[Rumin8]

SamBee wrote:

On the downside, the counselor who chooses the hymns has very different musical taste to me. Some LDS hymn I love are never sung, and some of the ones I hate get sung regularly.

As a BP, we just discussed pulling our music director aside with instructions to “keep it to the hits” with hymn selection. 😆

[Rumin8]

Minyan Man wrote:

Rumin, what kinds of achievements would be noted from the pulpit? Just curious.

The obvious ones are mission calls. We also recognize (mainly youth) members for achievements in school (excelling at sports or academics), etc. This does cause some heartburn from some parents whose kids were not recognized. But we tell them we can’t recognize kids when we don’t hear about the honor. Sometimes we will mention members affected by tragedy or ill health (with their permission). Our SP doesn’t like any of this kind of thing. But we want to humanize each other and share in cool accomplishments and share in the lifting of burdens when the news is less good. To me this is what the church community should be all about. Just reading about it in the RE or EQ newsletter isn’t good enough, and loses potency imo.

[Rumin8]

Interesting how this is different in different wards. For example, when we have members of the SP visit, they observe and “preside” but never speak. We always have a musical number between speakers. Usually the format is: Youth Speaker, Adult speaker 1, Music, Adult speaker 2. We talk in BP about being specific about the time allocations for speakers. The only time this is relaxed is for returning missionaries. We also adjust the schedule appropriately to allow them more time. We very rarely go overtime.

We are often in trouble with the SP because we treat returning missionaries different from other speakers, we congratulate members of the congregation for notable achievements from the pulpit, and often summarize the high points of the various messages in the closing announcements.

We have a great ward and a BP that is willing to adjust and go “rogue” when it benefits the ward community in positive ways.

[Rumin8]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think the most disheartening part for me was that it seemed every time he said something I liked, he immediately qualified with something I didn’t necessarily agree with. [The following are not actual quotes – not what he said, but what I heard] “We are all literal sons and daughters of God!” :thumbup: “You are a chosen generation.” :thumbdown: “Seek truth and to know for yourself.” :thumbup: “Those who have left the church don’t know the truth.” :thumbdown: “God loves us all unconditionally.” :thumbup: “You really only get God’s love if you keep all the commandments.” :thumbdown: [You get the idea.]

I have avoided most GA talks of late because of the whiplash evident within the talks themselves and between individual speakers. It is exhausting. For my own mental and spiritual health, I have elected (for now) to not listen to GA talks anymore. Where I cannot physically avoid them (by leaving the room) then I will check out mentally.

I believe these men are doing what they think is right. I believe that they truly believe they want the best for us. They believe they are spreading the “good word” and doing good things. All these things may be true, but I need a time out. I’m going to try the direct communication with God method of spirituality for a while and see how that goes.

mom3 wrote:

Russell Nelson, and perhaps others, are wrestling with how to love. God has sent people to share love with. Russell isn’t comfortable with it. Not because he means to. But because he was taught a barrier filled love. There could be myriad reasons for this. Everything from stuff you are directly taught and chose to believe, to being in environments that deeply affect you – such as parents who drink. (Was alcoholism a part of his life experience with his parents?) Internally this war is constantly waging. On our end we get to watch him wrestle with it publicly.

For us, the double struggle comes from watching believers just take in the message, no matter what. We get to wrestle with them. Even if we walk away, we are still wrestling. Walking away is part of the wrestle. It’s on our mind, we try to cover it, forget it, disengage. We may even succeed for a while – but it will come back. When and how we don’t know.

I love and appreciate this more than words can express. Thank you for sharing.

[Rumin8]

felixfabulous wrote:

So, upfront, part of my faith deconstruction involved abandoning the idea of a literal Satan. I see the idea as an archetype of human evil, but do not believe in a literal devil (I think that humans can be evil enough on their own without having Satan tempt us).

I did the same during my deconstruction process as well.

felixfabulous wrote:

Satan seems to be a key part of our theology and an important tool. He is always blamed for increased secularism and general opposition to the Lord’s work. I’m not sure if we will ever abandon this idea since it’s pretty entrenched. My hope is that we will get away from using Satan as a scare tactic. I think it’s ultimately more useful to talk about how evil can happen with things like the holocaust where big institutions and systems are built up on evil premises and a lot of good people do nothing or get stuck being a cog in the machine. What structures are in place now that harm people? Sex trafficking, predatory lending, drug trade, etc. I feel like when the discussion shifts to this focus, we can actually work toward solving these problems instead of just blaming Satan’s power and thinking the only solution is to be more righteous.

I couldn’t agree with this more. In today’s world it’s often easier to blame others for our own shortfalls. Blame the teacher or school for your kid not doing their homework. Blame the friends for “being a bad influence.” Blame Satan for all the ill in the world. Blame Satan for why I can’t get the name of the church correct.

I’ve never taken the next step to wonder what it would actually mean when I do not believe in a literal Satan. Weird. Food for thought.

[Rumin8]

Heber13 wrote:

I wish God would speak up on this issue. I think the leaders don’t hear anything, so they just let an old rule stay as it is.

While it would be nice if the church spoke up clearly and reasonably, I have come to the conclusion that God doesn’t care about stuff like this. God has bigger problems. My hypothesis is that this is 100% a thing of men. Like many other irritating “practices” in our church.

I was in a coffee shop this morning while I was waiting for some tire work to be completed on my car. While browsing the news on my phone, I noticed two high-school age girls sitting across the seating area from me enjoying a couple of mochas. While discussing their seminary classes. One of these could have been my daughter. I’m aware that she and her friends partake from time to time. The way this is going, any prospective change(s) to the WoW will be a reaction from church leaders due to a grass roots campaign (much as the Utah Medical Marijuana legislation was). The men leading the church are in danger of the tail wagging the dog on this one.

