Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ok. I think I’ve gone far enough down the rabbit hole for today. I found the following “Young Women – Real Guardians” talk by Elder Haight from 1977. Quote:My remarks this morning are directed to the young women of the Church, particularly those who are dating our young men. I desire to be appropriate and correct in what I say, but because of necessity and the urgency concerning this matter, I must be very direct and candid.
Some young men cannot go on missions because they are not worthy.
I challenge the young women of the Church who associate with and date our young priesthood bearers to become real guardians of their morality. You can. You must. Many of you are. Please do not underestimate your role. I am aware that the total responsibility is not yours. However, on a date you can set the proper atmosphere to encourage your companion to honor the commandments of God. In fact, you have the opportunity to emphasize the Mormon ideals of womanhood in all their honor and glory. I know the Lord expects it to be so.
You young ladies have a profound influence on young, masculine behavior. Young men wear clothes they think you like. Their hair will be cut to please you. You can control how fast they drive their cars if you want. They will dress as grubby as you like. You need not dress in the extreme fashions of the world. Are you aware that fashions and styles are promoted because someone has a product to sell? The rightness or appropriateness or effect on a youthful society does not matter as long as it sells. But the day will come when the world will follow the ways of the Church. Its influence will be as though flowing from the stars to affect the actions of men. Your influence with young men is important. You encourage Church standards and dress and conduct.
Interviews with some prospective missionaries regretfully indicate that some actions involving young women are most disappointing. Some are even ugly and are far, far different from what is expected of you. The Savior knew so well our weaknesses. He warned: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit … is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Matt. 26:41.)
Young women, lift the tenor of your association with our young men now preparing to be worthy so their bishops will be impressed to call them on missions. The young man you are with in a car or at home is needed in the Lord’s work. Hundreds, even thousands more like him are needed—prepared in the Lord’s way.
The young men you are dating are in training for missions and hold the priesthood. Bishops have found these young men worthy. Hands have been placed upon their heads. They have received the priesthood of God. Just think. The Lord has given them authority to preach, teach, expound, exhort, baptize—a divine commission to act for and in behalf of the Lord Himself. The young man you may be with probably is a priest. He wants to be worthy to receive the higher priesthood and, if worthy, to someday have authority and keys of spiritual blessings. He is not “just another young man.” He is a very special young man. He is in training. He is going on a mission. You can be a great blessing to him. You, a young lady he admires, can help him avoid serious pitfalls.
This idea was echoed (however, much less explicitly) at least as late as 2013 by Elder Todd Christofferson.
Quote:To the young women, don’t lose that moral force even before you have it in full measure.
nibbler wrote:
Are you talking teachings or culture? I’ve heard murmurings that the only marry RMs cultural practice has been semi-adopted by men as well. Now with so many women serving missions men are starting to add that to their wish list for a partner. I can’t imagine a YM lesson teaching that but I think men decided that if it was good for the gander, it was good for the goose.Perhaps it is as you say Roy, that men might receive teachings to
notrequire potential marriage partners to be RMs precisely because more and more YM are adopting that mindset. I’m also hearing that the stigma associated with returning home from a mission early is far less a thing than it once was.
My understanding of the church leadership being unhappy about YM that would require their potential marriage partners to be RMs comes mostly from Elder Holland’s comments from the YSA FAce to Face event in 2016
Quote:“I was in the missionary executive counsel with President Russell Nelson when we wrestled through this issue to lower the age to 18 for young men and 19 for young women. And indelibly imprinted on my soul forever was President Thomas Spencer Monson thumping the table, pointing a finger, declaring what we would and would not do on this. He was very supportive. You remember that announcement; I mean that electric moment when he announced that in general conference, but more privately he had said, and of course he said it publicly too, but this was in the formative period of the policy. He was adamant that we were not going to create a second class citizenship for young women who did not serve a mission.
“We lean on the young men to go as much as we can; we’re pretty straight forward about that. We do an arm twist and a knee pull and go for the jugular on the men. But even there, let me be serious, if a young man doesn’t go, that does not preclude him from our association and admiration and his priesthood service and his loyalty and love of the Lord in the future in the Church. That ought to be true for young men as well as young women, but adamantly for young women.
“President Monson never intended for all the young women in the Church to go on missions by dropping that age. We’re very grateful for those that go. It’s changed the face of the Church. It’s going to continue to change the face of the Church. We went from something like 8 or 10 or 12 percent to 30 or 35 percent of the missionary force of the Church being young women and everybody knows that a sister is twice as effective as three elders. But we do not want anyone feeling inadequate or left out or undignified or tarnished because she did not choose to serve a mission. We’re a little irritated with young men who say, ‘I’m not going to date you because you didn’t serve a mission…. … We do not want that type of climate over dating or marriages or who is really faithful in the Church or isn’t. Those are decisions we all make.”
