Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nothing. Teach lessons on Sunday about healthy eating, exercise, and meditation for a healthier lifestyle. It’s fascinating for me to see the range of opinions on this topic by a bunch of nuanced members like ourselves. I find it constructive and uplifting. I love the concept of teaching the concepts and allowing us to govern ourselves. The whole sugar vs coffee thing (as an example) illustrates this point. We have been so focused on the so-called spiritual consequences of the WoW that we ignore the temperal dangers of substances not explicitly mentioned in D&C89 or from the pulpit. Look at the booming soda and cookie market in SLC if you don’t believe me. Coincidentally for me, the last few years I have limited my sugar intake while starting to drink low to moderate amounts of items prohibited by the current interpretation of the WoW. I rarely drink soda of any kind. Through that and more occasional exercise, my weight has dropped by nearly 10%. I’m at my lowest weight I’ve recorded in over 10 years. I was never overweight per se, but I definitely feel better now and have much better energy and mental health.
Perhaps on balance that is a healthier lifestyle for me? Everyone is different. I recognize that. Even my non-believer friends and relatives have strong opinions in tea, coffee, and alcohol. So it’s not a religious thing with them, but they educate, experiment, and with that information finally govern themselves.
One last thought: A few people have mentioned the changing stance of the church on medical marijuana in Utah. I am somewhat connected to the political scene in Utah. I am familiar with some, but not all of the public and private negotiations that have been going on with this issue. For the last 3-5 years there have been decent med marijuana bills presented to the state legislature. Each year, the church has opposed it. Not openly, but through it’s paid lobbyist. Each year these bills were defeated. Many legislators for good or Ill look to the church for guidence whether or not the church actually has a position on the issue. In this case, Only when the marijuana initiative made the ballot and polling showed even a majority of active fully participating LDS members supported the proposition did the church change stance. Coincidence or change of heart? You judge.
The so-called compromise that has us where we are today is a real mess. And will not work well without modification. (To be fair the marijuana proposition was a mess too). I know people who are in real need of this who will still go to Nevada or Colorado for recreational product to use medically because what we have now has so many hoops to jump through. It’s mind boggling.
Please let us govern ourselves according to our conscience.
On Own Now wrote:
FWIW, this thread has caused me to pull out my Mate which I am drinking as I write this.I had at one time heard from a later-than-me missionary that during his time, the missionaries weren’t allowed to drink Mate. Ugh.
I had some yesterday as well. Love that stuff. I often have a cup in the mid afternoon as a mild stimulant. Heading to the store to get more.
In my mission it was prohibited, but many missionaries drank it anyway. I never did on my own, but definitely did drink it often when visiting with people.
Google the health effects sometime. It’s interesting.
lotsofgray wrote:
People we need to SLOW DOWN all of this automatic social progression. It has lost its meaning to young men other than turning a certain age and having to have a scary interview with a stranger.
I can speak to the timing issue a bit. The instructions, as I understood them, were that all advancements were to take place in January. That was the instruction in the letter. Just as many other things that are enforced in the church are based on the instructions in the handbooks. That said, there is no reason you should NOT be given time to be comfortable with the process and the result. There were a couple of kids in our ward that we did not advance for one reason or another, mainly based on their mental capacity or social comfort/anxiety.
For our family, my deacon-aged son was advanced this past Sunday. He has a summer birthday and is the youngest in his group by 4 months. We were going to advance him (not ordain, but send him to the teachers quorum) anyways in a month or so. We did the same when he was in primary and all the other boys his age were in deacons. I should say that we did not ask permission to do this, we simply told the YM president and Bishop that this was what we wanted to do, and they were willing to accommodate. I’m not sure what we would have done had they said no.
Totally agree, lotsofgray (obviously from my longwinded post above). I did want to add one addendum. With credit to the user Off The Rameamptum, they shared the following article in a previous thread of mine. I found it very interesting and I have shared it widely with like-minded people:
https://rationalfaiths.com/temple-recommend-status-word-wisdom-observance-contemporary-mormonism/ Speaking for myself, this would be wonderful! The myth of the WoW as a health code needs to go away. In my view it is a very public obedience test. That is where it begins and where it ends with me. This is one thing that feels very “Law of Moses” to me. I’ve done a lot of research on the WoW and it has been fascinating how it started to how it has evolved to what is generally practiced today. We’ve gone from “greeting” to “constrained” and “commanded” in direct violation of D&C 89. This is yet another example where practice has gotten in the way of doctrine. I think much the same can be said for other social issues the church is facing today. I have been pretty candid in some of my posts here that I have very strong feelings on the WoW. It’s not my number one issue, but I find the whole fixation on it to be nonsensical. This goes back to high school when one of my closest friends left the church because of what she views as the crazy interpretation of D&C 89. I felt it was silly that she left over that, but in hindsight I completely understand. It turned out not to be her only issue, just the most public one.
