[university]

The Salt Lake Tribune, not to be outdone, has also come out with an article.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/lds/3473487-155/suicide-fears-if-not-actual-suicides

They clarify that the actual suicide numbers in Utah are murky and hard to account for. They also provided the Church’s full statement:

Quote:

“Every soul is precious to God and to the church, and the loss of life to suicide is heartbreaking,” he says. “Those who are attracted to others of the same sex face particular challenges and pressures in this regard, both inside and outside the church. We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope.”

[university]

nibbler wrote:

I’m not sure how much of a role intellectualism plays into belief but I can imagine it would be pretty easy for someone to call a church member intellectually arrogant for claiming to know things, especially when we tend to take things a step further in claiming that other people are wrong (or less than perfect) in their beliefs.

I’ve never thought about it this way before, but I think this is absolutely correct. Although, I’m not a fan of the term “intellectual arrogance” for anyone. I’d rather rag on ignorance than something with the term “intellectual” any day.

DarkJedi wrote:

Don’t fooled. Bednar is old school, the likes of which we have not seen in the quorum in awhile. Should he ascend to the highest position, which is very likely, the church will be regressing, not progressing.

Agreed, which is why my response to his remarks was “ouch!”

Mom3 wrote:

About 5 years ago I read an account of him closing a talk at a Regional Conference with a powerful apostolic blessing on the audience. Everyone was awed. The closing hymn sung, prayer offered, and people stood up and began talking, moving about, etc. Shortly he stood up, grabbed the microphone and told everyone if they didn’t gain some reverence he would rescind the blessing.

😯

[university]

I’m so sorry, Joni.

[university]

I suspect that some people are put off my the emotion he displays in his addresses, but Elder Eyring was always one of my favorite apostles. I still have a soft place for him in my heart. Thanks for sharing this. It reminds me of positive memories I have in the Church–memories I don’t want to forget.

I don’t mean to thread de-rail, but one of my facebook friends also shared a link to the same article. I was feeling pretty good when I was reading it until I got to this:

Quote:

“In the authority of the holy Apostleship, I now raise a voice of warning, and I make a solemn promise. If the day ever were to come that intellectual arrogance, a lack of appreciation, and a spirit of demanding entitlement take root on this campus — among the students, the faculty, the employees, the administration or within the community of Rexburg — then in that day the Spirit of Ricks will be well on the way to being extinguished. And the heavenly influence and blessings that have prospered this institution and the people associated with it will be withdrawn,” Bednar warned.

It seems that Elder Bendar has come up with a new catch-phrase to call out the “learned.” Elder Packer used intellectual. Bednar is using the term “intellectual arrogance.”

Quote:

“Conversely, as long as intellectual modesty, humility, gratitude, obedience, and frugality continue to characterize those who learn and serve at Brigham Young University-Idaho, then this university will shine forth ever brighter as a beacon of righteousness and of inspired educational innovation.”

I strongly suspect that Elder Bednar would deem me a class A example of intellectual arrogance. In many ways, I’m probably a cautionary tale for why one needs to have “intellectual modesty.”

I don’t know why this hurts me. I thought I was passed this. It just hurts.

[university]

amateurparent wrote:

Fanny Algier was certianly an affair — then a “secret marriage”. JS was tarred and feathered and almost castrated by one of her relatives.

The God I worship doesn’t do secret marriages.

I don’t know a lot about Fanny Alger. I will say, though, that Joseph’s relationship with her was one of the most troubling things I encountered in the “early stages” of my faith crisis, if such early stages even existed the way I frame them right now…I’ve never been able to reconcile what I do know about that relationship, even if yes, “I see through a glass darkly” (to use a very popular quote on this site ). Even as a TBM, I was never able to reconcile it and now I don’t want to.

Roy wrote:

This is what I see also. To me Bro. Hales is trying to make justifications for polygamy based on what our church now teaches and believes…to make it more palatable for the modern membership. It seems like a sort of apologist revisionist history. His arguments for polygamy are 1) that OT prophets practiced it and JS was a restorer, 2) to produce seed (though Brian downplays this one – it is hard to miss as that is the only reason for polygamy given in the BOM), and 3) because men and women must be married for exaltation – therefore because polygyny was “commanded” by God must mean that there will be more women eligible for exaltation than men.

