[university]

LookingHard wrote:

It is understandable that you are jolted. To feel otherwise would mean you are uncaring and have gone numb.

My first concern is for you to make sure you take care of yourself. If I recall correctly you are attending the Y. If so, seriously consider going to the counseling center. You don’t have to go there when you are at the end of your rope. They often can help well before then. From what I have heard, they do have a policy of not going and telling the honor code office about anything about your faith situation. I think I heard it is only like $5 or $10 a session. PM me if you can’t afford that I we can work something out.

Thank you for your concern. I actually didn’t attend BYU (and I graduated). I’ve also been seeing a counselor. I’m going to be okay. Thank you.

Ann wrote:

Do you feel more or less inclined to stay because of your age? I’m older and see little reason to hope for key changes in my lifetime. I’m interested to know how the thinking goes for a person who could reasonably expect some.

Ann, I guess that question opens up a huge can of worms for me. I don’t even know where to begin, and I don’t want to say something that will contract the purpose of this site, but I’ll try my best to answer your question. A while ago, I remember reading a blog post by a young Mormon feminist. She was writing about the challenges of being a millennial who is active in the “Mormon Feminist Community” and reflecting about differences she’d noticed between millennial participants and older participants. She said something along the lines of “I feel that many of the more established Mormon feminists don’t understand us millennials. Most of them have spent decades in the Church. They got married in the Temple. They sent their kids to primary. They have decades of bonding with their Mormon communities. Often, they’re hanging on through all the hard times, hoping they don’t finally get confronted with that one big reason to leave the Church. What they don’t understand, is us younger people, we don’t have those same experiences binding us to the Church. We’re often just looking for that one big reason to stay.” While I don’t necessarily say that’s the case for everyone, and I don’t want to generalize, I feel like that statement taps a truth for me.

I guess it all comes down to me and what will bring me fulfillment and happiness in my life. I have a whole life ahead of me and I want to do everything in my power to live in a way which will make me feel like I am being true to my values and who I am as a person. I want to contribute to the world in a way that is true to me. Increasingly I’m realizing, at least for this point in my life, that that’s away from the Church. I will say, though, even though I haven’t spent multiple decades of my life in this church, I still have a strong attachment. As a child and as a youth I was very devoted to the Church. It was my everything. Ward members would approach my mom and tell her “I was a spiritual giant” and I had a reputation for being “so strong.” There are also social ramifications and pain to my family members if I leave. This faith transition has been incredibly painful and I’m still emotional about the reality of the situation for me, but it is what it is. I could go on and on about how church history, and really all of the Church’s claims on authority have been undermined for me, but that’s not really the point. Even though sacrament meeting isn’t painful for me anymore, it’s not particularly uplifting, either. It just is. And the Church requires a lot to remain. And that’s a lot to give to an organization that doesn’t do much for me, spiritually. And even though my choice to distance myself from the church may hurt others in my life, I will do my best to minimize that hurt while also trying to live a life which will bring me fulfillment, because what I get back from my participation in the Church doesn’t cut it for me right now. I’m happier, and feel more at peace, when I’m emotionally and mentally away from the Church.

In regards to social issues: Church leadership has said it’s okay for members to have their own opinions about things that might conflict with what they preach as long as members aren’t out there “advocating.” I suppose I’m just the type of person who likes “advocating.” I just don’t want to risk having to worry about my spiritual community trying to muzzle me or shaming me or calling me in for a Bishop’s interview just because I’m trying to help people. For me, it’s fulfilling to talk about what I believe and issues of morality and to get involved in those causes. I like to be honest about these things. I have deep respect for people who stay in the Church to try to improve it from the inside and be there for those who are struggling, but I just feel like this will be spiritually exhausting for me to do for the rest of my life.

So the answer to your question…yes, I think my age does have to do with how I feel. I imagine if I had kids and had raised a family in the Church it would be quite different, but who knows? Maybe I still would be on my way out. I’m grateful I’m not in that position, even though having this happen at this point in my life has its own challenges. I guess I just don’t see the Church as a place that will allow me to be the best version of myself. At least, not right now it isn’t. I think there will be movement in regards to social issues in the church…eventually. The Church is in retrenchment mode right now. It’s hurting people and that devastates me. I don’t judge people who stay. I don’t judge TBM’s (some of the kindest, wisest people are). To each their own. At this point in my life, though, the Church is not the place for me to be a happy, fulfilled person.

