionsAbound,
All very good questions… I don’t have the answers. There are a number of reasons why the eternal marriage doctrine could lead to the concept of plural marriage… not defending here, because I think it was a terrible practice that got JS killed and sent the next generation of the Church into perpetual trials… but here are some things that could contribute to the evolution from eternal marriage to plural marriage in the mind of a spiritual leader acting on his own accord, without God directing it:
– In 19th-century America, people frequently outlived a spouse and remarried. This was common both in and out of the Church. Enter the doctrine of eternal marriage and immediately confusion abounds.
– Abraham was called the “father of many nations” after having two sons, each from a different woman. It’s easy to make the leap that the eternal increase of a man could be accommodated via multiple wives, though the reverse would not be true… or at least not as obvious.
– JS clearly gave importance to family relationships. I believe he used polygamy… eternal polygamy… as a way to form eternal family bonds; linking families in the hereafter, sort of the way nations are joined into alliances via royal marriages.
Excellent, excellent point.hawkgrrrl wrote:Section 132 as written is full of logical errors. You can marry a second wife if she’s a virgin and your first wife agrees. But if she doesn’t agree, then you can anyway. Those two sentiments contradict each other and are both in there. The whole thing is far too circular to be inspired by anything but self-justification, and Ray’s idea is possible too. Maybe it was written later to justify actions that were already in the past.
Perfect way to say it: The whole thing is far too circular to be inspired by anything but self-justification.
That is
exactlywhat I think…but I really struggle with articulation…forming my thoughts into words. You hit the nail on the head. If The Lord had inspired it (dictated it, as the section reads), then it would have been more clear and straightforward. What gets me in the section is this:
subsequent wives need to be virgins…how many married women did JS marry? So right off the bat he was breaking the rules…doesn’t seem very “prophet-ish” to me.
and
when it says that a woman cannot marry another unless the other is “appointed her”…I’m thinking…there is a glimmer of hope that PM can go both ways…which would be an amazing way to create worlds without end…one great big family creating another really big family for the many worlds they will inhabit.
OON, That’s a great reply. Thanks so much. Official Declaration #3 would be awesome if it stated that!
What I don’t understand (and maybe you can help me on this) is… if JS created polygamy to “fill in the blanks” of eternal marriage…what is the connection?
I mean, if someone said, you can be married to your husband forever, I would NOT immediately think, “Okay! That means I can also have 4 husbands if I want them!” There just isn’t a logical explanation for the “fill in the blanks” theory.
If plural marriage means that both men and women can have multiple partners for creating worlds, that would make way more sense…how can we bind women to loving just one man (when we are the ones with tender hearts), but permit men to love multiple women and still call it fair and just?
I have heard that JS had a vision of heaven or a dream or something and in order to explain it, he created eternal marriage and polygamy. I’m thinking…uh…wouldn’t he have prayed about giving instruction like that to church members before doing so? *Assuming PM is wrong as it was practiced, hidden and then preached.
Shawn wrote:The basic explanation on the
church website
Quote:The gospel is our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The central doctrine of the gospel is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
What follows can cause confusion:
Quote:In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment.
I am okay with that as long as “doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom” really are those things, rather than being incorrectly presented or perceived as such. A lot of teachings, counsel, culture, tradition, practices, policies, etc. are not necessary for exaltation. Many of those things are good and support us, though.I don’t know how to select the parts I want to “quote”…sorry…still new here…
But I did want to comment on the part of “A lot of teachings, counsel, culture, tradition, practices, policies, etc. are not necessary for exaltation. Many of those things are good and support us, though.”
I desperately want a list of the things that ARE required…
and a list of those things that support us…like VTing…or potato salad.
Might you have such a list?
Thanks everyone. Lots to respond to. First, I only put “PM” because it was quicker.
Now then…perhaps I am starting to feel a “release” as I consider that section 132 is incorrect/non-inspired/wrong, etc.
However…the verbage is weighing on my mind.
So, let’s say that Joseph Smith was “experimenting” with revealed truths. It seems that toying with the heart of his wife would be a dangerous game to play.
:eh: If toying with it, then why would the entire section read as though the Lord himself were dictating the passage? Surely Joseph Smith didn’t fabricate the whole section…did he? Although, to find out that the “revelation” was pulled from a desk drawer after his death is of note…and a sour note at that.Hypothetical mind games are horrible…but if the Lord’s house is a house of order, then surely we can find the clarity for which our hearts yearn.
When I was at my point of despair over this…and in tears…asking why, if polygamy was “legal” in heaven, was it so one-sided? Why can’t the women love whomever they choose? You know…all of those questions that run through our minds. And, I’m telling you…the words that came into my mind were, “Suffer it to be so now.”
