[Roadrunner]

There are no set questions, it’s entirely up to the bishop.

For what it’s worth I told my children the no masturbation rule is not realistic and as long as they are discreet to not feel gugilty. if the bishop asks them about masturbation I also told them to tell him it’s between them and their parents and I’ll take it from there.

[Roadrunner]

I was raised in a small but heavily LDS town and was told fasting means not drinking water. My parents’ reasoning was that water eases hunger pains and therefore diminishes the sacrifice of fasting. Since I left home if I fast I do drink water because it seems unwise to skip water for even a few hours.

Yesterday at church I drank from the water fountain when a child and her mother walked by. I felt a twinge of guilt and wondered if they looked down on me for drinking water. It can be difficult to overcome what we are taught as children.

[Roadrunner]

I sincerely hope the best for these two women. God bless them and give them lifetimes of happiness.

The story does not give me warm fuzzies. We will need to follow them for 5 or 10 years or longer to see how it turns out. I also don’t see the story being well received by the LGBT community and I think if it’s broadly publicized it could backfire not among the church but in the public eye.

[Roadrunner]

AmyJ wrote:

…

Going to an Institute class while in a faith turmoil is tough to swallow because I will be devoting resources to speaking sheep-ese and be on “my best behavior”.

…

2. he has made it a point to tell us that he can support this.

…

3. In a sense I am painting a “I’m Mormon” sign on my resume more than I already have, and that might have consequences. Since I am in Michigan, it may be a thing, or may not be a thing.

Hi AmyJ,

Many of Pathway attendees are 30+ or 40+ in my experience and in many cases more confident in not pandering to the instructor in “sheep-ese”. There will still be some of it but it probably won’t be like attending the required Book of Mormon class at BYU. One of my best friends is 43 and wrapping up Pathways and he’s anything but the stereotypical Mormon. In face he categorically refuses to step foot on any BYU campus but has thrived in Pathways.

It might be worthwhile having an open conversation with hubby and kids to remind them this is a multi-year commitment and that it will require sacrifices from him and the entire family. Everybody should have an understanding about the time commitment but also the benefits you hope to gain after graduating.

I have BYU on my resume and I work for one of the most liberal companies in the USA and which is headquartered in liberal California. I do have a masters from a school that isn’t BYU which helps mitigate the problem, but everyone knows I’m Mormon anyways. While being Mormon hasn’t helped me it hasn’t hurt me either. Most professionals these days understand that religion isn’t necessarily an indicator of on the job performance. I’d say the same thing about other minority religions such as Jews and Muslims. That being said I don’t advertise that I’m Mormon either.

The degree without the burden of large debt will be much more helpful from BYU-I than not having the degree. I agree with Ray on this one.

Best wishes in Pathways!

[Roadrunner]

Most anti video game comments I’ve heard have to do with it being a waste of time if not played in moderation. Let me share a few anecdotes.

1. In a meeting with local mission presidents, stake presidents, and bishops – and a Q12 – I heard a mission president say at the pulpit he’d rather have a mission full of masturbating missionaries than a mission full of gamers. He then said gamers generally don’t interact well with people. This may be a generalization but there’s also truth to it.

2. I heard this second hand from a close family friend and I’m pretty sure it’s true. A few years ago a Q12 made a comment during general conference about the dangers of getting. The impetus behind this anti-gaming comment was that this particular Q12 had a teenage grandson who played too much. In fact he played so much that one day he was too busy playing that he decided to pee himself instead of getting up to use the restroom.

3. Video games developers are extremely bright and can be wildly successful. I took two graduate level classes that were about 30% game coders and they taught the rest of us many worthwhile lessons as fellow students. These classes were organizational behavior classes, not technical classes, and these game coders understood human nature very well.