Minyan Man wrote:

My only question to you is: what do you mean by:

Quote:

I can’t do this anymore.

In thinking back to that moment, it was me finally saying to myself, “I can’t just keep staying quiet about this.” I think I was referring both to keeping my foot in the LDS door and staying publically quiet about my true beliefs about gay rights. It’s difficult for me to watch my LDS friends and the LDS Church tell the world that they “mourn with those who mourn” and want to have a “compassionate view” towards members who are gay while drawing a very clear line in the sand that there is zero tolerance for homosexual partnerships/families, and then having church members support that line in the sand. I don’t speak out about these issues because I have Mormon friends who would be devastated if they found out my true views. I will probably lose friendships, or at least they’ll change. I’m a political person and I’m vocal about my political views, and yet, about gay rights, I’m much quieter. I can’t do that anymore. And I think I’m on my way to being more honest about my lifestyle and beliefs.

I guess I should also leave a disclaimer at the end of this. Even though I’m on my way to being “out” (at least for a period of time), I’m always going to be LDS, in a manner of speaking. This was the religion of my childhood. It brought me so much joy and peace. It’s a huge part of who I am. I love this Church. I’m going to be living in Utah with my family for a couple months–I will be attending church during this time. After I move out of the state, I’m not going to attend. Maybe I’ll miss the LDS community and come back. Maybe it will take me years. I don’t know. But again, I’m still going to be “LDS” in a manner of speaking. And I have no desire whatsoever to resign.

[university]

Hi StayLDS community:

I feel like I should apologize. I’m a big time lurker here, although posting for me comes in spurts. So often this community has given me wonderful feedback and I don’t reply. I often have varying reasons for not responding but most often it’s a busy schedule followed by a period when I decide I need to take a step back from associating with the “Mormon world.” However, I always go through and read responses after I’ve posted. Thank you to everyone who provided their thoughts.

DancingCarrot wrote:

Hey university,

From your previous posts, I think we may be roughly the same age, and in the same boat. So I can’t offer you any promise of any beautiful islands I’ve landed on, but I can commiserate on how rough the seas feel and what living on the ocean has felt like for me.

DancingCarrot,

I feel the same when I read your posts. It’s nice to at least have someone to commiserate with

DancingCarrot wrote:

For months and months, I told myself that I wasn’t angry at the Church or any of the members, but that was mostly because I didn’t want to identify as an angry ex Mo. But I’ve found that we can’t run far from ourselves for too long, if even we can at all. Granted, my anger is indeed coming out. But because I was so hell bent on making sure I wasn’t bitter, I’ve learned coping skills to see where I need to own up to responsibility or defect to circumstances beyond any of our control (etc…). I do want to let you know that it’s not bad to be angry and if your anger is expressed as cynicism, then express it. It’s a part of you, for whatever reason, and the more you allow yourself to be a full range of a human being, the quicker you’ll be able to see what’s really you, what you really need in your life to be whole, and what’s outer fluff that you don’t need to pay any attention to.

While I think I’m out of the “anger stage” right now, I did experience it in the earlier stages of my faith crisis…but it was more of a love-hate thing occurring when I was finally accepting how frustrating “the Church” had become for me. However, it didn’t build up into the cynicism I was feeling at this point when I made this post for a long time. I suppose it took me years to finally boil into the “anger/cynicism” stage that I was in a few months ago. I also have never wanted to be the “anger ex mo” which I think has been mostly a good thing for me in impacting how I behave and how I handle my relationships.

I can’t say the cynicism is completely gone now, it’s just shifted. I’m definitely in the mourning process and boy, is it excruciating. But the words of encouragement to allow myself to feel the full range of a human being were what I needed to hear. Thank you.

