[swimordie]

All of the following thoughts are so important and wonderful. This is how I would like to live, learning by symbolism but living and loving for life.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

The myth shifts to make things more personal (based on a real relationship with real people) and to also light the path for our own responsibility toward our children in the future. The truth transcends the myth by replacing the magical elements with charitable ones and with personal growth.

Tom Haws wrote:

For me, though the reality of Heaven and the Highest is larger than physical life, it really is important to look at life with less magical explanations and more symbolism and personal responsibility.

Valoel wrote:

I have priesthood power/authority to bless people because I believe it and they believe it. It’s all very real on the spiritual level. It may or may not be as real on the tangible/intellectual level.

Heber13 wrote:

I guess I am still a little uncomfortable, feeling like I still believe God exists and periodically “enlightens” a prophet to restore truth so we can start a church to teach true Christ teachings…but on a daily basis, how much of it is really haunted hauses and scary snakes that we seek comfort from, when really we need to just look at real life with less paranormal explanations and more symbolism for meaning and direction.

btw, you all just did it again. This insight has inspired me more than…. oh, I’m not gonna say it. 😳

[swimordie]

My sincerest condolences, Kalola. May God grant you peace and comfort.

[swimordie]

LaLaLove wrote:

IOW as long as I do everything The Church believes I should do, we will be just fine. There is no room for mistakes – No room for personal revelation – No room for finding my own way_ with this new struggle of faith.

This was a very brave thread to start and I commend you for that. Also, if you don’t know, you need to know that EVERYONE goes through this, even if there is no crisis of faith. It’s just that the TBM fundamentalist worldview is so black/white that these issues become highly magnified. I don’t want to minimize what’s happening because it’s important to you and that makes it feel BIG.

I have four other siblings, all of whom grew up TBM, got married in the temple and have had varying degrees of major issues exactly like this, including me. Most of it comes down to a type of codependency. I’m not sure if that’s a concept you’re familiar with but essentially it is the idea that one gets one’s approval/validation/self-worth from external forces. For TBM’s this usually is from parents, bishops, mission presidents, in-laws and, especially, spouses.

The problem is that we can never please these people all of the time. So, we get resentful. This comes out as defensiveness, self-pity, aggression, manipulation or emotional abuse (silent treatment, withholding love/affection/intimacy) and the cycle roars to life. This “scoreboard watching” makes both spouses “keep score”, looking for ammo to use at the right time, or for revenge. Which leads to more resentment and the cycle continues down until one feels little to no self-worth and so they become more TBM or go the other way and become addicts (if followed to logical extremes).

I’m not insinuating that this is what is happening to you, just that it sounded oh-so familiar. So far one sibling has divorced, two (and me) have resigned from the church and ALL of us have been/are/are planning to be in therapy. Obviously, from our family, there was enormous amounts of emotional abuse from parents who chose to use the church (and its teachings) as the principal tool of abuse. The result is that as adults, we are all overcoming deep codependency in which we struggle to find validation/self-worth/approval from inside our heart. From ourselves. Hopefully, not seeking approval/self-worth from others which always begins the emotionally destructive cycle.

For myself, I have found that the unconditional love I feel from God in my heart and the example of unconditional love by Christ, now defines my spiritual/emotional journey. I know I’m a good person and that anything I do will not offend God, in part because of his unconditional love and in part because any mistakes I make are an essential part of my journey to learn and progress, which is His plan for me.

Sorry for the ramble but I wish you the best and know that you are a good person, NO MATTER WHAT. Like the others have posted, love is all you need.

[swimordie]

This is a wonderful topic/thread and obviously something I’m still learning/re-learning.

I also agree that if both parties could consider each other dispassionately, clear progress could almost always be made.

However….. , hasn’t there been times in history when huge important shifts have been accomplished by the “fight”? American Revolution, American Civil War, South African civil uprising, Czech student revolt, etc. Would positive progress eventually have been made by continued dialogue and interaction? Maybe, but at what cost? More lives ruined/wasted, less human progress both socially and specially, less individual agency, etc.

And, I’m not saying this to provoke ire, but aren’t most of those “disagreements” between cultures, or that are culturally based, essentially bigoted ideas, either on one side or both? Were both sides right in the Civil War? South African apartheid? Segregation? Miscegenation?

I recognize that I’m using huge historic precedents for a much more complex concept, but there are issues out there hurting real people in real ways for what appears to be irrational reasons. Are there exceptions to your thesis and, if so, how to deal with those?

[swimordie]

Wow! You guys are all so brainy! I love it!

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, I have personal knowledge of how difficult it is for apostles and prophets to walk the line between caring for the 99 (“The Church”) and the 1 (the struggling member).

