[Rix]

Old-Timer wrote:

I really, really, really hope (and I might even add another “really, really”) that this thread doesn’t devolve into a generic “homosexuality and gay marriage” thread.

Oops, sorry Ray…I posted before I read this….

[Rix]

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.

If I’m not mistaken (and I could be!), I think that IS the policy today. The real question is, as the leadership comes to understand (that’s how I would put it…) that God made gays how they are, what is considered “chaste?” “Sex” only within their committed union — however that is defined?

[Rix]

HiJolly wrote:

I believe it may be so. I have no compelling evidence either way.

HiJolly

Nor do I…but it’s interesting to me to see that there are many church members that are open to the possibility. I am happy to see that.

My own thoughts (and I DEFINITELY could be wrong!!!) are that the interest we have in the next life is natural, but so nebulous to understand that I don’t give it much energy. I know that is probably bizarre to many, but it seems that if we spend so much time worrying about what we may not really be able to “know,” that we forget the “heaven” that is right before our eyes today!

[Rix]

swimordie wrote:

…btw, my sorta-TBM DW has taken up yoga and absolutely loves it! In fact, she’d miss SM to go if she had too. 😆 😆

I don’t think she sees it as religious or spiritual, just extremely helpful to re-gain sanity after a long day at work, home, kids, etc. Viva yoga!!!

Thanks (all) for the comments. This article, and many others I’ve read recently, have sparked me to think about a new way to describe spirituality. In the article it said that more and more people today are labeling themselves as “spiritual, but not religious.”Years ago, I would have tilted my head and said “doh!” I thought it was the same thing!

I don’t today. But before I de-rail my own thread, I will say that I consider yoga quite spiritual. I am also into massage, meditation, breath work, and other techniques that create an internal environment that seems to tune one’s spirit with deity. My first experience with this was while I was on my mish to Japan…there were many rituals that I participated in where I felt very “spiritual,” and they had nothing to do with “church.”

I’m curious about other’s thoughts on the subject. Thanks!

[Rix]

mcarp wrote:

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.

Nice post mcarp! I think there is good logic in what you say…and I hope you’re right on!

[Rix]

swimordie wrote:

I wasn’t going to comment but I do have an observation that I think pertains to some of the recent posts.

Ray mentioned the anti-porn crusade by GBH and it made me think of the breast augmentation craze by women in the church, especially of my generation, particularly in the inner-mountain west/california.

I know that it’s probably more of a socio-economic phenomenon, but I can’t help but wonder what the underlying message/meaning of it is in the culture. Does it speak subtly to the roles of women that are held culturally? Is it just members playing out the normal processes of other non-lds women in a peer demographic?

I’ll bet YOU know the answer to your question, swim . My wife works for a plastic surgeon in Orem, and there is a consistent pattern in the patients. Of course there is also a lot of tummy tucks/lipo as well, and because of the higher numbers of babies in the culture, the “baby fat” thing is understandable.

BUt I think the main answer you are looking for is that probably more than outside the church, there is a “gotta be perfect, gotta appear good for others” sort of drive in many LDS women. Again, looking for validation outside rather than inside. However, I also see a positive…I think LDS women are evolving to a more open and comfortable attitude of sexuality…something more hush-hush in previous decades. As a warm-blooded normal male, I’m happy to see this! 😆 😳 😈

[Rix]

Orson wrote:

I got what he was saying – but at the same time I sensed a deeper dimension than the two dimensional words may express. I could sense that truly putting ourselves first will make us that much more healthy and capable of serving others…

Absolutely! And for the right reasons!

[Rix]

swimordie wrote:

@TomHaws:

In reality, the idea of gaining emotional health by breaking the cycle of codependency is not to be selfish, rather it’s to be truly self-less in one’s actions, intentions, and motivations, in any and all human relationships. Because one is doing these things out of unconditional love, without regard to reward, praise, thanks, or validation.

Boy that’s powerful! And I think it’s hard for “lower stage” folks to understand, but as it relates to substance abuse, there is a common family dynamic that points to the addict’s spouse/parent enabling the user in one way or another. During counseling, we find that the spouse often “cannot” see the addict suffer, so they struggle to set appropriate boundaries. But when we dig deeper it is a lack of self love on the part of the spouse where she/he feels the need to be accepted by the other, and that “other” learns this and pushes the buttons to instill enough guilt to get what “he” wants. This is the codependency cycle.

As it relates to spirituality, as one develops self love, they can behave with others in ways that are best for them…not needing the personal praise. IOW, when one is “right with God,” we don’t need another person to tell us we’re okay. That is the ultimate spirituality.