[university]

SilentDawning wrote:

One of the cases described in the article above indicates a woman who reported a rape to the police, but not to BYU, got a call from the Honor Code office afterwards and they had the police report. Perhaps it is public record? Or they read something about it in the newspaper? But the fact the woman reported the rape to the police meant the Honor Code office got involved.

It wasn’t public record. The Sheriff’s Deputy gave a copy of the police report to BYU Honor Code Office (documents apparently show he is friends with the alleged rapist, but there’s conflicting reports on that, and he’s denied it). They were both charged with retaliation against a witness. The Attorney General stepped in and dropped the charges.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects about this case, imo–an utter black mark on BYU and the Utah County Sheriff’s office.

http://kutv.com/news/local/sheriffs-deputy-was-warned-not-to-report-victim-to-byu-honor-code-office

[university]

From someone whose name is “university” perhaps I should comment? 🙂 😳

I didn’t go to BYU. I didn’t want to even as a TBM. I can’t quite recall the reasons why, but I believe it had something to do with me not liking the culture of BYU, and that’s even before I was aware of some of their aspects of how they enforce the Honor Code. For me, I’m so, so, grateful I didn’t attend. I can’t imagine going through a faith crisis while attending that school. Just my opinion, but I think it’s one of the worst possible environments to endure a faith crisis as a Mormon. BYU is very orthodox in its rules and expectations. Needing an ecclesiastical endorsement in order to stay in school and be able to stay in your housing…worrying about your peers reporting you or telling on you for things (which students are encouraged to do)…having so much on the line when you’re questioning your faith…and then not having much of an option to transfer schools because your credits aren’t accepted at other institutions…I know for me, I was never supposed to attend BYU. I have heard accounts by people who had a faith crisis while attending and it was a nightmare for them.

I’ll be honest, I’m not really a fan of BYU. I guess in this paragraph I’ll just write the negatives I have about BYU and then list the positives after. I’ve already talked about the Honor Code and the potential risks there. I also don’t want to overgeneralize BYU as a whole, because I think in many regards it is a great institution, but I do believe that institution of higher education should serve as a place for people to learn critical thinking skills—to learn how to question things, especially your own beliefs and prejudices, and be exposed to other ways of thinking and living, and I’m not saying that BYU doesn’t do that, but they have a line which they can’t cross. I think this is especially true in studies in the liberal arts or social sciences…like Art. I do think, though, that this issue doesn’t affect more career-oriented majors, like health professions, business, etc. But for the fields of study which grapple more with the issues of humanity, I personally don’t think BYU offers the full experience…And yes, there have been excellent intellectuals who have come from BYU and I don’t want to generalize or degrade BYU entirely. I think it’s a great school, in some ways. I just think some of its programs are hindered by its need to put a faith-promoting spin on some of the fields, or hold back from some conversations, and being surrounded by a similar demographic of people while in that environment.

Positives for BYU? I know people who love that school. They do offer a high caliber of education and a wide variety of programs, even if they have their limits. And I know people who grew up outside of Utah and absolutely LOVE the environment. There can be real benefits to being around people with similar values, for some people more than others. And they really do have some great programs…also, you don’t really have to worry about the Frat Parties and lots of students influencing your daughter to do drink, etc. (even though there are people who do break the rules). I think the fact that’s a dry campus and that (most) people don’t drink can be enough of a positive reason to attend for someone who doesn’t want to be around that. The networking at BYU is great, as well. They’ve got that on lock. But I think, ultimately, it’s up to your daughter and what fits for her. What are her most important priorities in her university?

Also: I know plenty of liberal Mormons who are happy there. I say “liberal Mormon” meaning either 1.) They have liberal political beliefs but are TBM or 2.) Don’t follow some church commandments or think that every little thing the Church says is from God but still have an orthodox testimony of the restoration and the Priesthood authority, and they’re all having a great time. There are more liberals down at BYU than one would think. Yes, there is the pressure to get married down there, but from what I hear, the ladies outnumber the men, so the pressure is more on the men. And I’ve heard BYU-I pressure to marry is much, much worse.

[university]

Rob & Heber, it may seem like a paradox (maybe especially to you, Rob) but I think you’re both correct in your views.