This is exactly why I felt compelled to resign. And I also recognize that it’s the exact reason that the brethren can’t/won’t/choose not to change. It’s the mother of all dilemmas. (or father or genderless parent 😆 )

jmb275 wrote:

We should have equality, in label, in rights, and in culture. Culturally, the gov’t can do nothing. But they can for the other two. What we have done (at least in CA), is enshrine inequality in the constitution.

And, unfortunately, now enshrined in mormon doctrine/theology. (yes, I know, lots of other religions, too)

Heber13 wrote:

I’m still studying to see if there is some reason that teaching should not hold up to protect our children, since it is often the young lambs that stray and get themselves in danger. So what are the dangers of SSM? Do we have a list?

Personally, I feel (know ) that there are NO “dangers” of SSM. Sure, the jury may still be out on whether a same-sex couple is not as “ideal” as a opposite-sex couple for MODELING parenting (since over 95% of parent couples are opposite-sex and a similar percentage of children of same-sex couples are heterosexual). But modeling parenting and actual parenting are two different things. As an example, my parents were the perfect model TBM parents (we all know the image 🙄 ). However, they did a very poor job of actual parenting, if by parenting you mean building emotionally healthy adult individuals. I know that there’s alot more to parenting but, imho, this one area is more important than all the others combined. Because it is the only true course to happiness.

But, there are fear-mongering (sorry for the heavy term but that’s what I think it is) reasons that have been used to attack SSM, all of which I believe are disturbingly misguided:

Adopted children of SS couples are more likely to “become” homosexual.

Social studies classes will have to include a SS couple as a “normal” option for a family unit thus confusing children into thinking that homosexuality is “normal” and therefore making children “become” homosexual.

All homosexuals are pedophiles so by giving them equal protection, access, etc., they will become pre-school teachers, little league coaches and boy scout leaders, molesting tons of kids and turning them all into homosexuals.

Legalizing SSM will force religions to perform SSM ceremonies or risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only way that God intended, laid out in the pre-existent plan, all the way through the eternities of heavenly existence. (“It’s not Adam and Steve”)

Just look at nature, to procreate you have to have a male and a female.

Sorry for the tone of the list, but this is how it sounds to me when I hear it.

[swimordie]

just me wrote:

We’ve also stripped and denied all the priesthood previously recognized in an endowed woman. We stress how wonderful and important it is to have “the priesthood in the home.” Two women in a relationship would lack the priesthood (according to the modern church). Two men would have the trouble of figuring out who was the patriarch of the home. The veil ceremony and order of prayer present issues for SS couples the way they are currently performed.

This is precisely the philosophical paradigm shift I was talking about before. It goes WAY beyond just SSA and SSM but gets into gender roles, gender identification, pre-mortal/post-mortal gender, eternal consequences, or lack thereof, of gender, gender of God, as unity with Mother-God or as unity with the other members of the trinity and each entities respective gender. (Does the Holy Ghost have a gender?)

The natural world is a hodge-podge of gender and gender roles and not just for reproduction. There is asexual reproduction as well as communal-type reproduction. If God’s idea was one man/one woman and this is the perfect paradigm, why so many variations of this in the natural world? (In fact, the EXCEPTION in the natural world is life-long monogamy; I know wolves and geese are monogamous for life, generally)

I’m rambling but what I mean is that I have come to a place where I understand how acceptance or acknowledgment of SSA/SSM may feel like it requires a philosophical paradigm shift of which the current GA’s are not willing to confront in their lifetimes. And, I hope this doesn’t sound unfair, but the greatest religious and spiritual leaders of history DID have to make the difficult paradigm changing decisions and they are loved and reviled for it by subsequent generations. Just my thought.

[swimordie]

Heber13 wrote:

I think the issue can be debated in love…it doesn’t have to devolve into hate and fear. That is not the Gospel of Christ.

I couldn’t agree more. I think, Heber, you’re in that place where the “rule” change of SSM is so huge you’re struggling with the philosophical ramifications. I actually think that is the big issue with the brethren as well. It’s just a huge paradigm shift. But, allow me a couple points:

first, the idea of centuries of heterosexual monogamous marriage is false. Really only the western world has adopted this carte blanche and it’s only been 300 years at best of that sentiment broadly.

