Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My belief is that Pres Monson is a prophet. He leads the church and makes decisions for the church. He is a good man who serves others and seems to want people to live happy lives. He seems to largely stay out of politics and heavy doctrine which for me is a good thing. I doubt that he sees the future and reveals deep, godly secrets which I’m ok with because I think we have enough of those. Maybe he’s a bit lit Professor Trelawney – he gets a Revelation (capital R) every so often or maybe even never during his tenure.
I get revelation for myself without regard to those “above” me in the church and I have no problem supporting them as leaders or prophets. I’m responsible for my actions and I don’t believe we can “blame” our actions on prophets.
My advice for a TBM spouse is to hang in there and don’t make any rash decisions. It is possible that things will get worse but it’s equally (or more) likely that things will get better. You have lovely memories together – cherish them and remember your spouse is still the same person. Dear HSAB, As a father of teenage girls, I appreciate and support what you write. Gender inequality in the church bothers me, and while I think there are many good things about both the culture and the doctrines of the church, this is one thing that needs serious attention. One of my daughters wants to pursue a career in a male-dominated field, and I fear she’s facing an uphill slog both inside and outside the church. My personal pet peeve is that old (male) bishops can ask all kinds of details about the sexual activities of young teenagers. Not all do, but I’ve heard stories that border on perverted voyerism. Inequalities in program funding bother me a lot – scouts and YM typically get more $$ than Activity Days and YW.
That being said, I’d encourage you to share your opinion with your local leaders, who probably have quite a bit of control over some gender issues. I’ve encouraged our bishop to make annual budgets for YM and YW equal, and Activity Day Girls and Cub Scouts equal, which he’s done. Your bishop and other leaders can help make sure recognition of youth is equal (eagle scouts / personal progress). Local leaders determine YW activities, including camping, hiking, and “super activities” for YW that include more than crafts. RS presidents can help ensure that lessons and enrichment activities are positive and uplifting for women.
Some progress is being made although probably slower than it should be. One small example is that my local temple finally changed the baptistry policy for menstrating women. Of course the missionary age is another positive change. Big changes will unfortunately take years, like women having more access to leadership roles, but I like to think we’re pointing the right direction.
It’s hard and it’s frustrating sometimes. The whole idea of women are more righteous than men and don’t need the priesthood bothers me to no end. That fact that women don’t pray in general conference is simply unfathomable. I just have to share my opinion at the local level when it comes up and hopefully bit by bit we improve.
You might search the archives at FeministMormonHousewives: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/ SamBee wrote:I do it occasionally, but I’m generally against it.
Why? Because, if we encourage it, then we’ll soon find we’ll all have to work 24/7, 365 days a year. A lot of us are already near that stage.
Ditto Sambee. My rule of thumb is that I don’t do anything on Sunday that requires people to work. I dislike working on Sundays, I dislike going to birthday parties on Sundays, and I *do* like spending time with my family. When traveling I don’t have a 2nd thought about purchasing on Sundays. I also find a true “down day” very refreshing.
When I was a student at BYU, Boyd K Packer gave a talk about keeping the Sabbath holy. My recollection of that talk is that perhaps BYU students are more prone than others about being overly strict about Sundays. He said that we shouldn’t make Sundays so burdensome that we don’t enjoy them and that we drive our children away from the church. I’ve always liked that thought…
To some extent, expectations and especially “enforcements” about facial hair and pant suits may be local. That’s obviously not completely true because there aren’t any general authorities with beards, but I can say in my local area facial hair and pants suits aren’t really a big deal. The YM president and Priests Quorum advisor in my ward both have beards, as does the scoutmaster and a couple of ward missionaries. A couple of high councilors have beards. When my bishop found out about women possibly wearing pants to church, his response was “why does it matter? If they want to wear pants, let them wear pants.” Colored shirts, on the other hand, seem to be taboo. Sometimes I feel guilty sitting on the stand with a sports coat instead of a full suit.
mackay11 wrote:My dad was called as a Bishop some years ago. He had grown a beard from his late teens. The SP told him in the interview that he would have to shave before being sustained. My Dad looked him straight in the face and said, “then you will have to call someone else.” Result? Our Ward had a bearded Bishop
Like.