I appreciate all the comments on this thread. I know that this is a divisive issue. One thing I have learned to appreciate over the past few years is that we all have our unique journey. And each is valid.

[Rumin8]

Quote:

Our Sacrament Meeting today was about “not judging” this clarification was on my mind the whole time. Because, yes we will use it to judge others. That is our product – Judging. We have a list and expect all team members to comply.

This was our topic too. It was GLORIOUS. Best HC talk I’ve heard in a long time. Enough so that I’ve emailed the speaker for a copy of his talk. I guarantee I have never done that before.

On top of that, no mention of the WoW double-down, except in our bishopric meeting, where reactions were… mixed.

[Rumin8]

This makes me sad, and reiterates the to me the premise of this thread. In business terms, this is our product. I can’t count how many mainstream news articles I saw that linked to the “clarification.” Where once I saw hope for a loosening of the standard, or at least a push towards more self determination, this goes the opposite way. Satan’s plan in action.

Don’t get me wrong, my testimony, or lack thereof is not based on this principle. I will continue to practice it how I have interpreted it. As will everyone else. However, I do view it as a continued a “low hanging fruit” vehicle for judgment. I will continue to live my life as best I know how, and those that judge me for it may continue to do so.

[Rumin8]

Quote:

“The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes the autonomy of each individual and his or her God-given power of choice. Rather than mandating standards of behavior, Adventists call upon one another to live as positive examples of God’s love and care. Part of that example includes taking care of our health—we believe God calls us to care for our bodies, treating them with the respect a divine creation deserves. Gluttony and excess, even of something good, can be detrimental to our health.”

Felix, this is great. Thank you for sharing. It is what I have tried to do for the past few years. Not coincidentally I’m more active physically, and in better health than I have ever been.

Quote:

The WoW is one of the best life choices I’ve made. If I ever go inactive again, or leave I will still try to keep it

Sam, this is awesome also. I think my whole point with this WoW thread is that we appear (in my experience) to make it a bigger deal than it needs to be. I really resonate with the idea of this being a true “choice” of nutrition and lifestyle. Your choice to continue to obey completely this practice is valid and enhances your life. My journey is different, and that’s okay. I have been amused that for inactive or post-mo, some check boxes remain. For example, that if you leave the church you have to start drinking (and liking) coffee and alcohol. If you don’t, then you are a bad (post/inactive)-mormon.

[Rumin8]

I’m trying to keep an open mind. That said, I agree with others who have verbalized being worried about it being more indoctrination.

Our stake, like many others, just completed a Pioneer Trek. I am not a fan, but my wife is. As in many things, I support her in this. I had two of my kids attend. It was held at Martin’s Cove, Wyoming. Our stake was only able to secure the two day version of trek. The feedback I had from my kids was: 1) it was too easy (they only walked 8 miles over 2 days), 2) they had 17 devotionals over two days, and 3) they are sick and tired of the same pioneer stories.

This wasn’t a bad experience for my kids. But it wasn’t what it could have been. 17 devotionals?!?!? They were exhausted after trek. But not physically. They were emotionally and spiritually spent.

This kind of thing would be my worst nightmare for the new program. More doctrine, less fun. My memories of growing up in the church as a youth were not the devotionals, firesides, or other such. It was getting to know my leaders who were brilliant, fun, driven, and imperfect people. Those people gave me hope that even at a young age there was a place for me in the church.

I’m afraid the new program will miss the mark. But I’m willing to give it a chance.

[Rumin8]

This would be a terrible, terrible idea.

As with other things, let’s keep this in the home. That’s where it belongs. Not with a random, untrained, but generally well-intentioned male neighbor.

I never once have shared a worthiness issue with a member of our clergy. I have done a disservice to my children by allowing them to participate in such things. I have allowed my children to be governed by guilt and shame. My heart hurts that I may be too late. I’m going to discuss this with my wife and see if we can get on the same page, so that this practice will stop. At least within my family.

My bishop is a good man. He wears the mantel of bishop well with grace, humility, and the desire to do good. That said, I do not want him conducting worthiness interviews with my children.

[Rumin8]

This is fascinating. I’m in a very similar place as LookingHard (if not a bit more “out”) and I also don’t understand what changed for Rebel2, but I respect the heck out of anyone who can make this work at any level. Whether that means all in, mostly out, or anything in between. So to you, Rebel2, may I express my heartfelt congratulations? What a journey this has been for you.

I too believe it is not a binary choice. I cling to that, so that I can myself keep a hold of my heritage, culture, friends, and family relationships.

[Rumin8]

Just wanted to check in and say from one struggling ward clerk to another, I salute you. Hang in there!

[Rumin8]

This is a tough one. I totally get your concerns and fears.

From an optimistic point of view, perhaps this will put him in close proximity to others that may be struggling too. Due to his support of you, he could be a valuable empathetic resource to others, and this may in fact increase his empathy towards you as well.

There is no getting around the time constraints and the church widow scenario. I’m sure he will prioritize his family as much as is possible.

I’m in frequent contact with my bishopric. One of our counselors wives is what I would call less active. But she is welcome and is a part of the ward to the extent that she wishes to be. I am in a good ward. Most people accept and love her, period. Plus it doesn’t hurt that her husband is a salt of the earth kind of guy.

Best of luck to you! These high profile callings are hard on all involved.

[Rumin8]

I forgot about the meager ward budgets. I am a bad ward clerk. Add that to my list of “begrudges.”

[Author]

Posts