Heber13 wrote:

If others want to play by different rules…fine…go ahead. Be homosexual if you want. Adopt kids if you want. But don’t call it marriage, call it what it is – co-habitating or living together. If you force me to change my rules on what marriage is, it forces me to teach my kids differently about what family life is

This is the idea that baffles me the most, sorry. How does the existence of SSM “force” you to teach your kids differently about what family is? The concept of divorce is so much more devastating by 1,000 times and yet you’re scared to admit that two loving committed people who happen to be the same gender is a “family”? You keep mentioning terms like “protecting” marriage or “protecting” family as if those institutions are being attacked relentlessly. Again, I apologize, but adding another classification to what “marriage” is or what “family’ is, does not spell doom for those institutions. Not to go crazy on the sports analogies but it was like when the American League added the designated hitter in baseball. Purists went absolutely ballistic saying it was the end of the game as we know it. Now, two generations later, nobody even talks about it and it’s accepted as another interesting part of a very interesting game. (Although rather boring ))

I’d love to hear all of the scriptural references you alluded to that tells us that God wants marriage to be between one man and one woman. (Sodomy references don’t count ) I imagine I could find more references to the divine institution of polygamy. 😈

As for the law, there is roughly 1,000 state and federal statutes that use the term marriage, everything from extensive tax codes, to divorce laws, joint property rights, privacy concerns, domestic violence laws, etc, etc.

In time, it will be impossible to argue that denying equal access to laws, (domestic violence being the most scary) because of the term “marriage”, is constitutional. Exactly the same process as happened with the miscegenation cases (Loving v. Virginia).

And, one last apology, but when you use terms like “protecting”, “force”, “fighting”, those sound like fear words and not love words.

Thank you, Heber, for engaging honestly because this is a critically important issue, judging by the DaMU backlash over prop 8.

[swimordie]

@just me: love your insight, very succinct.

Tom Haws wrote:

It was told to me (or rather I was reminded) that there are no mistakes in the way each of us were made. God knew what each of us would be challenged and blessed with.

I have no idea where you got this reference and it all sounds a little “new-agey” to me but I absolutely LOVED this quote. If there was some way to have all people everywhere understand this sentiment the world would be a different place. I feel exactly like what this quote is expressing and I guess that is why I have such a difficult time wrapping my mind and heart around an understanding of why people feel otherwise. I may have had a little too much to drink tonight 😆 😆

[swimordie]

This thread has been more insightful, enlightening, instructive, and faith-promoting than all of the EQ lessons I’ve heard in the last ten years combined. (I guess that was a back-handed complement but it was meant to be a sincere “Thank you” to everyone)

[swimordie]

Old-Timer wrote:

I have come to believe that “the Church” (the top leadership) expects the members to pursue the “higher law” on their own – to “be agents unto themselves” – while “the Church” teaches the basic and general law.

Nice response, Ray. Hope this doesn’t sound inflammatory but if what you’re saying in that quote is true, why do they ask all the temple recommend questions? Why not just have the last one be the only one: “Are you worthy…”??

[swimordie]

Heber13 wrote:

the rules for s3x stem from a need to procreate and bring spirits to earth.

I’m not sure if this is entirely true. The rules for sexual relations go far beyond just procreation (or on the other side, the lack of rules). And, again, you’re devaluing millions of heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate. What is the purpose of their sexuality if unable to procreate? If they can’t procreate, shouldn’t they be subject to the same celibacy rules that homosexual couples are?

Heber13 wrote:

an we argue that homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual? Maybe…but instead of changing all the rules to fit our specific needs, we should openly voice our opinions and openly debate what we feel is right, then accept what is told to us is God’s rules, and if we need confirmation we go to Him in prayer to ask if we should accept that rule. That applies to the Word of Wisdom, and other commandments too.

Wonderfully said Heber! I completely agree and I also agree with your analogy of the NFL needing to change/update the rules over time when circumstances deem it necessary.

[swimordie]

Old-Timer wrote:

I could see the Church sanctioning “celibate” homosexual unions. It could be done VERY easily from a doctrinal standpoint, and the only “change” that would have to occur would be a loosening of the restrictions on “activity” to allow homosexuals to express their feelings in non-intercourse ways that are allowed to heterosexuals.

The other option, of course, would be to not change anything. Gay marriage is already legal in several states and many countries and the “Law of Chastity”, as defined in the temple ceremony, is all sexual activity bounded my marriage.

There is, imho, the big underlying question of choice. It is a HUGE irrational leap to lump all homosexuals into the “you’re choosing to act this way”. Just because the thought of something makes us queasy or uncomfortable, does not make it a sin. Inter-racial marriage was branded in the exact same way. (Until it was changed “doctrinally”)

I’m not insinuating that any of you are irrational and I understand the “doctrinal” context of the Proclamation. But, of course, there are ideas in that document that HAVE changed over time, so I guess I choose to see it as a living document. Ironically, (or not) the LDS church is the only mainstream Christian church that even assigns two genders to “God”. Everyone else calls God, “Him”, but doesn’t allow for a spouse, God-mother, whatever. And, as I stated earlier, I’m not sure that even the church feels the Proclamation is doctrine since DC 132 is still “doctrine” and there’s a glaring contradiction.