IMHO.

[Rix]

Tom Haws wrote:

Codependency. I desire to learn more about this.

If you’re sincere about this, get ready for a real ride! For one thing, there are many definitions of codependency…so without reading a few descriptions, it can be quite confusing (maybe a better way to say that is when you DO read about each definition, it may confuse you even more!). “Codependency” started in the drug/alcohol recovery field. Melody Beattie wrote the book that most of us druggies trying to get well had to read called “Codependent No More.” It’s a great place to start. But I’ll tell you that most read her descriptions and think to ourselves “but that’s what we do when we love somebody!”

And of course there is some truth to that. But we must each find our healthy boundaries as it relates to relationships. As parents, we are natural enablers to our children. The question becomes how and when do we cut the umbilical chord? When we don’t, both parties become “sick.” One definition I find helpful is:

“As adults, codependent people have a greater tendency to get involved in relationships with people who are perhaps unreliable, emotionally unavailable, or needy. And the codependent person tries to provide and control everything within the relationship without addressing their own needs or desires; setting themselves up for continued unfulfillment.”

I personally like to define it as “when a person’s well-being depends on the outcomes of another’s behaviors.”

Fast-forward to religion…particularly Mormonism. We are taught to have “stewardship” over many people; our families, our HTing families, our ward members (as leaders), and so on. Then we go on missions and charged to convert people there. We spend so much time and effort on others that we tend to disregard our own needs. To an extent, “spirituality” is experienced only when serving others. That leaves out a whole segment of spiritual experience! Some of my most sacred spiritual experiences have been while I was alone in nature.

To top it off, there is a common tendency to consider self-improving activities as “selfish,” a negative trait in the church culture.

So the point is (I hope), that when we live for another’s outcomes in life, we set ourselves up for disappointment, since we only can totally control ourselves. Others are different than we are, and they will have different ways of thinking and doing life. That results in disappointment and depression. It is only when we learn to truly put ourselves first, and not feel the least bit guilty about doing so, that we can find our ultimate bliss.

That’s the start….

[Rix]

swimordie wrote:

Shame is never appropriate; it is a feeling we manufacture in ourselves when responding to someone/something that we are emotionally dependent on. If we weren’t emotionally dependent on the “other” and instead gain all of our emotional health from inside, we will never feel shame, for we know that what we do is always with the appropriate intention and motivation.

Sorry for the novel. btw, disregard all of this if it doesn’t work for you. I hope my sharing it will help me in my journey, and if it helps someone else, YEAAHHH!!!

Well said! After reading many of your posts, swimordie, I think we have travelled a similar path.

From my introduction, many know here I fought drug addiction. My healing process was very transformational, and much of what you said here are truths that helped me “recover.” I’m actually called on occasionally to talk about the process of recovering from drugs, and how it relates to recovering from religion. They are quite similar — for the reasons you noted. When there is a dependence on an outside source for validation, without it comes deep despair and loneliness. With that validation comes a misinterpretation of why they “feel good.” It’s simply fulfilling the craving they think they need to be okay. Drugs give the same, temporary relief. It’s only when you learn to find the validation within that you can heal.

But I know I’m preaching to the choir here…just wanted to tell you I resonate much with your thoughts!

[Rix]

HiJolly wrote:

Rix wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

Wordsleuth23,

…”Doubt not, but be believing”. You choose not to. OK. Your comments are the natural result of this.

I think it might be helpful to point out that most of us here “doubt” some things about the functioning of the church. I don’t think we would be on this forum if we didn’t. I find that each of us have peeled layers off the totally literal, perfect church that we were brought up to believe in. Many here are naturalists, secularists, and even atheists…but continue to believe that the LDS culture may offer some benefits for various reasons.

So I am just saying that (IMHO) any comments regarding the teachings of the church are fair play, and I don’t see the benefit of criticizing another’s take on the possible lack of perfect inspiration/revelation from God regarding the ascribed “commandments.”

But maybe that’s just me….

Thanks, Rix. I didn’t see my comment as being critical at all. If it is, then I apologize, as that was not my intention.

What is, is. We choose to believe or disbelieve, we choose to act or not, as we will. I don’t think anyone can deny that we all face essentially unavoidable consequences to those choices, though we can certainly debate concerning how this occurs, or whom is behind it all.

I don’t have problem with doubt, in its proper place and time. I deal with it personally, all the time. At the same time, I never doubt anymore that God (in whatever form) exists. That just where I am. There’s plenty of other things to doubt, including tithing!

