[Rumin8]

The church doesn’t need the money. They like the money, and it gives them freedom to invest aggressively. But they don’t need it. I view it as an obvious obedience test.

This (like many things about the corporate church) is one of my hot buttons. I work in commercial real estate as a profession. Some of my closest work friends manage high profile church real estate assets around the country, but mostly in Salt Lake county where I too reside. I also at one point was a candidate to lead the formerly PRI real estate asset management arm of the church. Things were restructured and this went nowhere (I would not have accepted anyhow; it was not a fit for either of us). During that process I got a small peek behind the scenes. The church’s two signature investment real estate assets downtown are valued in the billions. I do not begrudge these investments. They are good for the city and they are good for the communities they are placed. The church has many, many many assets similar to, but not quite as large, around the world. Multi family. Retail. Office. Industrial. Land. You could argue the pace of investment and acquisition is increasing. For example, last fall a new church owned 28 story office tower was announced for downtown SLC.

What I do begrudge from our wealthy church:

1) the forced service of chapel cleaning and exterior maintenance

2) forced service of temple cleaning and exterior maintenance

3) take my tithing dollars or invest aggressively but not both

4) prosperity gospel: as I look at the history of my local leaders, most, of not all, have achieved some greater than average level of success and prosperity. So the lesson here is obedience = prosperity = leadership opportunities

With tithing we are taught that if we pay the lord first, he will take care of us if we have enough faith. I know too many people that this is not the case. But they do get the benefit of the church welfare system. But so do people who are less scrupulous tithe layers.

I feel the church is having its cake and eating it too. As ward clerk I see all sorts of donations. The church can use those anywhere and in any place at their discretion. There are some exceptions to this.

I’ve tried here to temper my resentments. But asking for 10% of the gross income (this IS what is taught and accepted in most circles) of people who live paycheck to paycheck while investing billions of dollars each year in income producing and non-income producing (temples) each year feels and looks like priestcraft to me.

[Rumin8]

This thread reminds me of a month-long dispute I had with an area authority (not a GA, but someone akin to a stake president where there is no stake) when I served my mission in north-eastern Argentina in the early 90s.

In the summer, temperatures would reach over 100 degrees plus extreme humidity. Our chapels did not have AC, but did have ceiling fans. When this authority was present, he would require the branch president to have an elder close the windows during the sacrament service. For the purposes of “reverence.” I would try to countermand it because it would get very hot and very smelly. I wasn’t always successful. It was miserable.

My last retort to him before I escalated the issue to the MP was that “Christ suffered so that we wouldn’t have to. Keep the windows open!”

A few months later it was discovered that he was having a long-standing affair and was excommunicated. I’ve always wondered if he required that measure of reverence as some form of self flagellation.

One of my hot buttons is the businesslike conformity required by our leaders. I realized recently that this has been a source of my spiritual starvation I have experienced for many years. We would be better to be more of a worship and less of a “learn” in SM. Push the super worship reverence things to the temples where they belong.

[Rumin8]

My brother got married on the beach in St Thomas on what he called their “wedding cruise” he and his then fiancé invited friends and family to join them. Any who could were welcome. They did this because she was previously married, widowed, and did not want to cancel her sealing to her first husband for various reasons (all of them good ones).

They arranged for the local branch president to marry them, rented a venue for a few hours for a wedding lunch, and then we got back on the ship. Of my three siblings wedding ceremonies, it was by far the one I remember and appreciate the most.

I’m excited for couples who will now get to experience weddings like this without the pressure or stigma of a non-temple wedding.

[Rumin8]

I’ve deliberately waited for this change to marinate a bit before I commented anywhere. I’m coming down in the camp that basically is thankful for the change, but why did this take so dang long???? I’m also very grateful that this change was made. I can’t emphasize that enough.

One of my biggest regrets now (I didn’t care 25 years ago) was that 95% of my wife’s family could not attend our wedding. I have since been to many non-LDS weddings in their family, and they are so much more festive and enjoyable that mine ever was. They are truly good people and they have never pointed the finger at us for excluding them. Most of them grew up Catholic in Provo, Utah. They get it.

I’m grateful for my own sake as well. As a non-TR holding member, I will now be able to attend the weddings of my children. This takes some pressure off of my mixed faith marriage, since I will not be excluded from one of the biggest events in my children’s lives.