I’m not familiar with Bro. Hales so this information was interesting to me. Thanks for the overview. I don’t know if this has been discussed on this site yet, but the argument that polygamy produced more offspring is now being disputed, with some very confident that polygamy actually reduced the number of children born into the church. The argument is that while yes, wealthy and socially high-ranking men in polygamous marriages had more children, on average, women in polygamous marriages had less children then they would have had they been in a monogamous marriage (rough example: like having four children instead of eight). Thus, while a portion of the male population were having more children, not all men were, and women weren’t.

[university]

I agree with the thoughts about chastity playing a major role. I also think that the church’s ever-pressing message that CELESTIAL MARRIAGE IS YOUR PURPOSE factors into it as well. The way it’s taught today by the general authorities, it’s practically, “Temple marriage is your ticket to heaven.” I think this was touched on a lot in a thread I posted asking about why people think the church speaks out about “delaying marriage” so much.

Also, may I offer another thought? Generally, in conservative cultures, in which it is believed that the “woman’s role” is to be a wife and mother, courtships are quick. In such societies, women often have limited access to education, career opportunities, and chances to be a financially sound, safe, independent adult. I think the LDS culture in the US and other Western societies is actually quite liberal compared to much of the world, but is still on the conservative spectrum. I’m glad that the Church encourages education for women…but still, it only goes so far. I’ll give an example: an LDS YSA woman wants to go to medical school and become a doctor. These are the responses she will probably be familiar with from other LDS YSA women,

“So that’s your backup plan?”

“Backup plan?”

“You know, for if you don’t get married?”

Or worse:

“Oh, that’s well and great, but what about getting married?”

I’ve seen this happen. Sometimes I’ve gotten similar responses, as well.

nibbler wrote:

The common phrase I often hear in church when marriage timing gets brought up is in reference to the long worldly engagements and people use the ever so lovely phrase “Why buy a cow when you can get milk for free?”

Ah, yes. I got this a lot in Young Women’s. Along with the modesty/chastity metaphors, “Really nice cars don’t need to advertise themselves” and “Don’t be a cupcake that’s had a bite taken out of it” or the even better, “The kind of man you want to marry isn’t going to buy a used car.” I’ve grown annoyed with church-lingo equating women to objects for men to purchase or consume. I think they’re going to dwindle, down, though. After Elizabeth Smart spoke out about it, I’ve noticed more LDS friends (male and female) doing the same.

On another level, the non-LDS friends I have that are in long-term, committed relationships, can’t fathom the LDS speed-marriage courtship, and they attribute it to sex. They too, take marriage very seriously, but in a different way. They want to invest the time into getting to know the person before they make that kind of commitment. Outside of my LDS circle, there’s almost a new courtship norm: a period of non-exclusive dating, followed by a period of exclusive dating, and then a one year plus living together situation, followed by the engagement period, and then finally, marriage. I also think there is a popular myth that men are the ones getting dragged into marriages in these types of situations, especially in the longterm co-habitation one. I have rarely found that to be the case. In almost all the instances outside of the LDS dating scenes, I’ve seen the man actually wants to jump into marriage, or even just an exclusive relationship, before the woman does and she drags her feet. But maybe that’s just the kind of company I keep 🙂

[university]

LookingHard wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

Thanks OON. I do think I see what you are saying about them honestly caring, but not seeing a way to change what they see as doctrine.

It just saddens me that such an important item (reach out to those that are gay, NOT shun them!) is on a website that most members don’t know about. For me it parallels the essays. It feels mainly about plausible deniability in the future. Why not have a quick review of what is on Mormonsandgays.org between conference sessions?

I will tell you straight up, that if I were to walk into my YSA Ward, and ask most of them what the Church’s doctrine is regarding LGBTQ members/people, the majority would tell you that the Church cannot support gay marriage, that it’s not a sin to be sexually attracted to the same sex but it is to act on it, and that we are to love everyone, regardless. They would also tell you that the Church has always taught this. I know I’m generalizing here, but this is the attitude I’ve encountered time and time again. Most are clueless that the Church’s position has evolved. But in my experience, it really has.

