Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
I meant, primarily, fights over control of what children are taught. I didn’t mean actual custody battles as my main concern.
Oh I got that. And that’s what I was talking about too. In heterosexual divorces there are many times a difference of desires over what the kids are taught, and whether or not there should be baptisms or blessings, or who should be doing them etc. My point was that feelings are hot in every and all divorces, no matter the reason. Typically for example. the war is the same whether a woman was being left for another woman or a man. There is really not a higher level of conflict when one is gay. The high conflict divorces come from HCPs not over being gay. People don’t typically divorce because they have different favorite colors. In many many cases, especially in the church, divorce is happening because one of the people experienced a fundamental shift in beliefs in one way or the other. One wants to leave the church, one wants to have affairs, etc. This happens all the time. Heterosexual divorces can be very riddled with disagreements on what to teach the kids, and one parent is quite often being a bad example or teaching something contrary to the other. But the church doesn’t make the policy that if one of the parents decides to leave the marriage and live a life of sin of most other varieties that the children must be barred from ordinances. It’s a double standard. It is being exclusive.
It is an unfair prejudice statement to assume that because one parent has come out as being gay, they will fight against church teachings and/or what the child should be taught. There are some gay people who wanted to offer their children choices, or still wanted their children to glean good stuff from the church. Many are not anti-mormon at all. I just think it’s unfair to say, “Gay people will fight more against church teachings that [group A, B or C] therefore let’s make a policy on that. Are they setting an example contrary to church teachings? Sure. But so is every other group of divorced people who were responsible for the end of their marriage, one way or the other. The problem that I have is the exclusivity of the policy singling out only certain groups and treating them differently.
I disagree with what my kids should be taught all the time with my ex. We battled over the baptism of our older children.When my kids were baptized, he disagreed about how it was being handled, and even tried calling the Bishop in attempt to get his way. The Bishop simply said, “Who has legal custody?” And was legally bound to do what I wanted. Period. And if we had joint custody, he would not do the baptism. Does the church care to get involved when I disagree with him over what our children should be taught? Not at all. If he wanted to teach them Buddhism the church would still baptise them.
Anyway, I would be fine moving the age for everyone to 18. It just irks me when the church spent so much time grilling in a certain point and then says, “Oh you took me serious? Shame on you. That’s not what I said; that’s not what I meant; that’s not what happened; you are misinterpreting; over reacting; being a drama queen; how dare you think so bad of me?” That is very real process that certain people use almost verbatim. That’s called Gaslighting and it’s very wrong. So the church spent so many years grilling into our heads that if we didn’t baptize our kids the minute they turned 8 we would burn in hell (or at least the Mormon version of hell) and it would be spiritual death which is so much worse than physical… yada yada and they have to want it but it’s our job to make them want it or else… and now they say that it really isn’t imperative to baptize at 8 or anything… but only because it is convenient for them in this circumstance. Is it imperative or not? Yet they don’t retract the practice for everyone else. If it isn’t imperative then stop trying to fear monger the other parents about it. They can’t have it both ways and say A when it suits them and B when it suits them. Well that’s not really true is it? The church can and does have it both ways with many things, according to which point it wants to play. One reason for many a faith crisis.
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t want the LDS Church to be involved in what amounts to custody battles with parents over minor children.I also don’t want divorced parents where one is lesbian or gay to use the LDS Church as a pawn in their custody battles – and that is sure to happen when the straight spouse is LDS and, especially, living in a heavily Mormon-dominated area. Ray– love you… but I heard this one before in various levels about conflicting views between divorced parents and custodial interference etc. That would work except for that in no way one parent being gay doesn’t add or subtract from how volatile divorces can be, and or how the church and personal beliefs can be used as pawns. I have seen and experienced first hand what happens when divorced parents disagree over religion and belief systems raising their children. It is not an anomaly and bishops have been dealing with it for years. being gay or straight in no way changes how parental rights and beliefs are handled. Gay people divorcing are not more bitter or vengeful than non gays or vice versa. What contributes to the volatility of a divorce and the level of confliction is generally High Conflict Personality Disorders or tendencies. They are not more prevalent in the gay community.
I went through this with my ex and we are straight. I wanted one thing and he wanted something else. There is a church policy and on baptism and it applies perfectly and is right and fair and legally backed and even required. If parents disagree on religious items such as whether or not to be baptised, the only one who gets to make the decision is the one with legal custody. If there is joint custody, the church does nothing. There is no baptism. But the decision is never ever put on the kids. It is then it is due to the agency of the parents and not a ruling of the church excluding anyone. If the kid needs someone to be mad at, they can be mad at the parent with the opposite views. While this always comes with some damage points, it is a far far different level of damage than a policy that by it’s nature would make a child feel fundamentally flawed, broken, unaccepted and unlovable.