:thumbup: That takes some cajones as we’d say in my part of the world.As has been said elsewhere, facial hair seems to be one of those cultural traditions, much like colored shirts. I used to wear colored shirts every Sunday until they asked me to be in a leadership calling and I just switched to white shirts becuase I knew it was expected. We have several leaders in my ward with beards but none that wear colored shirts.
I look forward to the day when a woman (not with facial hair) says the opening prayer at general conference and one of the 12 wears a blue shirt.
mackay11 wrote:Hmm, I’m not sure it’s quite as clean cut as that. I agree that we’ve no need to keep it entirely secret, but it’s still something I treat and discuss with reverence.
Agree wholeheartedly with the idea that temple topics demand respect and reverence. However, what I promised in the the temple to keep secret is very specific. I was so glad that my dad pulled me aside the morning of my endowment and told me pretty explictly what was going to happen, otherwise I might not have made it through.
One time I asked a member of the temple presidency *in the temple* what a certain thing meant and he told me it’s not my concern and that I should forget about it. Pretty rudely in fact, and his wife was with him and told him to answer my question, which he wouldn’t do. So I went home and promptly looked it up on the internet. People will get the information somewhere if we aren’t direct enough.
Mackay11, I sincerely look forward to your posts about the temple as a parable.
DBMormon wrote:I think the nephites lived among the people of the area, that doesn’t mean each or any of the buildings you view are “nephite” or “Lamanite” but yes I do think that is the area they were at.
And yes I do share my opinion as truth, but it is my truth. Truth is perspective and perception. There is an actual answer whether something happened or not, but without video evidence, or other “proof” all is conjecture.
My struggle is this – Many here claim the inability to believe the church is what it claims because of science – what science proves the church is not what it claims, what other studies or sciences proves this angle?
In my view the whole science / God thing cuts both ways. When science partially supports (or at least doesn’t disprove) something then LDS latch on quickly. Think Mayan archeology – although I’m not convinced personally. OTOH when science tends to disprove God the LDS reject the science outright (maybe not always but in many cases). Think astronomy and biology.
Any God worth His salt can keep science from discovering him – the thing is that the God of the gaps is shrinking.
To me Faith is what it’s all about. If we have to rely on science to back up any aspect of our religion we’re asking for trouble – and asking to be disproved.
Forgotten_Charity, Interesting question, I can see how unexpected history could “unnerve” some family members, especially those expecting near perfection. I suppose the question about what to do with unflattering information might depend on how it’s presented and the intent behind it. If it’s shared thoughtfully and honestly then I believe sharing all the truth is the thing to do.
My own family history (not done by me, but by a PhD uncle of mine) paints a very flawed picture of my family. He also found evidence that my ancestors unjustly killed horse thieves without trial. So are they faithful pioneers or murderous thugs? I think some context and some understanding of their times is necessary along with avoiding judgment in either a positive or negative way. It’s rarely black and white (as you note).
Having a more comprehensive look at history would help us more correctly understand ourselves. This applies not only to church history, but if we knew more about idolized figures across history and understood their motives, I think we would might be better humans.
Hi eman, as I’ve shared my struggles with my TBM wife I’ve never tried to convince her of anything except that I still love her and my children and intend to be a faithful husband and father. I’m still very active in the church (not sure if that applies or not) but the way I express myself to everyone is much more careful so that I feel I’m being honest with myself and others. She knows I participate on this board and we discuss questions often but I’d fear that sharing articles comes across as either being defensive or trying to convince her. I share my verbal summaries of online conversations or articles often. One thing that I’ve come to appreciate is that by discussing openly – rather than me trying to convince her – is that I’m able to more objectively figure out what I believe. She’s pointed out a few inaccurate beliefs in my budding “middle way” approach. I’ve come to realize that some of my “issues” with the church are actually more “issues” of the way I was raised and with my ultra stalwart father. In that sense I feel that I’m more fair with church policies because of open conversations with my TBM wife.
A nearby stake for a short time met for 2.5 hours each Sunday. There were all kinds of rumors about it – that it was a pilot program, that the stake president just wanted shorter meetings, that there were too many wards meeting in one building, etc. But people supposedly loved it. In a quick search (and I’ll admit I could be very wrong here) there doesn’t seem to be a direct scriptural commandment to hold Sunday School. There is a reference that little children should receive instruction in DC 55. I bring this up because direct and clear commandments are more likely to stand the test of time than policy or tradition. Hmmm… come to think of it we do a lot of things that aren’t in the scriptures. Oops, another topic.