Rob, thanks for responding to me a while back in such a respectful and thoughtful way. I’m not going to quote it, but there was one thing I wanted to clear up:

I mentioned in my post how I know of damaging experiences in which when a man is cheating on his wife or has gotten heavily into pornography, the Bishop says the wife should have sex with him more often and indicates that she bears some of the responsibility for her husband’s problems, even when she’s fighting for the marriage and is already heartbroken. You said that you’d never heard of that situation but you’d take my word for it.

I know of multiple instances of this happening. One of them is very personal.

I believe, similar to situations in which the Bishop is informed about sexual abuse but they do nothing to stop it or even blame the victim, sometimes, Bishops don’t want to believe or accept that their buddy is actually treating their spouse very badly. To accept this would be a scary reality for the Bishop, so he chooses not to. Instead, he buys into the husband’s justification that “she just doesn’t validate me anymore” for his continued adultery and tells the cancer-stricken wife who does all the housework with no help, that she’s not being “supportive” enough of her husband. He tells the wife whose self-esteem has taken a huge hit because her husband is so into porn that sex preferences have been significantly warped, to the point that he only likes violent and aggressive sex, and that he doesn’t like her body anymore, that she needs to work harder to please him. Experiences vary. Leadership roulette. I just wanted to expand on that since you hadn’t heard of those instances before. I think this forum is very valuable because we can learn from people of diverse experiences. I’ve gotten that out of this thread, even if I’ve mostly lurked in it.

[university]

marty wrote:

Hypothetically: There are physical conditions which alter our essential experience of ourselves in mortality. Somehow the body hijacks the emotional core of our being, and replaces it with something else. There’s no way to overcome this condition, and there’s no reliable way to separate our “true” self from the “hijacked” self; in these chases, the affected person is advised to “wait it out”, and at the resurrection their body will be restored to a perfect state.

But even that can’t be right, because if the condition is truly a physical condition, then the Spirit would be free from its effect at the moment of death, right?

Also, if you buy into this theory, there’s no reason to believe that this condition is limited to homosexuality….

What if you don’t like your “real” self?

What if you can’t stand the “real” version of your spouse?

How accountable are you really, if your entire mortal existence was essentially in someone else’s shoes?

What kinds of things might be controlled by this phenomena? Anger, addiction, skepticism, anti-authoritarianism?

Thanks for the thread. I think this is an important conversation.

I guess, for me, I’ve always kind of had this kind of mindset. For me, I believe “who we are” in this world is largely determined by our genetics and learning environment. That’s one of the many reasons why the atonement was such a comfort–it would make up for all the biological and environmental factors which prevented us from being our true, godly selves.

Yes, it does potentially open the floodgates for questions about agency, but for me, knowing that biology was stacked against me, didn’t excuse me of participating in behavior that I was fortunate enough to understand was wrong. Yeah, we all have the light of Christ, but we also have a lot of other things working against us. Interesting that you were taught that our spirits were “ignorant” before we came to earth. I didn’t receive that teaching. My lessons about the Premortal existence actually seemed to indicate the opposite: with all the talk of the War in Heaven, of each of us making a very important choice after weighing the importance of agency against the promise of us all returning, etc. Goes to show how instruction or what is stressed can vary.

I’m feeling very skeptical right now about things changing anytime soon. When it comes to gender roles, the Church seems to be in high retrenchment mode right now. It’s the battle they’ve picked to fight. For me, “the Plan” now has a new emphasis about gender roles and traditional means of conceiving children. I remember watching a session of general conference, and cringing at commercial (before or after, I can’t remember), which was basically a gender advertisement for the Church. It was filled with bright, sunny, middle-aged women talking in “primary voice” about how different women are from men and how that’s wonderful. I rolled my eyes and had to stop myself from letting out a chuckle. My mom was even embarrassed by the add. Sometimes the Church doesn’t know when to give it a rest.

I also find it ironic that, according to Bednar, when it comes to “labels” of heterosexuality or homosexuality, they are irrelevant because we are all children of God. However, when it comes to “labels” of gender (man or woman) it’s incredibly important and central to everything. For me, this doesn’t have to be the case. Man or woman, all are alike unto Christ, and all should be able to return to him. But the Church is bound and determined to hold onto how important that “label” is.