That right there was like the balm of Gilead. I stopped crying. I stopped breathing for a minute. I was soothed.
I am still “soothed” to a point, but it helps to find wonderful people like you who have gone down this road before…who can succor people like me…who aren’t angry or hostile or bitter.
I am so appreciative of your comments…all of them. To think that MAYBE…just maybe the mortal men who have led this church may have made some mistakes…and that we can follow what our hearts tells us is liberating.
Thank you!
Ann wrote:Hi, QuestionAbound – Here’s what I believe lately: Polygamy and polyandry were mistakes. The church can still “be true” in a redefined sense. Section 132 will be removed or modified at some point. I don’t see what we’re waiting for. Do many of us know people who would be interested in a church that espouses polygamy? Being comfortable with my own thoughts is a huge relief.
Isn’t D&C 132 the only place the revelation about eternal marriage is found?
I understand eternal marriage to be different from plural marriage.
If D&C 132 were removed, would that, in effect, remove the ideology of an eternal family unit?
If D&C 132 were just modified, wouldn’t some naysayers cry “foul”…to pick and choose what is modified is akin to being selective about which commandments we keep.
Am I off?
This is a slightly stale thread here, but I HAVE to mention something that so many others neglect…. I think that polyandry MIGHT be something that is allowed….
41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man,
and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. so perhaps, if another man is “appointed” unto her, then she can have him. lol.
I eagerly look forward to the day when *I* can let another man bed me (in the name of religion, of course)!!
But I also wanted to point out this…
D&C is very poorly worded and structured. It seems to talk in circles. It isn’t clear…well, not very clear.
But this verse right here sealed the deal for me…
v. 61
And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a
virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adulterywith that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. Since JS married other married women, some explain the “virgin requirement” away by saying that a definition of “virgin” is one who is not a mother. Indeed, the 1828 Webster’s dictionary offers that as a “rare” definition. Why would the Lord use the
most rareusage of the word in something so obviously personal and emotional… a topic that He would have known would cause so much controversy? How about the “vowed to no other man” part? Riddle me that one? Did JS forget that one little rule when he married other married women?
Finally, how about the part of “he cannot commit adultery”? Some apologists say that JS didn’t have carnal relations with ALL of his wives…but I’m pretty sure that if he lusted after them he already committed adultery.
The whole section is clunky to me. It seems like the author is falling over himself to be understood…and the Lord would not need to do that. He would word something as important as this very carefully and very plainly and very clearly.
If the goal is to “raise up seed”…I rather think that many monogamous relationships are doing just that…”raising up seed”. I know I am with my family. I am raising a fantastic set of “seeds”.
quickly“, then I could understand it. But that isn’t what the scripture said. As has been said…does the first wife have to giver her consent or not? If the latter, then women have effectively been reduced to objects…and I’m not sure Heavenly Father wants us to feel that way.
It just doesn’t stand to reason that the Lord would institute something so eternal and so binding on the whole earth for such a short time…a few decades, really…and then it was gone again.
For me…I’m telling you that polyandry makes WAY more sense than polygyny. Hear me out…
More than one full-time wage earner.
More than one to do the honey-do list.
No more 39 kids running to greet one man as he walks in the door.
More protection for the family.
And the more intimate side is better this way. A woman requires less resolution time than a man does.
And…I could go on, but those reasons right there are enough for me.
And…I think it was President Uchtdorf who said that our Heavenly Father would not ask his daughters to do anything that was degrading or demeaning. I believe that. It is for that reason that I think that PM is NOT part of the Lord’s plan.
I think that the temples are still sealing men to multiple women b/c either they can’t stop such an out of control habit, or there really will be an
optionof creating worlds with more than one person. For sure I can see it as a possibility…whether with more than one husband or more than one wife. I can see partnerships forming like that. Someone reasoned PM in heaven by saying…”One Heavenly Mother couldn’t possibly mother an entire earth. There’s no way she could keep track of all of the spirit offspring. She would need help…cue multiple wives.”
I laughed at that.
1. Is there a time limit on creating spirits for a world? In the ETERNITIES, is there really a time frame that would necessitate multiple uteruses?
2. If Heavenly Mother is a Goddess…we would discount her status by saying that She couldn’t “handle” that many kids.
3. If a mother needs that much help with that many kids and needed to call in other mothers…wouldn’t it stand to reason that a father would need just as much help raising them and would need to call in other fathers?
Finally…is there sex in heaven? If not, then why would it matter if we were sealed to other people?
Just sayin’!
