Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LookingHard wrote:SilentDawning wrote:LookingHard wrote:
I agree that I think Kate was a bit naïve, or at least played that card.
I think her movement was bold, but not effective. It was too much change too fast. Had she called the movement.
“Women of Faith” or something like that, and pressed to have women receive expanded callings (like Sunday School counselors or president), Assistants to the President in missions, and slowly initiated change that merely pressed on borders, without trying to shatter them, she might have made a long-term difference. Ghandi’s movement took most of his life. She moved too quickly.
I agree it was a bit too much (not the core “can you guys ask HF about women being ordained). But it also may have helped Women of Faith as some of what they have been pushing for (and being ignored) were now seen as the “reasonable” women to maybe give some ear to (and it seems to me they are, such as the women in the ward council are asked to give input into Sacrament meeting planning – i.e. what talks are given on what subject.”Totally off topic but kindof involved in what you are saying LH,…when are women going to be involved in disciplinary councils from the perspective of being a judge on the panel, and not just a recipient of the decision making?
I mentioned this in another post, but I know a woman tried for her membership at the stake level–17 men and 1 woman. Come on…what is up with that!?
AP,…this is unrelated directly to the coercion you mentioned about the temple, but in YM lives, back in the 80s when I went on a mission, there was a cultural norm, even teachings to indirectly support, that if you didn’t go on your mission, you were going to hell. The pressure to measure up was immense, and some young missionaries cracked under the pressure. I didn’t particularly enjoy my mission, but I served it, and did the very best I could. When I got home, I was once in a therapist office for something totally unrelated, and asked this lady (because I knew she worked with LDS Family Services on a referral basis) if she ever worked with missionaries who struggled with their mission. She looked at me with a VERY incredulous look, and said that there were MANY she worked with.
When I became aware of the numbers, one of the things that began to bother me was the way in which RMs are coached and groomed for replies about their missions. I had a son, for example, who came home early of his own accord. He was still worthy,…but felt like there was no way he could serve in a system where he was told he was trusted, and yet wasn’t allowed to make choices about his activities. He was trusted, and yet was treated untrustworthy. This kid wasn’t taking any of that,..and he came home. I supported his decision, though it was difficult.
When he came home, there was a concerted effort to keep him away from all forthcoming missionaries–he was whisked off to a singles ward, carefully kept away from others, and so forth. This bothers me.
The church no longer tells missionaries they will go to hell if they don’t serve, which is a positive step, but there are things that still don’t make a lot of sense to me. And, when I was younger, though I wanted to go of my own accord, I was shocked by how many didn’t. I felt like the church in that manner….if you don’t go, you should go to hell. BECAUSE YOU ARE BAD!
Boy,…are there some attitudes and things I regret having.
amateurparent wrote:Quote:Rob4Hope wrote: if I am permitted to be rebaptised, I will ask that to happen immediately with only whoever my bishop will be, and the SP and one of his counselors. I do NOT want to have a meeting, a prayer, a talk,..and the whole deal.
We were recently involved in a rebaptism. A few close friends showed up, the bishop was there, two missionaries showed up. There was a prayer, the baptism, confirmation. Afterward, those closest to the guy .. We all went out for brunch at a local diner.
Re-baptisms are much different than the traditional baptism.
Hurray. I wouldn’t have it any other way. If I come back, I want it just simple and quick……excommunication is trauma,…lets not open wounds back up by making it a big deal when it is not wanted.
Hey University, I’m rob4hope,..I live in SLC, Utah,…the heartland. (YIKES!).
Your life will not end if you leave. Truth be told, as you live more authentic, you might be surprised at the relationships that will change with you. Some folks might leave you, thinking you are some hedonistic apostate. Others will respect you, and will respect your authenticity as well.
There is good news on the end of this one though,…and that is some of the best and most precious friendships are in your future.
I’ve learned in my own journey that as I have struggled to become my authentic self, I have actually become more influential and grounded (as in having my feet more securely under me) in life.
Your faith is changing, developing, becoming who you are. There is nothing wrong with that. Now, in my case, I am not just out of the church,…I am OUT of the church. But, I have a choice: I can stay out, I can move back in,…or (and this is what is happening) I can choose to redefine what is right for me and how that “back in” may or may not happen, but according to my choice.
Having a choice is not a bad thing.
Now, being in Utah, I can understand the social stigma you are facing. My previous ward?…I could walk the perimeter of the 500 family ward boundary in about 15 min–NO KIDDING. So, if you are like me, you are surrounded by LDS people: your social group is LDS, your family is LDS, your friends are LDS,…heck man,..even your enemies are LDS!