If the church will exclude children whose parents might disagree and use the church as a weapon of war, then the church must exclude all children of divorce. After all, one parent might be catholic or feel the mormon church is a cult, and claim that it’s cruelty to subject a child to the “mormon cult.” Does it happen? A LOT, HCPs (High Conflict Personalities) will generally say and do anything and abuse every institution they can in order to hurt, manipulate and control the other. This is not rare. Not by far. Definitely not related to sexuality. This policy is all about the double standard.
I watched the video and the take home message I got was: 1-We don’t want to have to send home teachers and visiting teachers into that home.
2-We don’t want the child to feel they are expected to be in primary.
3-You are free to think what you want. But don’t publicly advocate it or we could excommunicate you.
Cut through the smooth talk and the tone of voice, and see if that’s what you got. Many of you will not get that, but I am betting many will.
I am not gay. I am as straight as it comes. My parents are straight Nazi mormons. Not just TBMs. My kids are all straight. (So far, I guess you never really know until they reach sexual maturity.) I only have gay acquaintances. But I have empathy for the under dogs, who suffer because they didn’t get to live the bubble life because the rules that we were told should apply just don’t seem to apply to us, no matter how hard we try.
If ever there was a time for home teachers, visiting teachers and primary teachers etc to come out of the woodwork and support a family, it should be when they are in a painful, hard or unusual situation. Keep in mind, these parents would have consented to their children receiving these blessings and ordinances. By all evidence they would be statistically open to help, support and socialization from church members. In fact this would be the time they needed it most. It isn’t easy being gay in most of the US neighborhoods at least, and definitely raising children against all the antagonism and social issues and ostracization… And the church is going to make it worse? Refer to Maslow and his tried and true hierarchy of needs. After physical needs are met, it is imperative that if you ever want to reach someone spiritually (at that top of the pyramid) you have to make them feel safe, loved and accepted first. Jesus knew this. This is why he fed the masses. So because these parents are gay we are going to treat them and their children as untouchables? We shouldn’t even try? Let them flounder out there in the world completely alone?
Imagine this: You have a little happy 7 year old kiddo happy to live in his little mormon neighborhood and go to church with all his/her sweet mormon friends. They are innocent and pure and perfect as God sent them. But your spouse decides to come out and go live with their partner. (Don’t think it can happen to you? Can’t relate? Well there are so many TBMs it happens to it would make your head spin. Don’t ever say never. Even if it never does you should count yourself lucky, but we all have a moral obligation to have empathy for those not as lucky.) How do you think that baby is going to feel watching all of his/her friends get baptized and he/she can’t? How to you explain he/she is really being protected? It’s a lie. It’s not protection and won’t be treated as protection. That baby will feel the ostracization no matter how you explain it. It will be a major hit to the self concept, and internalized in ways that are most likely lifelong implications… they won’t just get over that. And how do you think those other kids will treat that kid? It’s very ignorant to think they won’t change the way they treat that kid. Whether it is meant to be or not, this is a message. It will be treated by so many as a license to ostracize, judge, abandon and mistreat those who need the Savior’s love and acceptance more than ever.
And nice reminder he threw in at the end: Sure you can think what you want. But don’t forget we can hurt you if you don’t behave right and keep your mouth shut. This keeps the fence sitters quiet for sure.
OH ouch my heart hurts today. I had my issues with the church before but I was trying to hang on to the good stuff. But this is just too much. This is so not inspired. Besides the article of faith….
Ezekiel 18:20
…The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Imagine you are a missionary and a 14 year old kid just discovered the gospel. Imagine you have to stand to his face and say, “I am sorry, you cannot be a member of our church because of your parents.” The irreparable mental number that kid would be devastated with.
Imagine when the kids in an 8 year old class are all getting baptized, and there is one who suddenly is feeling like he is so fundamentally broken that not even God wants him. Imagine the culture that breeds of how the other kids will now likely treat that one for the rest of his/her childhood.
What message does this send all of the church in their social interactions with gays? And what message it sends the gays and their children?
If kids can choose right from wrong and choose to join a church when they are 8, being the child of gay parents doesn’t change that. I think this is a cold and calculated manipulation. I think the geriatric dream team who have all lived in bubbles their whole lives are being petty, punitive and literally making a “business move” on purpose, but it’s a very uninspired cruel one. I think they are waiting to the age of SEXUAL maturity, thinking gay runs in families or some other such nonsense and they can weed out future gay members that way. Step one. Every mental health professional, educator and well just about everyone, knows that if you want to make real changes in someone, the earlier the intervention the better. Younger are more teachable. Once people reach adulthood change certainly can and does happen, but the odds go way down. If you won’t take them when they are young, you might not ever get them. Especially if they were rejected as children. Gay weed wacker from the get go.