I personally have been in situations where I have been seen with coffee or other things. Or I have been in pictures (while not participating) on social media with people who are partaking of the forbidden items. You would have thought I was drowning babies from the way people responded to it. There is such a deep and ingrained aversion to these things I would be very surprised if anything changed. Look how long it took for someone in church HQ to talk about caffeinated soda. Even now that’s a gray area (although you can now get diet coke at BYU, so it’s all on the up and up now). Even my spouse feels in some part that my lack of faith is due to my issues with the WoW. I’ve tried to explain that it is a symptom, not a cause. Meeting someone for coffee or over a drink has had very positive social effects for me, as I am a classic introvert. But that’s for me. I’ve learned everyone is different and has different hot buttons. I’m very moderate in my habits. I’ve found a balance that works for me. Like all things in life, it requires constant awareness and adjustment.
I served my mission in South America, in an area that Yerba Mate was a way of life. I personally see no difference between Yerba and Green tea. I drank Mate regularly while I was on my mission, since word was that it was not against the WoW. Of course I also drank Coke often on P-Day eve, and that was against the mission rules (as was observing P-Day eve). However, if Mate was enforced as the same as tea, then there would have been very few members of the church in that area. I’ve also never understood why WoW was a condition to joining the church. As part of the TR process, it’s the high bar of membership, not the low bar, IMO.
I hope I haven’t offended anyone with these thoughts. I do understand there is real danger with some of the proscribed items, particularly alcohol.
I also hope for this change. I pray for this change. It could be one less area for people to be judged and found wanting.
I honestly wonder how long this current iteration of the two hour block will last. Alternating weeks of SS and EQ/RS/YM/YW seems like an odd compromise. Our current YW president has told DW and I that she is very concerned about the lack of face time she will get with the girls now. Many are so busy they do not attend the mid-week activities. Now the Sunday face time has been cut in half. I wouldn’t be surprised to see SS get incorporated into the curriculum of the other classes. The current alternating week format seems “clunky.” I know its not related to the two hour block, but the other interesting change with the youth advancements now is just how large the Priest Quorum and Laurel classes are now. In my ward each of those are easily as big as the two younger groups combined.
What a great road map SD! SilentDawning wrote:
c) Don’t share your username or the fact you post here. I think my family looks now and then and that’s not good.
I was thinking about this the other day as I have been recently working through a new church detente with my wife. I think the fact that I have lurked here for years, and become more active here recently is a good thing. But I also don’t think I would like her to read my posts. Too much sausage making going on in my thought process, which could be hurtful to her to read.
I think for most people in my ward the 2 hour block was a raging success. Because of the youth ordination and advancement decree, my two hour block was actually seven hours long (I can’t complain, really, for the bishop his block was probably 10-11 hours long by the time it was all over). Our sacrament meeting actually ended 1 minute early. No announcements (except for the YM advancements). Even the normal testimony bingo people were restrained and brief. Very little mention in testimonies about revelation and church changes. That was refreshing. I don’t know how our SS class hour went, since I was in my special needs class. People who are late to church now will very likely miss the sacrament. My BP has had several discussions about this.
It did seem like it took a long time for the church to clear out after church was over. Part of that was due to the ordinations occurring right after church, but it also could have been due to many people losing the middle hour social hour. I know my DW has complained about that. She said to me “when am I supposed to talk to all of my friends?”
Roy wrote:
If you are not responsible for teaching the class then it would be fairly easy to keep the datails of your faith as private as you want.
Sounds like we will take turns leading the discussion. Its meant to be far more discussion heavy rather than “learning.” I like the concept. The person leading the discussion is supposed to relay information to the group outside of class so that all can be prepared to discuss (trying to get out of the “read out loud” method of teaching). Other class members are also free to distribute items to review together prior to the class. So its not all on the discussion leader for that topic. I’ve jokingly called this the special needs sunday school class. But maybe I’m looking at it all wrong and its really advanced placement?
Roy wrote:
OTOH if it is too much like FAIR then I would lose interist after a few weeks. Every year on ward conference we have ward council members who teach on the new Essays.
FAIR will have a big role, I can tell. I don’t mind that too much, but like you, I may lose interest. The gospel essays will also play a large part. I expect it to be very apologetic. From my brief reading of the tea leaves from class, with the exception of one other person, I am the most “out there.” I’m a little disappointed by that. I was hoping to be surrounded by more heathens. Maybe they are just more shy than me (which would be interesting as I’m a classically trained introvert).
Roy wrote:
Is this a class where you can discuss RSR?
Very much so. It’s on the reading list. I started re-reading it last night so that I can use it as camouflage to incorporate some of my doctrinal and church history concerns. I’m cautiously optimistic.
Well, I am returning to report on the class. I’m having a hard time processing how it went. It was a mix of great people all across the spectrum (mostly trending towards orthodox, but not obnoxiously so), so if nothing else it’s going to be interesting. The first part was spent by the bishop framing the purpose of the class. And that was that it is okay to inquire thoughtfully and prayerfully. It’s okay to have doubts. Most people do. Most of the rest of the class was a deeper dive into introductions and possible future topics.
My trouble comes because I don’t feel this class is for me. Even as little as a year ago it would have been. That said, I am still able to frame my thoughts constructively and in harmony to accepted church teachings. At least on some issues. I just will chose to not be vocal on the topics that I struggle with the most. I think this is consistent with the counsel I have received on this thread. Thank you all who have participated.