[university]

Thank you for posting this on here. I saw an article about it pop up on my social media a while ago and watched the clip. I understand his perspective. I used to share it, which is why I’m so frustrated with his conclusions. To clarify, just because I “understand” his perspective doesn’t mean I in any way support what he is saying about this. I used to think like him. I no longer do. It seems to me, Elder Bednar considers homosexuality a genetic disadvantage—to be treated and looked at as a disease. For him, letting people self-identify as homosexual is unacceptable, because that legitimizes and empowers. He would rather people say, “I have same-gender attraction” like a person would profess to “have” a disease. This is telling.

Also, forgive me this ounce of sassiness: If you often find the need to say “I am not a bigot,” you probably are.

Some people might take issue with that, but I’m not up here saying that all bigots are horrible people. They can also do good things. To me, his message is this: “Homosexuality doesn’t fit into the plan. If you have homosexual tendencies, fight the good fight and don’t give in to them or else.” I know we talk a lot about compassion, but the doctrine itself isn’t very compassionate, imo. There is a line in the sand and if you’re LGBT, tough luck. We “love” you but if you choose to act on very power natural inclinations, you’re out of the club. It’s black and white now. It hurts my heart. What happens when a person is transgender…who was assigned the sex “male” at birth but every fiber of their being tells them that they’re a woman—that that’s a huge part of their identity—and they’re literally being driven insane by continuing to “be” a man? When to abide by the Church’s requirements makes them do something which drives them to suicide? How is that a Plan of Happiness?

I don’t know how the Church is going to get passed this. I don’t know how I’m going to make this work. For me, I don’t want to support an organization or even appear to be supporting an organization that causes this kind of pain. It’s getting to that point for me. Yes, treating people with compassion is one thing, but I’m feeling like the doctrine itself isn’t very compassionate. With policies which deem homosexual relationships so evil, that if your parent cohabitated with a same-sex partner at any point of your childhood, you have to get special permission from the First Presidency to get baptized…it’s so defensive and unkind to me. It also wreaks of fear—fear of what will happen if they show any compassion or tolerance for LGBT members who are in loving same-sex relationships.

Unfortunately, I don’t know if we’re going to see any movement on this anytime soon. The Church is actually ahead of the curve in these issues compared to most of the world. Similarly, while the United States surely has gender issues, compared to much of the world, the Church’s views are, again, quite progressive. Bad news. I feel like with the race and the priesthood ban, it was a different situation because while racism is a global issue, the United States particularly had a bad legacy and status. With treatment of LGBT people, as well as gender issues, the Church, and Utah-Mormon culture which influences it, is not in the “worst” level of the world, not by a longshot. With the Priesthood Ban we were having problems as a church, internationally, because of the ban. With this issue….I don’t see much push for change that the leadership won’t brush off as “persecution.” Clearly I’m pretty defeated about all this.

[university]

Rob4Hope wrote:

The magic number is once or twice a week with a clear drop off on following weeks. But,…no human could possibly want sex on consecutive days. That is addiction,…surely (this is actually something communicated to me,…very toxic).

I have a friend who thought he was going crazy, so he started to keep track. They averaged about 12 times 4 years ago (for the whole year), 10 times 2 years ago, I think he said about 6 last year, and this year nothing so far. And, every year she gets that recommend, etc.

Sorry AP,…refusing your spouse sexually is not considered a sin (or a very big one) in the LDS faith. The LOC is unilaterally applied…it ONLY has to do with acting outside of marriage. But, if you pinch off your spouse sexually, then the church favors celibacy, then divorce, but never the horrible and ugly sin of masturbation.

Actually, I know dozens of couples who are in horrible marriages. It is actually more rare to see those who are happy. That is really sad….and I’m not trying to be a sour pickle.

That is the reality I am aware of. Its the real deal. I think marriages are in serious serious trouble.