One thing that stood out for me was the following:

Quote:

The Church asks that these civil marriage ceremonies be simple and dignified.

Even with this announcement the church has to tell us what to do. I get where this is coming from, but it seems like the church always has to take the stance that we can’t govern ourselves and need guidance in all things. Like missionary farewells or homecomings, this seems like an effort to suck the pageantry and “fun” out of significant life events. I’ll admit I’m probably reading too much into this.

Finally, in validation to those that are hurt by this change, for whatever reason, I get it. I feel that way too. I think it would go a long way if the church would simply apologize, or even just acknowledge that some of these policies (emphasis mine) have been hurtful and divisive. We talked about this very concept the other night in what I call my “Mormon’s Anonymous” support group. If the church practiced what it taught about repentance, there would be much less fear and anger surrounding changes like this.

This was a good change. Keep them coming, please.

[Rumin8]

Felixfabulous,

I started drinking coffee in earnest about 2 years ago. Prior to that I would sample some here and there, but the barriers to entry (family considerations, WoW, visibility, etc) prevented me from acting on it further. As a general rule, I avoid sugary and diet sodas, sugar in general, and try to be moderate in my nutritional habits.

My gateway coffee drink was a mocha latte, then skinny mocha latte, then machiatto or normal latte, and now my usual is an americano. Black, no sweetener. Sometimes milk, sometimes no. Sometimes hot, sometimes iced. I ADORE coffee. I enjoy the stimulant. I love the bitterness. I enjoy the coffee shop atmosphere. I enjoy talking and meeting people in those environments. I enjoy taking a moment to myself to read the news or listen to a podcast while I’m sipping a cup of my drink of choice that day. Presumably I could achieve these experiences and feelings in other areas and in other places, but I haven’t. At least up to now.

As others have stated, I would not recommend that you do any of this in secret. I know this is easier said than done. My wife is aware that I drink it. She may not be aware of the frequency (which is more days than not). We agree to disagree on coffee (like many other things). That all said, she has picked me up a drink or two in the past from Starbucks. We go to coffee shops regularly together. I order what I want, and she usually orders a steamer or a herbal tea. I would love to have a espresso machine in my house. I’m hoping that by next year this time I do. I will save a lot of money, that’s for sure.

Just like shopping on Sunday, I have been surprised by the people I run into in coffee shops. Generally we share a wink and move along to our respective business. Some are very uncomfortable when they see me and recognize me. I have a “coffee” meeting with a ward member friend of mine once or twice a month. We both hold high level callings. He has a TR. I do not. Neither of us see a problem with what we are doing. We recognize that others in our ward and families would disagree with us. I no longer care what others will say about me if they see me with a cup of coffee. I have learned that more people are shall we say “flexible” with the word of wisdom then I ever imagined. I have no answer for why this is other than the idea that they, like me, are charting their own course.

I’m not holding my breath for the church to change it’s position. I wanted them to. When it didn’t happen, I was disappointed. Upon reflection, I’m glad things didn’t change. I joke that my coffee wouldn’t taste as good. But the main reason I’m glad is that I don’t want to process why something the church has taught as evil and unhealthy is suddenly okay. I have been paying particular attention this past six months or so, and there has not been ONE Sunday that has gone by that the word of wisdom has NOT been mentioned. We have an ironically unhealthy fascination with the word of wisdom. We get caught up in practices in place of doctrine. This is a giant pet peeve of mine.

I really like Dande’s thought on consequences. I live my life that way. In most the things I do, I anticipate the best and worst consequences of that decision. If I am willing to accept the worst case consequence, then I will go forward. If I do not, then I will not. That is how my conscience is governed.

[Rumin8]

This is a fascinating topic. My thoughts are a mess on this, and I will need some time to process. That said, I haven’t thought of splitting “trust” from “forgiveness.” I’ve always conflated them. I’ve always felt that I was not a good person, because I assumed that when I forgave someone a trespass, that I would then naturally need to trust them again, at the same level I did to start with. That does not happen with me. I struggle to trust those who have betrayed me in great or small ways. I am slow to open my true self to others, and slow to trust. But once I do, I expect them to say and do good things, and to do what they say they will do. And to keep my confidences. I cannot honestly say that when this trust has been broken, that I am willing to trust again. That does not mean I cannot have relationships with those people, but it does mean that I will take what they say and do with a grain of salt. In other words, trust is very hard to rebuild with me. I cannot think of a scenario in nearly my nearly 50 years of life that once broken, that my trust has been completely restored in a person. I have been accused of being vindictive when I don’t trust people again. But, it’s not that I want “revenge,” but its more that I don’t want to associate with people who have betrayed my trust.