DOUBT

The downside:

Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might

win by fearing to attempt.

— William Shakespeare,

Measure for Measure, Act 1

The upside:

“To refuse to doubt, think about or question what you are told

is to miss an opportunity to talk to God”

— Father Leo Booth

The annoying truth:

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and

the intelligent are full of doubt.”

— Bertrand Russell

The uplifting truth:

“Living with ambiguity is a form of intellectual honesty, of

humility. It is only when we admit that we don’t know that we

are receptive to what lessons may be taught. In some strange

way, it also brings an inner peace since we are no longer

fighting reality to maintain our inner fantasies on how things

should be. While I am characterizing it as an intellectual

process, it also has spiritual implications, since only an open

mind is capable of hearing God.”

— Andy Piereder (on Eyring-L)

HiJolly

No problem, HIJolley. It looks like I misinterpreted your comment. One thing I’ve enjoyed by participating here is the diverse, yet respected beliefs we each have. I do admit that one of the annoying things I find in the church is the attempts by many to mold others to their way of thinking and believing. It’s a natural trait — something many of us learned as missionaries, but today annoys me to no end! Today I migrate to people that believe and live differently than I. Seems I can learn much from them.

I also admit that I don’t personally give much credence to quotes by church leaders or “scripture.” I am fine to view them as one person’s attempt to sell their product to others, and I don’t feel any of them have more “authority” or access to “God’s” truths than I or others. That’s just where I am today.

BUT, I do love the quotes you posted about doubt! Especially the last few!

Thanks!

[Rix]

HiJolly wrote:

Wordsleuth23,

…”Doubt not, but be believing”. You choose not to. OK. Your comments are the natural result of this.

I think it might be helpful to point out that most of us here “doubt” some things about the functioning of the church. I don’t think we would be on this forum if we didn’t. I find that each of us have peeled layers off the totally literal, perfect church that we were brought up to believe in. Many here are naturalists, secularists, and even atheists…but continue to believe that the LDS culture may offer some benefits for various reasons.

So I am just saying that (IMHO) any comments regarding the teachings of the church are fair play, and I don’t see the benefit of criticizing another’s take on the possible lack of perfect inspiration/revelation from God regarding the ascribed “commandments.”

But maybe that’s just me….

[Rix]

HiJolly wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

Do you believe your traditional Mormonism was useful because it is “True” and allows for exploration unlimitless, or is it more a cultural thing that just seems to make sense to you?

I like to think it is the principles of traditional Mormonism; things like continuing revelation, angelic ministrations, keys of asking and receiving, Gift of the Holy Ghost, temples, etc.

OR….are they the principles of Mormonism because they are universally true? Do you think it’s possible that Joseph (particularly) instituted these “principles” because they had been experienced by him and others…and they worked? We do tend to be attracted to, and fascinated by the mystical and secretive things. It makes us feel “special,” doesn’t it?

[Rix]

notsureanymore wrote:

We don’t have a great deal of friends in the Ward we are in. Our ward is unique, lots of med students that come and go.

Thanks for the answers. I personally think they are important issues to consider when thinking about how to proceed. Most here have issues with family…and within the typical LDS culture, they tend to frown on “doubters.”

So my approach is, what makes you happy? Do you enjoy going to church? Do you get a sense of belonging, hope, fellowship there? Is it a social outlet that you enjoy? Do you feel a sense of spirituality that is helpful to you?

I think the answers to those questions would be helpful. Personally, I think there are many paths to “heaven,” whatever that is for you. Many here continue activity in church for a new set of reasons than “it is the only way to get to heaven.” So I think it wise for you to weigh all the issues.

Good luck!

[Rix]

notsureanymore wrote:

I enjoy the church, but have issues with some of the doctrines.

Hi there…welcome! Yes, this place can be helpful. What you said above is the common thread here, and so far, I’ve found it a friendly, very supportive forum. I like that it’s “real,” you can say your piece without getting too many guilt-inducing responses!

Everybody here seems to have a different “take” on God, religion, and the doctrines. It’s fun to see the various beliefs here. We all have a degree of involvement in the church, and most of us have family members active that we deal with in different ways to keep the peace.

So I have a few questions for you. You said your wife wants you to “deal with your issues.” Yet, she is questioning her testimony. What is she really asking?

Next, do you have kids? Are they active with friends that are active? Where do you live? Are your friends mostly active?

I have some thoughts, but these answers might help me. Thanks!

[Author]

Posts