Hi Rob4Hope, I want to be careful about how I say this because I don’t want to come off like I am trying to invalidate your experience or the experiences of other members in the Church. I’m not trying to disrespect or brush off these experiences at all. They’re real issues. Rather, I’d just like to add another perspective to the pyramid. Bizarre teachings about sexuality, gender roles, and the expectations of a woman’s place in the Church can lead to another extreme. I have a hard time hearing terms like “refusing your spouse” in the negative because, to me, that hits to close to issues of consent and problems our church has with teaching women their role is to please their husband in no uncertain terms.

I know a woman with a medical condition which made sex very, very painful for her. It’s now corrected because she had a medical procedure done and takes medication. For years, she suffered in silence with frequent sex with her husband. When she asked the women in her life why she didn’t enjoy sex, even turned to church leaders, the answer she got was that it’s just not as fun for women and can sometimes hurt, but it’s important for her husband, so she just submit to him whenever he feels like it an act like she likes it. After awhile, she just stopped asking about it. It wasn’t until she was with a group of female friends, when she was years into her marriage, and they were talking about their sex lives. She finally piped up the courage to ask “Yeah, but doesn’t it hurt you guys?” As you can imagine, when her husband found out how bad it was for her all those years, he felt awful.

I know other women who have been in relationships where their husband rapes them. Truly. But they think it’s their fault because it is their duty to please their husband, even when they don’t want to. Other relationships where women have a deeply unsatisfying sexual relationship with their husband, and they think their job is just to be available to him whenever he feels like it, even if they’re unhappy with it, and get no satisfaction from it, because they’re a woman, and that’s their job. Nevermind the question why they don’t like it. And then there’s the instances of husbands with pornography addictions and cheating problems. In too many cases, the go-to response from the Bishop is, “Well, he wouldn’t be doing this if you were pleasing him in the way you should be…you should be having sex more, you need to try harder” even when she’s already devastated and trying her hardest in the relationship.

My point being here, there are different extremes in how these things can pan out and many of them can be very painful. I agree with you about a lot of things. I just think it’s also relevant to note that there is a diversity of ways in which “the good girl syndrome” effects us. Personally, I think in most cases, female sexuality is more complicated than male sexuality, and our culture hasn’t fully tapped into understanding that. Clearly, our Church culture has issues with how it talks and encourages sexuality in marriages. Again, I don’t want to sound like I’m invalidating your experiences. I think a lot of these issues come back to the same place.

[university]

willb1993 wrote:

I’d hate to bring up a somewhat political discussion. But why? Why is it we’re always trying to demonize the wealthy in this country? Do people not realize that most of those who have a lot of money have worked hard for their money? I know several people who have come from nothing and now are millionaires. All by their hard work. I feel it’s a form of jealousy, I don’t know. Isn’t it a sin to covet thy neighbor? A friend of mine who’s a die hard bleeding heart supporter of Bernie Sanders truly believes that a rich CEO’s money belongs to him and several other of his peers. I just don’t get it. Is the entitlement generation going to destroy this country?

Hi, there. I usually abstain from commenting on political matters here on this site because I know we are a support community and these issues can be divisive and alienate people. Being someone who you would perhaps consider as a part of the “entitlement generation” (I’m assuming you’re just talking about Americans, here?) and perhaps a supporter of Bernie Sanders, maybe I should be a person to answer your question. Although, I don’t know if you really want me to. Do you sincerely want to listen to someone who you would probably classify as someone who “demonizes” the wealthy of the country? It would seem that you are set in your beliefs, and I don’t want to say anything that would cause a rift. I could say a lot of things to this conversation, but I will say this:

While you ask why people hate the wealthy, others ask, why do we worship wealth?

I think that you would find that many of the millennial generation, having been fed the American Dream their whole lives, are disillusioned when they discover it is not what they thought it was, probably similar to how some members of this site feel after after going through a faith crisis.

The American Dream as fed to millennials:

Work Hard = Material Success/Wealth = Happiness.

This is problematic on so many levels. Consider that America is becoming one of the most difficult developed countries in the world to improve one’s economic class. The “work hard and you will be successful” motto is turning into a myth and already is for many, many people.