Bottom line is I think it will be helpful and enjoyable for most participants.
On another note, it did prompt a post church discussion with my spouse. That did not go well, much to my surprise. We are retreading some ground we have tread already. Maybe I haven’t been clear enough with my thoughts and feelings. Maybe if I was, she still didn’t want to hear it, or accept it. Two steps back and none forward I guess today.
Yes. I definitely owe at least one class, if not more, and planned to attend. I guess my point that I didn’t articulate well, or at all is whether I can sustain attendance in that class for the full year or more it is scheduled. My spouse is less than enthused about attending as well, if for different reasons.
We have both agreed to attend.
I honor this bishop for caring enough to try this, even though it could backfire in so many ways. He is a genuinely good dude.
nibbler wrote:
Did he create the class because the two of you got together and decided it would be helpful to talk about various issues at church or was it more one-sided, where after talking to you he alone thought it would be a good idea to create the class and then he committed you to attend? The only reason I ask is because if it was a mutual decision then I think there’s more of an expectation that you attend. If you decide not to attend he may be thinking, “But you wanted this.”
No, it wasn’t just for me. It’s been something on his mind for a while. We talked about it because I shared in very general terms that I was not renewing my TR and why. He offered some advice, and allowed me some time before putting a deadline on having a TR. We also discussed the class, which I think is a splendid idea, but not necessarily for me at this time. I felt much more positive about it only 6 months ago.
nibbler wrote:
There may (or as you point out, may not) be others in your ward with similar issues. I’m just thinking out loud, why hold a dedicated class for one person? But some leaders might do just that. But to your question, I’d expect both. Maybe a few other people that have expressed doubt and maybe a few people that feel like they know all of your issues but are still orthodox in their beliefs. I tried to be careful how I worded that. There are people that remain orthodox that say they know all the issues, and that may be 100% true, but in my mind there’s a difference between “the” issues and “your” issues. Something that doesn’t affect one person can have a deep effect on someone else.
I know at least one other person on the class list is in my boat or even further down the road as they have not been to church in quite some time. There will be very orthodox believers in the class, including some who seem to be at peace with many of the things that give me pause (my spouse among them). I have learned through my deconstruction process that “issues” are very specialized to the person. Even among “nuanced” believers things trigger different people in different ways. This is one reason I don’t think this class will work, except for providing a forum where these things can be discussed in more detail in an intimate setting. Having the bishop there is a problem, but I don’t see how you do this class without him there. This bishop, at least, is very earnest about helping people. That is on reason why we are having the class in the first place.
nibbler wrote:
If the class had more interesting discussion than the alternative (Sunday school) I might continue to attend. If the class felt like they were trying to fix me I’d stop attending.
This very nearly mirrors my concern. I do not want to be “fixed.” I feel that I’m working that out without this class. I don’t want to lay bare all my issues for that class to examine. I don’t want to be a catalyst for someone else to start a faith crisis. I don’t want to hand the bishop the blueprint to my current belief (or lack thereof). And finally, I don’t need a regurgitation of FAIRMORMON when I can do that on my own time. That said, no matter what, it is going to be more interesting than the typical Sunday school class. How can it not be?
This has been a facsinating any timely topic for me. Last year I decided not to renew my TR. My spouse and I have had a number of conversations about this decision. My spouse believes that I could pass the TR process. My spouse does not believe that the TR questions are intended to be answered with perfect obedience or adherence. I agree with my spouse. I guess for me it boils down to this: If I wanted a TR recommend, I could have one. It’s ultimately between me and god. One could even view the TR process as an audible prayer where I am stating my worthiness out loud, to god. The interviewer in this scenario is simply the tool while ultimately the arbiter is me. One day, god will judge me. Until then, I am kept guessing.
I think ultimately god and me are in a good place. I try to be a good person and live by the golden rule. I do all things in moderation. I think god has bigger worries than little ol me. We’ll figure it all out when and if we are ever face to face.
This is cost/benefits analysis I do quite often. Like many, I’m in the church for social or heritage reasons. I have found as I have evolved that people are and have been much more kind than I expected. I live in an excellent ward. I have witnessed this first hand these past few months as my family is experiencing a very public challenge with one of our children. Others may quietly condemn or gossip, but I don’t care about them. People are going to people.
Yesterday I was having a conversation with a member about some trials in their family. One of the points I brought up is that it’s been my experience that I gain back in benefits at least what I put into volunteer organizations. But, you have to have reasons to be in that organization in the first place. So it’s a bit of a chicken and the egg conundrum for me.
What I’m dealing with acutely now is how to maintain the social benefits of the church community while allowing myself authenticity while I transition to my new framework (whatever that means). My wife and I are actively working on this together, for which I am very grateful (her as a TBM and me as something else).
I can say that I don’t often gain spiritual insight or sustenance at church. I do achieve this from time to time. Sadly, I feel more of what I seek when I’m in nature or spending time with dear family or friends. So, this is what I seek now more than church attendance/participation, even though I attend some part of church nearly every week. That said, the church has and always will have a role in my life. I just don’t see a scenario where it will be as large of a factor as it once was.