As an adult I do enjoy a well taught Sunday School lesson from a thoughtful, well prepared teacher. Alas, I think that those kinds are teachers are difficult to find and they often get snapped up for ‘leadership’ callings or Seminary teacher callings. I live in a relatively affluent area with a ward of educated and professionally successful people. Even so, we have only one good Sunday School teacher of adult classes and he team teaches, so we only get his lessons every other week. Now, while I realize that people often get out of a lesson what they put in, most people also appreciate the value of an excellent teacher.
Now to the youth. While I agree that a well-taught Sunday School class can influence the youth for the better, I still have to think about all the time they spend learning about the Gospel. Warning – rant coming… I have a teenager that goes to early morning seminary from 6:00 AM to 6:50 AM every single weekday. She has YW activities every single Wednesday night for 1.5 hours. She reads her scriptures for 10 minutes every night. She works on her personal progress on average probably an hour a week. With Sunday School, she spends about 11 hours a week developing her relationship with her Saviour (or maybe just learning about the church). I don’t think 10 hours a week would hurt her one bit (removing Sunday School).
Just think about all the Calculus she could learn with another 5 hours a week (evil grin). Or all the texting she could do with another 5 hours (sigh). I guess I have to admit both possibilities.
In the other thread, there was a response that for many people Sunday School is the only time that group interaction and effective teaching can take place. I think that’s true. My opinion is that Sunday School is helpful for a minority and that minority shouldn’t be ignored. Adult institute classes or optional Sunday School classes perhaps. There are internet options for the tech savvy. A 2 hour block would have the benefits that Kumahito describes, and it also might actually increase attendance. I agree with Hawkgrrrl that a 3 hour commitment is difficult for many but a 2 hour commitment might be better for some.
Old-Timer wrote:Ward leaders are supposed to attend as many of their own learning meetings as possible, even if that number varies from week to week and ward to ward…
… It’s not the way the Church itself teaches leaders to schedule their time.
It seems that if a leader is struggling with time, delegation, or other challenges that telling them to attend Sunday School isn’t helpful. The rule for me is sometimes to do what it takes to maintain sanity and a healthy family, if it means having to skip meetings. There are other meetings that bishopric members are supposed to attend that don’t add much value in my opinion or that are more of nice to do if possible. I was recently trained to have premeetings to train YM about how the meeting itself should go. I just don’t think that doing it the church’s way is always the best way.
Spend time with the youth, get to know them, understand their frustrations. Visit the widows and the sick. Call every primary kid on their birthday for 60 seconds on your way home from work to say happy birthday. Hike with the scouts. Know the name of everuone in the ward. But for heavens sake don’t feel guilty about skipping Sunday school every single Sunday if its a better use of time. Skip the occasional bishopric training where you will talk about food storage. Tell the pack master he/she can plan the next pack meeting without you even though you should attend. Don’t think twice about skipping monthly roundtables or the Easter weekend overnight scout training even though they are required. Spend the week with the family on vacation instead of at Woodbadge training.
Climbing down from the soapbox. I don’t really intend to take this out on Ray. I just feel very strongly that leaders should do what makes sense for them.
For a separate thread, if it were up to me I’d make church two hours and skip Sunday School. I get what I need in Priesthood and Sacrament and my kids get enough in YM/YW and primary and 5 hours of seminary per week plus 1.5 hours every Wed night.
Whew!
Old-Timer wrote:I have been very open about the fact that EVERYONE in the ward, even the top leaders, are supposed to attend Sunday School and either PH or RS. Interviews and other things are not supposed to be conducted during other meetings. Thus, I attend Sunday School as the default and don’t attend only as the true exception. I’ve held firm to that rule, and it has made a big difference over the years.
I know that means they need to be conducted at other times, but prior to church usually can work – or during the youth activities during the week – or during PPI times – or some other time when you can kill two stones with one bird.
I respectfully disagree with the above but I see the point. Attending a well taught Sunday School lesson can be uplifting for the soul and also shows support for the teachers and programs of the church.