I have also found references to missionary service being a priesthood duty.
Quote:“Today I reaffirm strongly that the Lord has asked every worthy, able young man to prepare for and serve a mission”
“Young women absolutely do not have the duty of serving missions. Young men do as a consequence of holding the priesthood”
“The personal decision each young man must make is whether or not he will fulfill his priesthood duty to serve a mission.”
“As he prays about serving a mission, he should also remember that by receiving the priesthood, he has already accepted the sacred responsibility to “warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ” (D&C 20:59), including by serving as a full-time missionary. If young men are not able to serve because of poor health or a disability, they are honorably excused.”
This is a topic that has been on my mind again lately. My summary of where we LDS currently stand on the issue of the choice to serve missions.
If you’re male then you made a commitment to serve when you were baptized.
If you have a health limitation or disability that might prevent a regular proselytizing mission then a service mission can be arranged instead.
If you are on a mission and contemplating leaving early then do not do it as that would be a big mistake.
If you have returned home early due to a reason that was not within your control (including mental illness) then your intent and the time of your service is sanctified and acceptable.
If you returned home from your mission early then you might just say that you served a mission to XYZ location and not disclose that you came home early.
Missionaries that return early are to be treated with compassion and not encouraged to prove themselves by returning to missionary service.
Men are strongly discouraged from requiring that their potential marriage partners be RMs.
If you’re female then you have the option to serve a mission.
Females have historically been encouraged to require that their potential marriage partners be RMs (I looked but did not find an LDS GA giving this advice. I think it is mostly done through the YW program). This teaching has not been repudiated despite clear opportunities to do so. However, I like to think that it is being quietly deemphasized.
You may feel the desire to serve but receive personal revelation to postpone or that full time missionary service is not part of God’s plan for you.
How does that fit with your understanding? Am I off base?
nibbler wrote:
One thing that I often hear that I fear is detrimental to the discussion is when leaders focus on how we’re all god’s children. They typically frame it as something that supplants a LGBTQ+ identity rather than it being an identity in addition to a LGBTQ+ identity. I fully understand that leaders are looking for something that unifies all of us, I just caution that it’s not either/or, it’s and/also. You are LGBTQ+ and a child of god.
This is a pet peave of mine. We admonish LGBTQ+ individuals to not label themselves but we glory in our own labels.
For me these are: straight, white, cisgendered, male, american, son, brother, father, husband.
These all are labels that are promoted. Nobody says, “Don’t label yourself with those other things – you are a child of God.”
Saying you are a child of God can be an attempt to control and frame the narrative. As if to say, “If God exists and you are his child and the purpose of your life and existence is to become like him then you need to put aside this earthy confusion and submit to the church for your own eternal wellbeing.”
I am hopeful that this fireside is coming from a place of humility and grace. “Welcoming, supporting, and drawing strength from all members of our congregations and families, with a special focus on those who identify as same-gender attracted or as LGBTQ+.”
:thumbup: I remember a pastor saying that there are LGBTQ+ members of the congregation and also members of the congregation with LGBTQ+ children, siblings and other family members. He was trying to remind everyone to be kind with their words lest they cause pain to others.
I would hope that this fireside would aim for that spirit.
Thank you for adding your perspective OT. I went with my teenage son to a PRIDE event over the weekend. We were reading a pamphlet together about juggling faith and supporting your LGBTQ+ child. There were a list of questions about how your faith allows gay people to participate and feel connected.
My son asked me what happens when the answer to all of the questions is “No” and I responded “well, that makes it harder to do both then, doesn’t it?”
Thank you for the perspectives shared so far. Roy wrote:
44% of Utah’s Latter-day Saint LGBTQ+-identifying youths had seriously considered suicide compared to 47% of Utah’s LGBTQ+-identifying youths from other religions and 77% of Utah’s Atheist/Agnostic LGBTQ+-identifying youths. The national rate for LBG youth is 47.7%.9
This part is really interesting and makes me think about what Nibbler was saying. Utah LDS LGBTQ+ rates of seriously considering suicide are pretty close to Utah non-LDS LGBTQ+ rates and national LBG youth rates (within 4 percent or “margin of error” territory).