Also, I will say this, while I won’t argue that my generation has its own sets of challenges and issues, we have also been statistically proven to the generation most involved in community service and long-term service projects as youth than generations before us (I would exclude the “Greatest Generation” here, because I feel their involvement WWII efforts more than qualifies for this). We are also the most tolerant American generation to date–less racist, less sexist, less homophobic, etc. than any that have come before us, and considering America’s deplorable history of racism, I think this is a positive thing indeed. Just as some would question whether or not my generation will hurt America, others would assume that we are America’s greatest hope for the future. It is a matter of perspective.

[university]

This article is not misleading. The Church is a very active, powerful lobbying force at the Utah legislature. Yes, some Mormon politicians will go against what the Church wants if their mindset is absolutely against what the Church is advocating…but the keyword is some here, meaning a very, very small minority. I think some people in Utah who aren’t very well acquainted with how the Utah legislative process works aren’t aware of it, but the Church is a very powerful interest group.

Now, to answer your questions:

Mrs.SuperChicken wrote:

Does the church comment on all states medical marijuana bills or just Utah’s?

No idea. I would venture they are nowhere near as involved or as invested as much in the politics of other states.

‘Mrs.SuperChicken wrote:

Is the First Presidency really that concerned with Utah politics?

Yes, when it comes to what the Church defines as “moral issues.” For example, Utah has some of the most bizarre, strictest alcohol laws in the country, There’s always been a push by the travel and tourism industry of Utah, as well as others, to get some of these laws loosened up a bit. The Church just recently came out and said they were against changing the laws (I think this was last year?). Their statement effectively killed the bill or any movement on the issue. Sometimes the Church will even help draft bills, which is what they helped do by partnering with Equality Utah to draft what has been known as “compromise bill” across the nation with “protecting LGBTQ people against discrimination in vital aspects of their lives while still protecting religious freedom.” That bill was widely praised across the nation, but know for sure, if they Church hadn’t been signed on and have played such an active role in lobbying for it, it would have never passed. I can say this having spoken to several members of the legislature about this bill.

Mrs.SuperChicken wrote:

Why does the Church have lobbyists in the Utah State legislature, do they have lobbyists in other state and Federal governments that pressure member politicians to vote in a certain way?

Once upon a time Utah was a theocracy, and the Church has remained a large force in Utah politics ever since. I suspect part of it is just status quo, that’s the way things are. When an organization has a legacy of being a major player in government, it’s hard to step away from that kind power, especially if the Church regards itself using its power for good and only in matters of “moral” issues. Not to mention I suspect people are always asking the Church what it’s views are in certain issues. Additionally, I am of the opinion that it is smart for any organization to have a lobbyist. It helps protect the organization from things getting passed that will hurt their interests. For examples, sometimes bills are passed that hurt some businesses, not because it’s personal, but because the state needs a stream of revenue, and simply no one is at the legislature representing that business to protest what would happen. It’s a similar idea for religious organizations, and the Church functions both as a religion and a business, imo.

Now onto the second part: The Church has many lobbyists, some go to Washington D.C. as well to lobby other members of government. I’m confident they would also occasionally send lobbyists to other state governments. They definitely are involved in the politics of California, Idaho, and Arizona. However, the Mormon Church simply isn’t a major player in the politics of most other states, and I would expect their lobbyists to behave in the role of a smaller religion in such states, not the role of a dominating cultural organization, with so much sway, as they do in Utah.

[university]

I didn’t know this was already released in 2010. Is it just me, or is there heightened scrutiny in the bloggernacle regarding these kinds issues than there has been on the past? I guess the naive part of me hopes that the Church would never release something like this in this day and age, since I find it so insensitive and indifferent to such great pain. What a difference six years makes. Or does it? I guess I’ll never know.

Joni wrote:

And of course, the bishop’s office, where worthiness interviews take place, has a thick soundproof non-windowed door.

And yet, the essay says this:

Quote:

The Church enforces a “two-deep” policy so that adult males who work with children or youth are never alone with a minor.

Now, I’m not familiar with the handbook, but this has not been the case in my life. I am aware of a policy where adult males are not allowed to be alone in the building with a minor…not that they’ll never be alone in a room. Can’t count how many times I’ve been alone with a Bishop or member of the Bishopric. It feels like this statement is deliberately misleading.