Through my faith transition journey, I am finding that I am a lot more open to forgiveness (giving and receiving) and I’m legitimately trying to trust certain people again, or even trust more people with my vulnerabilities. So far that has been rewarding. But I am also expecting that to burn me at some future time, and I’m interested to see how I will react to that.

[Rumin8]

Mods, thanks for all you do. It has been an interesting forum the last week or so.

I love Star Wars. I would view myself as an expert in Star Wars lore. That said, this thread is weird. And interesting. And awesome. I hope it doesn’t get closed down.

Thanks for all the insight and thought provoking parallels gals and guys!

An interesting aside, well interesting to me. I’ve always identified as dark side. But not the “evil” dark side, if that makes sense. When I had the choice when playing Star Wars video games I always chose dark side, but tried to do good things. I know that sounds odd. And the reason is simple: I always felt the Jedi side needlessly strict, conservative, and slow to change. The Jedi order seemed to have way too many rules. Does this sound familiar, anyone?

[Rumin8]

On the moon landings, I recently watched some documentaries on how the original moon landing could have been, and probably was, faked. I myself don’t believe that it was faked, but the evidence was interesting and compelling. When I brought it up to my wife, she got upset with me and said something to the effect of “why can’t people [me] just let go of the “why” and “what” and accept it as the marvel it was? Why does everything have to be “proved?” It was quite an outburst for her and it took me off guard until I realized that the things I was sharing about “truth” about the moon landings are very similar to the ideas I have been sharing during my faith crises. It was an interesting parallel, and I have tried harder since then to dwell more in the wonder (and meaning) of things, and try (somewhat unsuccessfully) to leave alone the “why” and “what.” This is easier said than done.

[Rumin8]

nibbler wrote:

Handbook 1 answers that question:

Handbook 1; Section 3.6.3.1 wrote:

Church officers and Latter-day Saint chaplains are not to use their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex.

If you want to get very technical, that sounds like a bishop could perform a same sex marriage but they would have to obtain authority to perform marriages apart from their authority as a BP and make it clear (somehow) that they are using the non-church given authority to perform the marriage.

Even then I’d imagine there would be an issue. Optically it would be the bishop using his authority to perform the marriage even if they were acting with authority provided elsewhere.

I had an interesting conversation with my mother and wife about something similar to this. My nephew is gay, and recently became engaged to his partner. In order to help facilitate the marriage of one of my best friends, I went online last summer and got “ordained” so that I could legally officiate at his wedding. I performed the ceremony and it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. I don’t plan to do this often, but when close friends or family desire my help, I freely offer it. I did so in the case of my nephew, figuring it would mean more if I officiated than some random government official. Both my wife and mother objected to this offer, but for different reasons. My mother because she felt it could be grounds for me to be excommunicated (I don’t agree, but can see her point and fear) and my wife because while she’s supportive of my nephew, she felt that having me officiate went to far (I see her point but don’t necessarily agree). This may all be avoided if one of his friends officiates. In any case, these were some interesting and thought provoking discussions I’ve had recently about boundaries and how far a member could go in supporting a same-sex lifestyle without endangering their church standing.

[Rumin8]

nibbler wrote:

Quote:

Joseph Smith Could Not Have Written the Book of Mormon

I think it all comes down to:

Yeah-huh.

Nu-uh.

For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

:angel:

This is perfection! Love it.

[Rumin8]

Roy wrote:

Rumin, I had thought that the church did recently authorize other forms a “stay close to home” mission for individuals that were not a good fit for a traditional mission. Can you help me understand what you would like to see that is different than this?

Sure. Let me first say that what they have announced for “stay close to home” is a good start. I may have a very biased perspective on this because of my son, who is home early from his mission, and undecided as to his future course.