However, the rate for Utah’s Atheist/Agnostic LGBTQ+ youth has a huge increase of more than 30%
😯 That is “statistically significant.”Does that track with rates for Atheist/Agnostic LGBTQ+ youth nationally or is it unique to Utah?
AmyJ wrote:
The powers that be decided to create a “best practices” timeline checklist because that works for their worldview (and doesn’t work for a lot of other worldviews) and called it a “Covenant Path.
That is the traditional LDS view and understanding of covenant path.
You might take it into another direction and talk about the path of the covenant as the path of discipleship to Jesus.
The old testament or covenant was one of making regular sacrifices individually and communally to become cleansed our our weaknesses and sins.
The new testament or covenant is that Christ Jesus made a single sacrifice to forever atone for these things and bring us into alignment with God if we would but follow him. This is the “new covenant” and “good news” of the gospel.
What does it look like to walk the path with Jesus? What does he ask me to do? What does he ask me to see? Whom does he ask me to love?
You might share some parables and some personal stories of how you have struggled in you own walk with Jesus. The beauty of the “good news” is that Jesus accepts your faltering, imperfect steps and covers you with his grace and mercy.
Yes, I was certainly nearby. The missionaries were having a conversation with their investigator and I was within line of sight. I agree that this is considered a manly thing and the purview of men.
In my experience, in South America, we were often the experts on church doctrine and processes in our particular areas and I would not have asked a random member a question like that. However, we are not in South America and I was able to answer the question so this missionary was correct in assuming that I would be a good choice to talk to.
I have sometimes pondered telling the bishop that they key to my family’s participation is with my son and his sense of belonging and inclusion. I have decided against this because:
1) I don’t think that anything would really change for the better. As much as the youth program was trumpeted as being really flexible and customizable to help each of the youth reach their individual goals, I don’t think there is any real infrastructure or support for that.
2) What is more likely to happen is that well meaning church members/leaders would increase the pressure and guilt upon DS for him to be more active.
P.S. We seem to have a really lovely bishop right now and I wish him well.
Sometimes we get something from within Mormondom that is compassionate and balanced on the subject of staying or leaving the LDS faith and it feels like the community is evolving. Then we get something like this and I am reminded that evolution happens over long periods of time and with many dead ends along the way. [side note – evolution is not a change from a worse state to a better state but rather from a state less well adapted to the environment to a state better adapted to the environment. The LDS church finds itself in a changing environment and is evolving to adapt.] I very much agree that each of the questions is very leading and assumes fault with the leaver. It really makes the leaver out to be the bad guy.
As a business person that has conducted many interviews, I was particularly concerned with the framing of “are you running away from something or are you running toward something.” It is true that it is a red flag if someone discloses in an interview how much they can’t wait to get away from their present employer. However, I think the comparison or metaphor to someone leaving the church is extremely limited.
What if the work environment was toxic or hostile? What if the company misrepresented itself? What if the terms of employment and your job description was not fully disclosed? What if you signed the employment contract when you were 8 years old? What if the job is exhausting and has a negative impact on your mental state?
Should a person only leave something bad if they have something better lined up? And if someone does feel deceived by their former company, might they feel a duty to warn others about their experience? Should whistleblowers not be a thing?
I believe that the LDS church and the environment and culture can “work wonderfully” for some people in some parts of their lives. I also believe that the LDS church teachings, environments, and culture can be harmful and toxic for other people. For those that are feeling harmed, they should absolutely make the choice that protects their well being.
nibbler wrote:
It strikes me that in both my examples, people are looking outward, not inward. People are worried what someone else is or isn’t getting or worried about what someone else may or may not do. People are looking to be dealt with fairly and comparing what others get or what others have to do factors heavily into determining what’s fair for them.We could all use some spiritual horse blinders.
Yes, it is a very human response.
I appreciate the thoughts. One of the aspects that I love most about grace is that it gives me permission to trust God and not worry about my own reward.
As Amy expressed with her analogy about her daughter, I feel that having that worthiness weight lifted off of my shoulders can give me tools to help those around me.
Of course, there is plenty of good that is done in the world by people worried about their standing before God as well and I suppose it would be difficult to know as an outside observer what was the motivation for doing the good act.
I can only speak to me and my experience.
I know that God loves me. Period. Full Stop. There is no God loves me but … or God loves me and …
God loves me and I am choosing to leave my eternal fate in His hands and I am ok with whatever that is. This makes me very frustrating for local church leadership because I just don’t subscribe to the paradigm that God favors me when I do well or is disappointed when I don’t. God loves me … always.