[university]

Rob4Hope wrote:

I wish this were the case, but not the way it happens around here. They are “Men of God”. “Follow the prophet, he knows the way.”

These men are revered, even to a fault. They are held up as the examples of piety, kindness, poise, charity and holiness. They themselves are careful to protect the reputations they have, and they close ranks to protect their fellow associates. They limit exposure to controversial concerns, and work to quash publicity or even discussion of faults they may have. They teach doctrines that support this position of reverence and adoration. DHO, for example, said that even if it is true, to share it, if it is evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed (which is used with VERY broad strokes to include just about anything if its negative at all), is to fight against God.

When apostles enter the room, we stand for them. When the prophet speaks, “The debate is over”. “We can’t lead you astray…” “The prophet will never lead the church astray…” The list goes on.

Hero worship. They are not “not extraordinary men”…they are “Men of GOD”.

I think this accurately reflects how many Orthodox church members see the Church Leadership and how “the Church” (meaning its administration, PR machine, leadership, etc) presents itself. I struggle with similar frustrations. I think it’s up for us to gradually discover if we can Stay LDS (in however we define that) when this is the way the Church operates and this is the way many in our faith community see Church Leadership. I think I know which way I’m going, for now. But I’m in the same process. I could change directions.

[university]

Lots of good thoughts here. I think everyone contributed something to my view of this (even Sheldon 😆 ). Thanks.

[university]

Pre-Faith Crisis I wouldn’t have pushed the button. To me, that would have been like cheating and go against the very purpose of the plan of salvation. Faith was at the core of my testimony. God intended us to use faith. To press the button would be going against God’s plan for us. Plus, I already knew that I belonged to the one true religion, so it didn’t matter.

Today? I don’t know. It would be very scary. But I think I would push it. Would it be depressing if there is no afterlife and it’s just a dog-eat-dog world? Yes, it would be. And I’d struggle. But hopefully, I’d be able to come out of it and still find joy. And that would be very beautiful, as well. However, I really can’t say.

[university]

azguy wrote:

My wife and I have gotten in more arguments on this topic than I care to remember. I think the ‘messyness’ is a consequence of believing in eternal families, and life after death. Can someone never get married again after their spouse dies?

I think it’s a Mormon Myth that we’re the only ones who believe in eternal families (not saying that you suggested this). Sure, I know some Christians who don’t believe that there are marriages in heaven, but most Christians would give you the side-eye if you were to suggest that in heaven they won’t be with their families. The thing that sets us Mormons apart is our emphasis on ordinances being necessary in order to stay with our families. I know people who see the Mormon mantra of “families can be together forever” more as a threat than a blessing. I must admit, sometimes I feel like I fall into that camp.

I personally don’t think the messiness of this has to do with the fact that we believe in eternal families. Maybe it does for General Authorities, who have gotten sealed to their second spouse, and have grown up knowing about the doctrine of polygamy (which has been denounced for this life only, not for the eternities-). Makes it hard for them to denounce it or give it up.

I think the issue for me, and for many people, have little to do with what happens if someone marries someone else after their spouse dies. It’s the way polygamy was implemented in the past that casts a very large shadow over everything. Whereas, someone wouldn’t be so bothered by the notion of their spouse marrying someone else after they die without the polygamy backdrop–now they have that legacy to go off of, which frankly, wasn’t very kind to women. Otherwise some would just assume that God would sort it all out in the next life, the same way my Christian friends assume it would be sorted out. Already some Mormons just assume God will sort the situation out. Also, because of our history with polygamy, even the way these types of situations are framed draw on the historical legacy of men being able to have one wife but women, not. It’s a messy history and unfortunately, in my opinion, is seriously hindering progress in how we deal with gender roles in this church.

[university]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

But then there are plenty of women who do weird stuff like this too. One time, a sister in RS stood up to introduce herself. She said her husband’s name and hers, and then she said “And we’re in law school.” I was pretty impressed and said, “Wow! Two lawyers! Go, you guys! That’s a lot of work.” But no, apparently she wasn’t in law school; she just referred to him going to law school as both of them going to law school. That just seemed weird to me.