You don’t need to advertise to everyone: “HEY,…I;M LEAVING!” You don’t have to justify your choice. And,..just because you might be leaving for a time now, doesn’t mean you are closing the door on coming back, or if you are like me, redefine what you will be doing in YOUR future.
You have friends here to.
Holy Cow wrote:And one final comment, about God putting people in a situation where they are lonely and then expecting them to just deal with it, I personally don’t believe God puts people in that situation. This is my personal perspective, but I don’t think God is really that involved in our daily lives that he creates these situations that we have to go through.
This is where I am actually leaning more and more. I was raised to believe God was VERY involved,…all the time. Its a part of my faith crisis,…but making progress.
I am not as lonely as many. I actually reach out a lot, and have MANY good friends. But,…the loneliness is, IMHO, one of the biggest challenges that affects LDS populations. The single adult question, the LGBT, and other groups,…well, I just wonder about those folks. My heart is touched by those who suffer.
startpoor wrote:Why do you think sex outside of marriage is a sin?
OK…we are spinning into other conversations here,..which is fine. I really do enjoy the dialog.
Sex outside of marriage CAN BE a delicate topic: controversial, extremely personal, riddled with all kinds of religious and moral overtones, etc. I want to treat your question carefully, and I can only speak for myself.
I have discovered something in my life experience,…and that is I have learned about me. I know myself very well, and I know what my own appetites, passions, desires, dreams, and everything else is. It surprises me how many people never learn anything, even when they make mistakes! I don’t get it, but there it is.
Anyway, I didn’t get excommunicated because I was saying cus words during a priesthood meeting,…if you get my drift.
I have learned there are 2 essential components about sexual intimacy that make it satisfying: emotional commitment and erotic pleasure/abandonment. There is a safety component the first provides to find the second, and at the same time, without the second, the level and degree of the first is hampered.
Non-committal sex is empty and shallow. It is like being very thirsty and having a big glass of yummy milk to drink, and only wetting your mouth on the foam at the top. It provides the anticipatory illusion of satisfaction, but leaves you empty and wanting. That is what I have found. And so, my understanding of the LOC is that fornication, for example, is not only about protecting you from emotional connection that can leave you damaged (more about this later), but it is also about providing satisfaction that can come only through commitment. You see, without the commitment (and the greatest commitment IMHO comes through the exclusive and formal institution of marriage), it becomes more difficult to abandon yourself to erotic passion. The meal becomes anemic and hollow.
Now, it is very common for women (less so with men, but still happens) to emotionally connect through sexual expression. If a woman connects with a man, and they don’t have a commitment that provides exclusivity and availability, emotional damage can happen. They have this man in their arms who they connect to through strong erotic emotions, and then he pulls away because they fornicated–not being committed to each other. This causes damage. It can wrench a heart and destroy lives.
So, with regards to fornication–if you have an agreement with the other person that you are only in it to enjoy the non-committal sex, then I suppose you are in agreement. But, I know that in myself, the depth and pleasure–satisfaction if you will– of such a coupling is not fulfilling. It is because of that experience, because I know myself, that I don’t believe fornication is a viable option.
Make sense?
PS…I don’t understand this sin next to murder stuff. Sorry. I just don’t get it.
NightSG wrote:Sounds somewhere between delusional and outright dangerous, like a recovering addict convincing themselves they’ve truly eliminated the desire for the focus of their addiction. Good way to find yourself in a hard relapse without the psychological preparation to deal with it.
How so?
The reason I brought up Compton’s book is because it speaks about the “wives” intentionally turning their full attention to their children because they finally accepted that they would NOT be getting their needs met from their marriage. Loneliness was profound.
I know people personally who have intentionally taken overt steps in their life to displace the loneliness (in marriage that is) with a shift of focus. Is it addictive to want to be loved and desired by your spouse? If it is not addictive, how do you justify the loneliness being unmet in a situation that was created by God in the first place?
SilentDawning wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:OK,….
Many people who are MARRIED even have to deal with this loneliness. How sad is that!? For a long time, I did, and felt my chances would be better if I moved on, which I am working on now (so I don’t see myself alone forever).
But I want to know comments about this from others. It seems that “singleness” is a challenge for the LDS faith. Am I wrong in this assessment? And, what are others feeling about this topic?