AmyJ wrote:
A theological problem is that accessing the Atonement of Jesus Christ can read as a limitless spiritual credit card to charge all human expenses and abuses against because it can be used to deflect “Accountability” and change.
I find this interesting because that is exactly the analogy that Stephen E. Robinson in his book “Following Christ” (follow up to believing Christ).
He compares the Atonement of JC to an infinite bank account and that when you enter into a covenant relationship with JC (symbolized by marriage) you merge your meager and overdrawn account with his infinite account.
Quote:It’s like when Janet and I got married. I was overdrawn; Janet had money in the bank. By virtue of making that commitment, of entering into that covenant relationship of marriage with my wife, we became a joint account. No longer was there an I, and no longer a she—now it was we. My liabilities and her assets flowed into each other, and for the first time in months I was in the black.
Spiritually, this is what happens when we enter into the covenant relationship with our Savior. We have liabilities, he has assets. He proposes to us a covenant relationship. I use the word “propose” on purpose because it is a marriage of a spiritual sort that is being proposed. That is why he is called the Bridegroom. This covenant relationship is so intimate that it can be described as a marriage. I become one with Christ, and as partners we work together for my salvation and my exaltation. My liabilities and his assets flow into each other. I do all that I can do, and he does what I cannot yet do. The two of us together are perfect.
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/stephen-e-robinson/believing-christ-practical-approach-atonement/ Now, I speculate that the book Following Christ (1995) was somewhat of a response to some individuals laying claim on the “easy grace” that Bro. Robinson laid out in his book Believing Christ (1992). Therefore, in Following Christ, Bro. Robinson takes pains to connect being a faithful spouse to JC and being a contributing member in good standing to the LDS church. He argues that members that are participating inherit perfection, because the church is the personification of Christ authorized to act in His behalf (power of attorney). He has also referred to the church and kingdom of God as a train and us as the crew. As long as we don’t jump off the train at some point we will all arrive at the destination of perfection together.
I feel that Bro. Robinson has further watered down his original scriptural argument for grace being a radical embrace and acceptance of us humans despite our failings and limitations.
In 2019 he wrote the following for LDS Living:
Quote:I have a friend who always asks at about this point, “But when have I done enough? How can I know that I’ve made it?” This misunderstands the doctrine of grace by asking the wrong question. The right question is “When is my offering acceptable to the Lord? When are my efforts accepted for the time being?” You see, the answer to the former question, “When have I done enough?” is never in this life. Since the goal is perfection, the Lord can never unconditionally approve an imperfect performance. No matter how much we do in mortality, no matter how well we perform, the demand to do better, the pressure to improve and to make progress, will never go away. We have not yet arrived.
In this life we are all unprofitable servants, or to use a more modern term, we are all bad investments. (See, for example, Luke 17:10; Mosiah 2:21.) From the Savior’s perspective, even the most righteous among us cost more to save and maintain than we can produce in return. So if we’re looking for the Lord to say, “OK, you’ve done enough. Your obligation is fulfilled. You’ve made it, now relax,” we’re going to be disappointed. We need to accept the fact that we will never in this life, even through our most valiant efforts, reach the break-even point. We are all unprofitable servants being carried along on the Savior’s back by his good will—by his grace.
However, the Lord does say to us, “Given your present circumstances and your present level of maturity, you’re doing a decent job. Of course it’s not perfect, but your efforts are acceptable for the time being. I am pleased with what you’ve done.” We may not be profitable servants yet in the ultimate sense, but we can still be good and faithful ones in this limited sense. So if we are doing what can reasonably be expected of a loyal disciple in our present circumstances, then we can have faith that our offering is accepted through the grace of God. Of course we’re unprofitable—all of us. Yet within the shelter of the covenant, our honest attempts are acceptable for the time being.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: This is just so different from what he has written and said before.
I’m trying to meld these to approaches together.
Does Jesus marry us and join his infinite bank account to our meager and overdrawn bank account and then continue to keep a separate ledger and accounting to keep track of our performance? Does He say to us, “Given your present circumstances and your present level of maturity, you’re doing a decent job. Of course it’s not perfect, but your efforts are acceptable for the time being” ???
I’m really scratching my head on that one. I don’t think that this more recent position of Bro. Robinson is compatible with his previous position.
I speculate that the reason for this is, as Amy pointed out, that his previous positions “can be used to deflect “Accountability” and change.” I’m not sure if these changes in position were just organic evolutions of Bro. Robinson’s thought process OR if he faced pressure from BYU and church leadership generally to walk it back. I suspect the latter.