4. In college I found myself spending too much time playing games. My grades suffered and my relationship with my brand new wife suffered. One time during our weekly date night I asked if I could play instead of going on a date. I played the new release of Starcraft while my wife sit next too me on watching. She wanted to show me support and love for a hobby that was obviously important to me. At 3am I looked up and found her asleep still next to me. The hours had disappeared and I hadn’t noticed my wife at all. I remember feeling terribly guilty for ignoring her. I had chosen a video game instead of a date night and sex with my beautiful wife and it occurred to me how stupid I had been. Since then I’ve probably played 2 or 3 hours of video games. That was about 15 years ago.

My boys game and I have nothing against video games. However they can be addicting like many good things in life like sex, food, and even exercise.

[Roadrunner]

gospeltangents wrote:

This whole idea of a time-only sealing makes little theological sense to me, and seems entirely inconsistent theologically.

I agree. It seems self/contradictory.

Also LDS theology seems to strongly imply physical sexual relationships in the celestial kingdom. I don’t see the need for eternal and exclusive sealings if relationships are emotional in nature. Why would I need to be sealed to someone that I merely converse with or spend time with.

[Roadrunner]

SilentDawning wrote:

Now, I realize that we pay tithing and serve it partly to be charitable. To help our spirit and overcome selfishness.

…

But there are so many other causes to which I can give the money (and time) that are more important to me.

Hi SD,

A few random thoughts I’m sharing, not saying whether it’s right or wrong. I consider myself a full tithe payer although I’m quite sure that to the orthodox member they would not consider me so.

First, I donate tons of time to the church which to me is frankly more valuable than money. I can earn more money but I can’t gain back spent time. To me that’s greater value than tithing. So far this year 40% of my paid time off work have been away from family and at church activities such as scout camp and high adventure and girls camp.

Second, as a Christian I feel it necessary to donate financially and pay a tithe of some sort. I pay a portion of my “tithe” to pay for tuition for students at a church school. Tuition for poor students helps people in a very real way and still arguably helps the church also. Also, my employer matches donations to colleges so I’m effectively multiplying the good that my donations do.

Perhaps I’m rationalizing and I’ll burn at the 2nd coming but I feel comfortable with my approach. I’ve heard very pointed talks saying that tithing is paid to the LDS church, not anyone else, and even not including to the ward. I’ve not read in the scriptures to whom tithing must be paid, only that it should be paid. Handbook 1 does say that tithing must be paid to the bishop, so I suppose I’m on thin ice there.

Take it for what it’s worth, which isn’t much. It’s one person’s point of view.

[Roadrunner]

Hi Baseball,

I agree with what the others have written and I won’t repeat their advice. I want to share that my wife is as orthodox Mormon as it gets and I was genuinely afraid she’d leave me. When I dropped all my doubts on her she cried all night long and finally said she loved me and had committed to me and would stay the course as long as I treat her well. I didn’t give her enough credit. You’re wife may be more supportive than you think, but I can’t tell in this forum. There may be other issues complicating your relationship.

I fantasize from time to time about divorcing and leaving the LDS altogether but then I realize that a clean break is only a fantasy. There are few total resets in this life. That’s the main thing I want to add is to take it slow and make sure you’re deliberate in whatever you do. I highly recommend talking to a counselor in person – not a bishop.

Best wishes.

[Roadrunner]

Heber13 wrote:

Roadrunner wrote:

There is more than one shame culture. We LDSs preach about inclusion and exclusion about others and they say it about us. Much of this talk is a double edged sword. For example, I’m convinced that future generations will shape this church in unexpected ways.

Is the double edged sword that they are trying to truly love people by inviting them to partake of life principles they truly believe will bring happiness to others, and yet…by doing so alienate and judge and tell others they are wrong at the same time?

Or are you saying that it is not so simple as one shame culture…but there are multiple facets which aren’t presented in this talk?

My comment about the double edged sword wasn’t that sophisticated. I only meant that if he’s relying on the younger generation to teach the same things he might be surprised. We here at StayLDS seem to hope the next generation will lead more compassionately. So different groups hope opposing positions from the same youth.