Yep. I feel alone in my marriage at times. I know the feelings. You get used to the other person’s thought and behavior patterns, and they become predictable. I know that if I mention something on my mind more than once to my spouse, my spouse will say “you already told me that”, effectively shutting down the conversation. So, much of my inner life goes unexpressed even in marriage. And often, she mistakes my sharing of a detail twice as repetition, when in fact, the second time is an introduction to an expansion of the previous comment based on new information.
And of course, I understand the lack of physical intimacy problem.
I don’t have much of an answer to this. I do think that exposing yourself to a lot of new people may help you run into someone who fills the ache of loneliness.
I’m not a great one to talk to about this, because I have often thought that if I do become single, I would probably not get married again. Part of me does not see the point — perhaps loneliness will fix that…
But I was single until I was in my late, late twenties, and know the ache of being alone. The period from when I was 25 to 28 was full of that deafening quiet when I would come home. Even being in a crowd can be lonely when you don’t have a close relationship with anyone in that crowd….
But one thing I never underestimate is the power of life to change a person’s mind, and for life to surprise you with someone that can help you feel fulfilled again. I leave that possibility open…
SD, I don’t know if you are male or female….I know very little about most on this site (but I am learning…I am learning).
Correction,…just read it more carefully…you mentioned your spouse is “she”. Sorry,…not up to speed on your post.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
There is a ZEN idea that I have wrestled with. And it seems that in some ways it might be part of the gospel? That idea is to eliminate the desire in the first place, the desire to be wanted or held, or loved. If we don’t desire that, we can’t be hurt from the lack of it.
Anyone out there ever read Todd Comptons book “In Sacred Loneliness”? Is it part of the Gospel of JC for us to take solace in loneliness, learning to deny this part of our humanity?
OK…FAITH CRISIS moment coming on…I feel it. It makes me angry to consider that God would implant feelings into our hearts, and then deny them to us because we are to choose Him and His Gospel at the exclusion of how we were created in the first place. This seems cruel to me………this is something I have struggled with in my past, and it turns me away from God.
Thoughts?
startpoor wrote:It would be hell for me. Which is why I sympathize greatly with people who choose celibacy on behalf of their religion, be it LGBT folk, singles, divorcees or catholic priests. Yet the church holds a carrot out in front of them offering promises if they endure to the end. My bishop believes LGBTs will become Hetero in the hereafter. I don’t blame him for thinking that way, I couldn’t do the job of bishop unless I believed that we were offering real hope to those who are keeping their covenants. Curious R4H, and you don’t have to answer publicly, but what are your thoughts on fornication as a divorced, faith transitioning person?
I have no problem answering your question. I am excommunicated right now, so there is “technically” nothing in the “Church” to prevent me from going out there and fornicating if I choose. And, MANY people who have no religion feel that what you do in your own relationships is your business, no one else s.
Your question can spin into two directions here, and since I enjoy dialog, I will answer it in such a way that it can divide if needed.
1) I do believe personally it is wrong morally to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage.
2) For the life of me, it frightens me to death to consider remarriage WITHOUT knowing we are sexually compatible.
And hence,..I have a conflict that gnaws at me as I date. And this is flat out being honest here.
According to SWK, the #1 cause of divorce back in the day was they didn’t get along sexually. The church doesn’t address that topic hardly at all (with the exception of the VERY recent FHE lesson). IN fact, the church has downplayed, IMHO, that topic. And yet, the divorces seem to still roll along. So its a dilemma for me at least.
Anyway SP,…there you go. Thoughts?
LH,…I wonder sometimes how much the GAs know about this topic…but perhaps they do know something. I remember, for example, when Elder Scott’s wife died. You could see something in him die with that. But, those guys probably have assurance (as in second witness type stuff) that they have it made when they die. Do LGBTQ folks have those assurances? Are they somehow going to have a magic wand waved and all of the sudden they are heterosexual with a spouse hand picked for their eternal bliss and fulfillment? Many Stage 3 folks seem to think this is the case–I’ve met some. But, for the life of me, I have never heard a real doctrine taught and certainly not endorsed, that such changes will happen. Mitch Mayne in California feels he is VERY gay, and that will not necessarily change for him,..and somehow he has made peace with that. But MANY MANY others haven’t.
Can you imagine the utter turmoil and churning wormy hell that such loneliness that seems to be eternal can be?
Look, I might be speaking out of turn here, and if I am, I sincerely am sorry. I am just thinking about this topic this evening because I am in a very quiet place, alone right now,…and it isn’t cool.
More thoughts?