Kalola wrote:

Yes. I believe in “traditional” family values … father, mother and children. I firmly believe in the message of The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

This may sound confrontational but I don’t intend it to be. “Traditional” is so dubious since the idea of monogamous heterosexual marriage is an extremely novel idea in the context of human history. Not traditional at all. (just ask Brigham Young).

If the church feels so strongly about SSM as to make it untenable and unacceptable to the extreme, shouldn’t temple divorces be banned if there are children involved? I feel this is a HUGE double standard. Heterosexual couples can freely marry, have children, and divorce at will but one gay couple who is committed to monogamy for eternity is NOT allowed to marry?

I feel as if there is something deeper going on here that, I guess, I don’t understand. Grasping so tightly to an OT notion of “abomination” when we’ve already discarded a vast majority of the other “abominations”? What am I missing? I assume it’s just a matter of time before “revelation” allows this change. In my heart, God has already spoken and is waiting patiently for His/Her children to listen. All we need is love.

[swimordie]

That was fantastic, Ray! It is something I’ve been thinking about alot since I resigned and re-reading, re-imagining Christ’s teachings especially the Sermon on the Mount. Your insight is beautiful and so important.

My question: how do you, personally, square up the beautiful, Christ-like journey/quest you discovered here with the Church’s apparently much narrower interpretation?

I mentioned this before but my personal comparison is the church’s embracing the tree of life story(hold to the rod) much more than the prodigal’s son story(personal journey/quest). Your thoughts?

[swimordie]

@ Kalola: good questions, all of which is why this thread is interesting. My two cents:

Kalola wrote:

If the Church were to support civil unions, wouldn’t it, in fact, be condoning same-sex attraction? Do you believe that one day the Church will permit same-sex couples to be sealed in the temple? If so, do you think this will cause members to be divided?

I’m not sure if you meant “same-sex marriage” or “same-sex unions” instead of same-sex attraction because the church has already acknowledged that same-sex attraction is real and that we don’t know where it comes from, shouldn’t try to “change” it.

I do believe (or naively hope) that the church will one day allow same-sex sealings. I think it will happen more along the lines of gender roles rather than sexual activity. Society has a long way to go in treating genders with equal respect and, despite recent changes, the church has a ways to go on this as well. This is a long way to say that the church may in the future acknowledge that we don’t understand the role of gender in the eternities, etc. Frankly, it won’t be long when human cloning is possible, if it’s not already, and lesbian couples will be able to have children without the necessity of a man. And, in the distant future, gender change may be more complete as to include pregnancy (men already have nipples, is this why?)

Obviously, this process is far in the future and maybe by then church members will be more sensitive to other human beings who are different from them so, maybe there won’t be as much division as the other two big proclamations, polygamy, black priesthood.

Kalola wrote:

Does this mean you are envisioning missionaries preaching the gospel to same-sex couples?

I think the fact that missionaries would be told not to teach same-sex couples says everything about where the church is on this issue.

Kalola wrote:

Where do the teachings in the scriptures fit in all of this? Were they merely suggestions that we are now free to ignore?

In the part of the OT that talks about “abominations” including men with men, there are also other abominations named like eating pork, etc. It’s a pretty interesting list, most of which is ignored by the current Judeo-Christian world. Plus, the church freely ignores loads of scriptural “suggestions” (polygamy, WoW, new jerusalem, speaking in tongues, charging interest on loans, etc.)

Kalola wrote:

I’m trying to understand why members of an extremely conservative religion are leaning away from family values.

Are you saying that the acceptance of SSA and SSM is leaning away from family values?

[swimordie]

jmb275 wrote:

This grants the gov’t way way too much power and yes, they will be able to dictate what we can and can’t do. That is what we should be afraid of, not SSM. The way to counteract that isn’t to inscribe more regulations on personal relationships into the constitution, but to fight against gov’t involvement altogether.

Perfectly stated.

Heber13 wrote:

Why does the church feel so moved to get involved in this issue? Anyone have ideas? Is it just the personal agenda of the current leadership

Judging by the irrationality of the brethren’s “leadership”, I think you nailed it. Packer has a track record of over 30 years of fighting these “cultural” battles and his current position lends credence to the argument that his agenda is the driving force behind this. Sorry to simplify this, but due to the current ideal of unanimity in leadership, one strong voice in the right place can set policy, unfortunately, in this case. I’m sure that this unanimity may be helpful for some things, but out of 15 seemingly bright older white gentlemen, you’d think a couple would speak up and say “hey, are there other options here?”

The alternative is that they really are just doing this all as PR and even my uber-cynicism can’t totally fathom that, but, then again, irrationality can make people do anything (Topical: see Gov. Sanford’s recent adventures).

[Author]

Posts