I also meant that staunch LDS preach inclusion but don’t seem to include LGBT and women in our definition of “inclusion”. The shame culture as referenced by Elder Christofferson preaches inclusion unless you disagree with them. So both LDS and prevailing social media preach inclusion but neither does it.

Double edged sword is probably not the right label but that’s the idea.

My thinking about LDS having our own shame culture was that it’s broader than social media – and yes there are many facets. Garments come to mind. LDS use wearing garments, temple marriage, and WoW as effective and hurtful shaming mechanisms. We pressure and shame non temple-ready members tremendously – especially the youth – into adhering to our temple standards.

[Roadrunner]

Elder Christofferson:

Quote:

“In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. … [In the shame culture,] moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion.

Quote:

The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner. The modern shame culture allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.”

There is more than one shame culture. We LDSs preach about inclusion and exclusion about others and they say it about us. Much of this talk is a double edged sword. For example, I’m convinced that future generations will shape this church in unexpected ways.

Quote:

We trust that especially you of the rising generation, youth and young adults on whom the Lord must rely for the success of His work in future years.

[Roadrunner]

Heber13 wrote:

I believe them when they say this:

Quote:

The motivation for raising the warning voice is love—love of God and love of fellowman. To warn is to care. The Lord instructs that it is to be done “in mildness and in meekness”14 and “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness … , and by love unfeigned.”15 It can be urgent, as when we warn a child not to put his or her hand in a fire. It must be clear and sometimes firm. On occasion, warning may take the form of reproof “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost,”16 but always it is rooted in love.

Here is one issue I take with the talk:

Quote:

How much better it is to have the unchanging law of God by which we may act to choose our destiny rather than being hostage to the unpredictable rules and wrath of the social media mob. How much better it is to know the truth than to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”27 How much better to repent and rise to the gospel standard than to pretend there is no right or wrong and languish in sin and regret.

I agree with all of those statements he makes. It is better to have an unchanging law of God than unpredictable rules by social media. But…what exactly is he talking about? What is the context…because I am not sure we are all viewing “truth” vs “social media mob” as the same thing.

I really want to try to know better how to view this, as I see it at church all the time. I have no problem with leaders teaching truth. I just hate that we get 30min in Sunday School to scratch the surface, make huge wide-spread sweeping statements like “Divorce is the biggest cancer of this generation”, and then people feel justified to judge or exclude others from our congregations without any real meaningful discussion on it.

I see genuine concern for the church’s well being and love for the church organization. I haven’t perceived love unfeigned for individual members since my faith transition a few years ago. I believe if Q15 and Q70 looked at the real challenges facing the average church member – instead of the organization of the church – we would have a different church.

Like Heber, I actually agree with the idea that we shouldn’t follow the unpredictable rules of social media. However, I can state with equal firmness that we shouldn’t unquestioningly follow a group of men where there is little feedback or accountability. Simply stating “follow us because we love you” doesn’t cut it for me – because I don’t see the love as often as I’d like.

To respond to Heber’s questions:

Quote:

1) Do you see the same problem I see in how they use a gospel of love premise…and then make a conclusion about something that may or may not follow…making it hard to discuss it?

Yes – claiming some sort of moral authority has the benefit of promoting obedience if you believe in that moral authority. Once you lose that moral authority for a person or group, you must rely on something else like logic or precedence. Claiming some sort of moral authority like love makes it difficult to discuss because it seems more like a personal attack rather than an exercise in reasoning.

Quote:

2) Do you see a problem with my logic in presenting this stuff above?

No, I find this thread interesting and want to see where it goes.

Quote:

3) Do you have strong feelings or other issues with the way Elder Christofferson presents this subject that you can share your own concerns about this talk and why you liked or disliked it?

My issue with this talk is the assumption that he (they: Q15) know best. I believe I know what’s best for me. The whole concept of watchmen implies they see things I can’t see, but at this point in my life I’m not convinced the watchmen have a better vantage point than my own. I don’t find the talk offensive; I find it presumptuous.