OK…so back on topic. My SP was intentionally careful during my DC. He told me ahead of time that from beginning to end, it would be less than 15 min. No Kidding. Apparently he had been involved in those before, and realized the trauma that such courts could cause. For example, I know a woman who was tried for her membership in front of the Stake HC, and she was asked specific questions about her transgressions. She felt uttelyr humiliated, as though she was being looked at by a bunch of very dirty old men. Can you imagine that happening?…a single sister surrounded by 16 or 17 men,…being asked questions about sins?
I think that SP should be tried for HIS membership after that. That is disgusting to me, as well as repulsive!
Anyway, in my case, there were 17 men present, and my then wife was asked to come (AGAINST MY WISHES–which is something I would not tolerate ever again). Some general statements were made about my mistakes, several people were asked to share, and I was asked to leave. 10 min later, I was called into the SP office with him and his 2 counselors. They delivered the verdict, and I was told they woudl support me however they could if I tried to come back,..and that was that. Whole thing was about 15 min.
A couple of things have happened as a result of this, which is a tempering I guess. When I return (if I ever return–that is still not decided), I will be more insistent about my own situation. For example, if I am permitted to be rebaptised, I will ask that to happen immediately with only whoever my bishop will be, and the SP and one of his counselors. I do NOT want to have a meeting, a prayer, a talk,..and the whole deal. It is NOT the Church’s baptism,..it is mine. If they will not honor that request, I will not do it. Simple as that. From here on out, ordinances that are mine are MINE. Period.
Also, has anyone ever raised a hand in objection when someone was getting a calling at a local level? At this point, if I have reservations and if I am qualified through membership to cast a vote, if I don’t feel good about someone being called, I will not hesitate to raise my hand (with the intent to see if it can be resolved). I feel that way now because I know what it is to be on the outside…and I know what it feels like to be alone and have to stand alone. So, that has been a tempering experience for me in my life. It really has. What are they going to do to me?….ask me to leave? Sorry (I am trying to be respectful), but that makes me laugh.
Thoughts?
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:If I recall, there is possible action being taken against some of the locals who have blogged against the D&C 132 sections?
Yes, but the Van Allens were new to their stake. Also, someone in PR or the SMCC (not the Q15 or even the 70) had called their SP who said SLC had called him (vaguely), but then immediately backed down when confronted. It wasn’t really leadership. If I’m not mistaken, no further actions were taken, and their blog post was rather obscure (a first blog post) until some idiot went all Barbara Streisand effect.
Quote:What is the story with Kate Kelly?
She had “met” with her bishop and SP on some occasions, and she felt they were cool with her, or so she said, but that wasn’t really the case, and as soon as she moved, they essentially tried her in absentia.
With John D., his SP changed. His prior SP was someone he knew much better and counted as a friend.
OK….makes sense. The Van Allens are interesting.
What you said about Kate Kelly is disturbing though. I know people who think she is the devil herself,…whatever.
It would be most interesting to see how many of these people appealed to higher courts. I don’t know the answser to that if any…
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:It is disturbing to me when the Q15 initiate the disciplinary action, but make it appear the action started at the local level. This seems dishonest to me. It is appropriate for the Q15 to mislead and hide, even lie, for the sake of PR and the “image” of the church? Can anyone address this better for me here?
I’m not convinced that the Q15 are directly behind disciplinary actions as people often think they are. I’ve only arrived at that conclusion after watching some of these actions very closely. Here’s why:
1) they don’t
have toget involved. There are plenty of lower leaders who see it as their patriotic duty to root out heretics. 2) in all cases I’ve seen, the person who is ex’d has a lack of relationship with the local leader in charge of the DC. This often happens when leadership changes and now the new person doesn’t know them or feels differently about them.
3) because of this patriotic tendency, dog whistle politics are very effective and often the only thing needed (no direct involvement) to whip up an aspiring local leader to action. On the downside of this one, it’s my opinion that the Q15 are divided on what constitutes an excommunicable offense, and unfortunately, they all have access to dog whistles and can get their own personal hobby horse messages out to those who are listening for the signal. Leadership roulette ensues. Good leadership is doing the littlest possible to achieve the outcome you desire. That’s also good engineering. Don’t get involved if someone lower down the chain will do it for you.
I’m not so sure HG. It appears that several actions have been initiated by Q15 members,…not the whole group, but individuals, including but not limited to Oaks and Packer. Michael Quinn indicated this, and others have as well. If I recall, there is possible action being taken against some of the locals who have blogged against the D&C 132 sections?
What is the story with Kate Kelly?
This is not something I have followed closely, so I will have to be set straight on this–but my understanding is that some of the fringe members have been ousted, and the impetus, the pebble that started the avalanche as it were, came from the Q15.