[university]

Well, I think found what I suspect spurred this essay:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mr-wonder-alleged-louisiana-pedophile-allegedly-caught-after-decades/

Overview:

Quote:

In 1979, the man known to north Louisiana television viewers as “Mr. Wonder” vanished amid allegations that the children’s show host sexually abused several kids during a camping retreat.

Now authorities say they have arrested him, living under another name in California, and officials and neighbors fear he could have preyed on other children during his 37 years on the run.

Quote:

Neighbors in a well-to-do section of a San Diego suburb knew him as Frank Szeles, a friendly Cub Scouts leader who frequently gave swimming lessons to young children in his backyard pool.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints banned Szeles, a member of a San Diego congregation, from contact with children years before his arrest this week. He was “removed from all positions related to children” after failing to comply with the church’s child protection policies, Eric Hawkins, a church spokesman, said in an email Thursday.

After his removal, a parent expressed “a generalized concern” about the suspect’s behavior toward a child and the church urged the parent to report it to authorities, said Hawkins. He said he didn’t know if the parent reported it.

Quote:

The church spokesman said Szeles belongs to a group of Mormon congregations in the San Diego area called the Sweetwater Stake. But Hawkins didn’t indicate which positions Szeles held and said he couldn’t elaborate on the nature of the alleged incidents.

However, Hawkins said the church did not report the matter itself because “what we were told was not criminal in nature.” Asked to comment, the suspect’s attorney, Marc Carlos, said, “Clearly whatever these allegations were, they were not serious enough to refer to the police, which is what they should have done if they were serious.”

Quote:

The Boy Scouts of America said Wednesday that the suspect was Cubmaster of Pack 888 in Bonita, near San Diego, but he was “removed from Scouting several years ago for non-compliance with our youth protection policies and procedures.” Without elaborating, it said his removal followed a complaint from a parent who was not involved in the group and was unrelated to scouting.

[university]

DarkJedi wrote:

Yeah, I have some issues with it too. The first being why and why now?

One can only guess. Utah ranks highest in the United States for child sex abuse. And 8th for overall child abuse. It could be the reaction to people saying “You excommunicate loving, same-sex parents but don’t do enough to excommunicate your child abusers!” It could be that the Church is very defensive right now in general. I don’t know.

[university]

amateurparent wrote:

There is a wonderful book called The Unwritten Rules Of Friendship. It is a guide book to social nuances for the socially awkward. A great book for Aspie kiddos.

In one of the chapters, the book uses a story of a boy who is playing basketball. He gets angry and because he owns the ball, he picks up the ball and goes home. He ends the game for everyone. The next day, he goes out to play and he cannot understand why the other boys are angry with him. He has forgotten all about the previous day. The book discusses the need to realize that while YOU forget and move on, other people might still be angry about something you did in the past. You need to be aware of that. When you make decisions, understand that there are social consequences.

I keep thinking of this basketball story when I think of the LDS Church and its stance on SSM.

I think the Apostles are struggling to “treat everyone with Christlike love” like they assert while still “uncompromisingly upholding the Lord’s standard” as they teach, when the “Lord’s Standard” might not be very Christlike. To me, it feels like a group of girls on the playground who have formed a club. They tell the other girls who want to join, “Well, we can’t let you in. But you can play with us…well, when we’re not doing club things, which is most of the time, because you can’t be in our club…See, teacher! We’re nice to everyone!”

[university]

turinturambar wrote:

You’re right, HG. That lack of empathy, that unfeeling brushoff, that complete unwillingness to put themselves in my shoes and think about the theological implications, that demand for me to make an Abrahamic sacrifice while they sit on their a$$#$ surrounded by their loving families, meanwhile I go home to an empty apartment to warm up another frozen burrito and hope that something on TV will occupy my attention until I have to go to bed and get back up the next day to do it all again…that is what fuels my resentment of the leaders of the Church. That is what lead me to a suicide crisis two years ago. That lack of hope. They just don’t get it. Screw ’em.

Turinturambar, I’ve thought about what to say but I always come up short. I can only say I’m sorry. Truly. And I’m glad you’re here with us.

[Author]

Posts