Then there is another factor. Children of gays will be more likely to be sympathetic to gay rights, even if they are straight. Now they just can’t have that can they? A whole bunch of future members and potential leaders pushing for any sort of gay rights or sympathy (empathy)… oh no that has to be shut down before it starts! So let’s make it improbable that the most likely to push for change won’t even join the church to begin with.
There are few 18 year olds who are able to be fully financially independent right away in this day and economy. Moving out too early can many times be financial suicide and can bring a life of poverty. I am not saying it can’t be done, certainly some do. But that extra burden on a child to have to choose their family and their survival and future and play it against faith is just wrong.
The message is wrong, the policy is NOT inspired, and is wrong. I feel betrayed and devastated by the church I once loved so very much. I am so angry and sad I don’t even know what to do with it.
Good thoughts. I am sorting it out and thinking that as well. As a normal person might want to think they are safe because they taught their kids to never sneak out at night (as did I) the church member might also think they are protected because they count their steps and check the boxes. It’s still hard not to be angry but I am working on letting it go. I guess they just are not currently capable of that kind of growth and there is no pushing that. Totally agreed. Trauma counseling vital. But no kidding I am getting crap like, “that’s why our prophet teaches against sleepovers!” And “well if you would just teach your kids obedience.” Really? There is a Mormon element to this. How do I handle the self righteous? SilentDawning wrote:what kind of a person thrives in Utah?
Of course there are as many individual experiences anecdotally speaking as you need to make any given point, but I can speak from mine, which is going to include a lot of generalities. First answer:
Depends on the part of Utah. The nicer areas to live in as far as great neighborhoods and schools and such tend to be along the east mountain shelf. Before I moved to Utah, I heard stories about how it was very divided and people were very snobby about “which side of the tracks you live on.” It is my experience that it is true. You can almost draw 3 lines through the valley parallel to the mountains, and coincidentally you can almost feel the income changes across the blocks. There are some parts where it switches and west is OK but it’s mostly east. I live in Bountiful which is very snobby. I love the area. It’s very safe and beautiful. Like I said- schools are awesome. But here you find the highest number of pharisees and fakes and church bullies and I have a hard time with that. There is a middle few miles that start just west of myhouse that has more of a mix of people, and a few blocks more west of that is a very different crowd. The higher the income, the more conformism there tends to be.
Nice but more conformist areas that I have experience:
Alpine/Highland
much of Utah County
Bountiful
West Bountiful City
Centerville
Farmington
Kaysville
Fruit Heights
North Ogden
Areas that I find less than desirable but also have a more “forgiving” crowd in my personal experience:
West Valley
Most of Layton
Most of Ogden
I know this might not mean much to you now if you don’t know the area but if your daughter is moving there it might become surprisingly relevant. Also I do want to be clear that it’s JMO and my experience. There are the baddies in ALL areas, and good people in ALL areas. But as far as the better areas who I think does best are:
The keep up with the Jones-ers
The stay at home moms who sew matching outfits
If you are not Peter Priesthoods or Molly Mormons– you hide it well
TBMs with no unique ideas of their own
People who not just keep their lawn perfectly manicured but report their neighbors for any imagined “violations” because they are only doing the right thing
People with perfect children who serve missions and get married in the temple
(Essentially judgmental types)
You know… there was a news spot on time on Utah’s passive aggressive driving problem. Some police report it is higher than here than most places. They reported that the number one reason people would pull in front of other people and slow down is because they claimed they felt it was their right and duty to slow down the speeders because they had to “do the right thing.” I totally see that in many Utahns. I have lots of stories but won’t go there for now. It really is something you have to see from the inside to get it.
My kids have a hard time in school where they are because the culture is very polarized. You have your TBMs (with fakers) and then there are the bad kids, and there is some in between but not much. If the “good kids” decide to reject someone, it sort of seems like the only other option is the bad kids. I keep encouraging my kids to find the middle ground, but Bountiful is very hard that way. I am sure the exist but harder to find.
My best guess for your daughter’s experience is that the TBM Utah mormons will spend way too much time vacillating between trying to “fully convert her” so that she conforms, and judging her. She might also have a hard time with dating because it’s hard to find a guy that doesn’t want a Molly or Jack(ie). Is that a thing? lol! She might not appreciate that experience. I haven’t. But it would probably be am experience she needs or else she will always blame you for being a dictator and not letting her try what she believes will make her happy. I hope that doesn’t turn her anti. There are far too many people that got pushed too far and became anti and hateful and I don’t think that is right either. But who knows? Maybe I am wrong and she will find her niche here and live happily ever after.