[Roadrunner]

Old Timer wrote:

As far as paid maternity leave goes, I would guess this actually puts the LDS Church somewhere around the top 10% of all organizations in the USA. The Catholic university where I worked is as vocally pro-family as it gets, but they have no paid maternity leave at all. In fact, I think none of the three small colleges/universities where I worked did. That is a sad commentary, but, for this country, the new policy is somewhat progressive. (I think of the old description: Damning with faint praise.)

Seriously, though, I am not about to criticize that announcement at all. Kudos to the Church on that front.

Also, one clarification to dande48’s comment:

Women have been able to wear pants to church for a long, long time – common culture notwithstanding. This is a change for church employees who work in settings where dresses and skirts were worn traditionally.

Hi Curt,

I agree – this is a good step forward. Paid maternity is a very good thing. They have some work to do as far as other dimensions of employee benefits such as diversity and working from home, although I hear their health insurance and pensions are good. But the #1 benefit for many people is pay which is below average. I just think that the comment about being at the forefront of benefits is a stretch.

About woman wearing pants to church. A few years ago when there was a “wear pants to church Sunday” my bishop at the time said no problem, women should wear whatever they want. It was a total non issue. It’s probably a bigger deal in some parts of Utah. I know that in the wealthier parts of SLC women don’t wear black shoes after Easter and they don’t wear white shoes after Labor Day. That’s more of a conservative fashion thing than a Mormon thing. The same may be true for women wearing dresses to church.

[Roadrunner]

Most teenagers I know show surprising independence of thought when it comes to religion and blind obedience. I’m no bastion of liberal thought (and my wife is downright conservative) but every one of my kids supports LGBT causes. I’m surprised the percentage of young LDS people in support of gay marriage isn’t not higher than the number reported here. I estimate it is in the 60%+ range for teenagers in my ward (a fairly conservative ward).

As far as the question about what will the church do if the masses don’t support a policy? I think the church will have to change to reflect the opinions of its members. One difference between now and even 20 years ago (let alone 150 years ago) is technology. We can connect with huge numbers of people through social media and we now understand other points of view because we see them firsthand. The church will change or it will become irrelevant.

One anecdote. My daughter is a senior in high school and she has a bisexual female friend. This friend said she was looking for a place to attend Easter worship services so my daughter invited her to our LDS ward. This friend said only Mormons don’t know that Mormons hate gays. My daughter was embarrassed and it was enlightening for my whole family. My family all changed our attitudes a little that day.

[Roadrunner]

Slacks and light colored shirts are good, and maternity leave is an excellent change, but they are nowhere near the forefront of employee benefits.

[Roadrunner]

SilentDawning wrote:

Torn about this. People are giving up 10% of their income to fund these operations, I personally would rather see them as Spartan, but who am I to judge…

Quote:

The man providing the tour gave a detailed description of church operations across the globe. It runs and sounds like a well funded international company. I got the feeling the church owns a whole lot more land and business ventures than is commonly known. It reminded me of a visit I made to the HQ of a financial services company not long ago. The guy providing the tour reminded us that LDS church employees don’t make much money. I got the feeling that the presiding bishopric has the ear of the First Presidency as much as the Q12, but I could be wrong there.

Reinforced my desire not to make too many financial sacrifices for the church. Taken with my lunchbag letdowns over the years when I’ve needed non-welfare kinds of help, it is reinforcing to hear that the church is probably pretty well funded with more than just tithing funds.

Thanks for sharing the experience, much appreciated.

I’m also torn about this, but the tour guide pointed out that they host high level dignitaries that may expect some level of decorum or prestige. For example the VP of the USA had visited this one room in the past few years.

The thing that surprised me was that the Presiding Bishopric reports directly to the First Presidency, and that they meet quite often, and it’s the Presiding Bishopric that controls the finances and temporal welfare of the church. For whatever reason I thought of the Presiding Bishopric as a somewhat minor appendage of the GAs (after they are always listed at the bottom of the GA list). All of the people that report to the Presiding Bishopric have quite extensive experience outside of the church managing large institutions or funds.

[Author]

Posts