I would like to see:

* Mini missions (service or proselytizing for kids priest and laurel ages on up to give these kids a clue of what they can expect as missionaries)

* Service missions of various lengths (marry this inherent manpower with the humanitarian arm of the church)

* Proselytizing missions of various lengths

* Make missions like senior missions. More choice on destination, type, and length

* More communication with home (this was granted, and is an awesome change)

I realize there are real challenges with this list. But I also think the missionary program is reeling. Fewer kids are going out, and even fewer are STAYING out. For every kid it is different. But I feel strongly the model has to change. In my case, if we had had more opportunity to communicate with our son while he was out, and if a few things had been handled differently by the MP, then it is highly probable that he would still be out and thriving. I don’t blame the church for any of this. Where he is now is based off of choices my son made.

[Rumin8]

As a bit of background context, I have never enjoyed GC. It has always seemed to me that the focus is on everything we are NOT doing, and very little on what we ARE doing. I have internalized that in the past as a feeling of no matter what I do, it will never be enough. I struggled mightily 6 months ago with GC. I listened intently and more than I had ever in the past. It did not go well. I chalked it up at the time to where I was in my journey. I expected some struggle this time. I was not prepared for how viscerally worse it was for me this time. It is ironic, because literally a week ago you could have found me in great spirits with a solid game plan to enhance my participation in the church physically, emotionally, and spiritually. I had recently had productive discussions with my bishop and others close to me. I had a plan. The pressure was off to conform. I was happy.

There were some talks I appreciated, even if I didn’t exactly agree with them. I enjoyed the focus more on Jesus Christ. I was disappointed in Pharisaical elements in some of my favorite speakers (Holland) and was pleasantly surprised by the messages of Oaks (he seemed less “strident”) and Bednar (although his talk made me want to play a drinking or gambling game everything he mentioned “home centered church supported study”). I completely shut down in reaction to Nelson’s Sunday morning talk. I expect more love, discernment, and understanding from our prophet.

My wife made the comment that there wasn’t much to chew on this conference. She found it bland. That was a good opening for me to take and share, but I didn’t, and I haven’t. The reason is because on balance this conference made me feel that I didn’t belong. That there is no place for me. That I will never be good enough. That the decisions I make will imperil my family and those I care for forever. It made me feel that I don’t want to be a part of that church. This is why I haven’t shared with my loved ones yet. But I will. Once I settle down and realize once again that there is hopefully a path for me to walk to stay engaged at some level in the church, despite its repeated every six months “never good enough” culture. This HURTS. It hurts that my loved ones easily find peace and joy in those messages, and that I don’t.

Maybe in the coming days and weeks I can re-read or re-listen to a few of the talks that resonated with me. Maybe those will be enough to keep me grounded in the desire to continue in the community of our shared faith.

[Rumin8]

What a great thread. Right now I have similar feelings to what Beachplease7 shared.

Thank you for sharing. I have closed myself of since Saturday to “process.” It’s turning into an echo chamber. I need to open up and share. Thank you for that gentle reminder, Roy. And Nibbler, thank you for sharing your empathy. You shared very eloquently some of the feelings and challenges of trying for a “middle way.”

[Rumin8]

I can only share what I had to do in a similar situation last summer. My temple recommend was expiring last August. My son was preparing to go on a mission last July. I realized that I would have to put aside my strong dislike of the temple for a few hours so that I could go through with him as his escort. I didn’t do that for me. I did it for him, and for my wife. I also did it because I had a TR, on paper. It was as horrible as I expected it to be, but it was also survivable because of my love for him and for my wife.

Now that my recommend is expired (with no plans to renew at present), I don’t know what I would do if all those things were occurring this summer. I would have to weigh what was important to me (authenticity in my worship) or what was important to others. I honestly don’t know what side of the line I would come down on. “What would it take?” This is a good question. Pre-GC I felt I was in an excellent place. Post GC I’m a train wreck.

My poor advice to you would be to navigate as best you can what makes you happy compared to what makes others you value happy. Hopefully those areas will intersect more than they will conflict.

My heart goes out to you. This is hard.

[Rumin8]

I too was disappointed. Not so much that not much was announced, but how we buy into the whole “take your vitamins” rhetoric. This can’t help but NOT live up to the hype. As for the WoW changes, it won’t affect me much one way or another. I’m on record with my wife that if it were sanctioned (or not penalized) by the church it wouldn’t taste as good. 😆 Lack of a policy change on that just makes my wait a little longer for home brewed options.

The real disappointment for me was nothing on missions or even mini missions for youth. Sooooo many kids are retuning home early. Of my son’s 4 closest friends, 2 are home, as is my son. All for similar reasons. All have the option to go back out, but I doubt any will.

[Author]

Posts