So… if your family demanding a $30K pony plus expenses… would you buy it? Only you can decide what answer is right for you. However… I wanted to move to Utah for all the same reasons your family did BTW. When I told my friends what I was doing they thought I was crazy. They were TBMS. One even said “are you nuts? Those Utah Mormons will eat you alive!” I did… and they were right. Major disillusionment. If you don’t deal well with your home ward and have church bully issues anyway… it won’t be long before the shark pit here takes its toll. I cannot tell you how many people I have met that say they came to the promise land just to lose their testimonies. Then what??? You just fork it out to move back? The streets are not paved with gold. It is far from utopia. There are lots of good people here. There are also lots and lots of Pharisees and fakes. There is an entirely different subculture that you really would have to experience to understand. I loved it for years… until I saw too much and the bullies had their way with my kids. I was OK with them thinking whatever they thought of me… but they judged and alienated my kids for no good reason and pretended to do it in the name of God. It takes a special kind of Mormon to be happy here. I don’t recommend it for people who don’t do the box very well. I don’t play that and my particular neighbors hate that. Don’t get me wrong. I am NOT saying ALL Utah Mormons are like that. There are very many good people, but you can’t tell that until you are on the inside. I do feel there are WAY too many baddies and it’s hard to feel emotionally safe in that type of environment to grow spiritually. I know it would be better if I played the game better but it’s not a sport I care for. I guess one question you and your family need to ask yourselves is, “How good are you at the game? Do you want to play?” Are you willing to place bets of $30k plus job security, health insurance, pay cut, and rental income loss?
Your reasons are real. Your family wants you to move just because they want? Sorry sounds a bit spoiled to me. I would rather have a bit of financial security any day. You are not wrong for thinking supporting your family is MONUMENTAL. You are provider and you take much of you identity from that. If more men were like that… well there would be much less suffering of the innocents from poverty/homelessness/hunger. Maybe they don’t understand how much blood you have to let to provide for them, especially in the way they are obviously accustomed. Sometimes people get it… but they don’t get it. I don’t think its worth your financial risk. Grass is always greener? Well do you have enough green to not miss it if it doesn’t work out like they thought? I don’t know many people like that even if you do pretty well. JMO.
That’s why I put UT in my screen name. If anyone here in Utah ever wants to find someone else from UT its fairly obvious. Bountiful specifically. I also wear tank tops outside and don’t try to dress as if I am covering garments because I wont wear them. Also if you were every to run into me at a pool you might catch a glimpse of the tattoo I got two years ago. I don’t hide. I am right out in public. Wow called to serve, I sure wish God would have told me something to do to fix it. But in my case I don’t think Heaven and Earth could have (or maybe just wouldn’t have) stopped either one of husbands. There were occasions when I would have had enough, and I would leave, and that would invoke a temporary change. Usually just enough to get me hooked, and then the resources were clamped down even harder and I would find it even more impossible to make another attempt. I was forever optimistic though that deep down they really were good guys who loved me and just didn’t know how to function yet, and I could somehow love them through it and be a good enough wife that they would realize they never wanted to live without me. I really thought that one day they would see how much what they did was hurting, and since I thought at heart they were really good people deep down, they would just stop. As it turns out, my first was so extremely narcissist that he didn’t even love his own kids, even stealing their medicines etc. If he could benefit from the death or injury of one of his kids he would jump on it. No- this isn’t just a bitter ex wife talking. There are real reasons I say this. My current husband, idk, I am still deciding how much of a heart he really has or not. In some ways he is so much more abusive than the first, but he at least is capable of loving his children anyway. I am coming to the point of forming my exit strategy but trying to do so in such as way I don’t end up homeless or near it. Or dead.
To really understand the reasons I would go back after the few escape attempts I have made, check out this article:
http://www.hurtbylove.com/checklist-blackmail/ If I could just grab my kids (and my dogs and my photography stuff) I would disappear and never look back. But then real life creeps back in.
Speaking of suicide, after the loss of my cousin my grandpa sent this and I found it comforting. I thought the woman who wrote it had some good points and I found it comforting: http://eatthinkbemerry.com/2014/06/a-perspective-on-suicide/ I especially liked how she said:
“My family was watching a documentary on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and for the first time, I saw footage of someone jumping from the window of one of the twin towers. All at once, I understood what Jay’s bishop had meant. The person was not jumping from the building to die, but rather to escape the intense and consuming flames. Nobody would accuse that person of being selfish or of giving up on life.”
Old-Timer wrote:I agree and simply will point out how old that quote is. On-going revelation is an important concept, even when it isn’t viewed the way orthodoxy would define it.
Previous people did the best they could with their own understanding, just as we do now. Many aspects of our vision through dark glasses have improved, but we still see darkly in many ways. I try to remember that when viewing others, past and present – and when I am prone to judge myself.
Yes you are right. And I am likely to be a little sensitive and have a knee jerk reaction from the circumstance I am in.