😆 I’ve done a similar thing!

I’ve heard the same thing from young women my age, “We’re going to grad school” etc. I can’t help but feel it’s indicative of a woman embracing her identity as a woman to be a “helpmeet”—or in modern terms–supporter of her husband. That is who she is. And then it becomes mother, when she has kids, or she balances the two identities. It weirds me out, a bit. But then again, I also get weirded out when couples merge their facebook accounts into one. So maybe it’s the part of me that appreciates independence.

I’ve also hear men say, “We’re pregnant.”

LookingHard, as a “Hermione Granger” (hope someone gets my Harry Potter reference) throughout my younger years, and arguably still today, I find your story sad. But at least you recognized that in your thought process. Being a young female academic, I do have stories… Like offering insightful comments in class–which stimulate ideas and get things going into a different direction–only for the next commentator (male) to give credit to another man for my insights. That’s a classic thing women complain about in the workplace. It’s happened multiple times to me. Thankfully, I’m beyond letting things like that railroad me.

However, sometimes I feel like waking up to some of our bizarre gender norms and how they hurt everyone is similar to having a faith crisis. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And for me, sometimes, knowing what things are like…well, it can get discouraging.

[university]

It’s been a year since I posted this. I’m now at 100 posts on this site. What an interesting place to be at.

I went back and read everything in this thread, all the replies. I remember getting teary-eyed when I read your posts a year ago. It brought me to tears again.

A lot has changed for me since I posted this thread, but so much is still the same.

I just want to say thank you so much for being here. All of you. Thank you for being kind and giving people a soft place to land while they sort things out.

:wave:

[university]

nibbler wrote:

In some ways I see making a list of a few dozen types of teas, going one by one, and asking the lord permission for each a way that we seek to be commanded in all things. I can imagine god sitting peacefully on a cloud, people coming up and starting to bug him, “Can we drink black tea? Can we drink green tea? White tea? Oolong Tea? Matcha? Hibiscus? Rooibos? Green Rooibos? Pu-erh? Decaffeinated? …” God’s brow furrows a little more with each question until he says, “You know what. NO TEAS. No tea for you.” and then as soon as the room has cleared god lets out a sigh of relief and takes a dainty gulp from his earl gray.

😆 I can see it, too.

nibbler wrote:

This addresses the part where I wonder whether the issue is that we want to be commanded in all things, want to command in all things, or a little of each.

I agree. I do think we have created this culture for ourselves and generation after generation has perpetuated it.

nibbler wrote:

But seriously, going to a leader for every particular feels like it goes against the goal of personal progress. Are we not meant to wean ourselves from needing a leader to tell us the will of god, to begin to walk in our own confidence before the lord?

I think this is something that explains some of my major problems with Church right now. I used to be someone who found a lot of joy out of believing that the Church Presidency was God’s direct mouth piece–that in this crazy world I had at least one thing I could count on to never give me false advice. My faith paradigm has changed, and with that, I’ve become wary of the increasing message of “follow the Brethren” or “align your views with God’s eternal laws.” Wouldn’t a key part of eternal progression mean being able to come to righteous conclusions on our own instead of just getting in line? The most important part of education is learning how to think critically, not being told how to repeat back answers or just believing whatever your teacher–even a great one—says. Of course, people can still argue that what the church gives us are the “essentials” and that God lets us work things out on our own, but still.

[university]

I wasn’t really a fan of this piece and I’m not familiar with her other writings. It reads a lot like other posts I’ve been reading from other LDS people my age–who are concerned with the policy–who have issues with the policy–but have decided since they believe Church leadership is divinely inspired–that they will accept it as the will of the Lord. I don’t mean to demean or belittle the author or say that’s exactly what she’s going for. It’s just the kind of things I read a lot from other members.

Forgive me this little ramble about religions. But how does a successful, authoritarian religion retain its power in people’s lives? By establishing rituals that it claims are essential for entrance into heaven, selling this idea to its adherents until they completely buy into it, and then driving home the idea that their church has exclusive authority to perform such rituals. Once a cycle has started, it can drive this message into the minds of the youth, and it becomes easier. How does a successful authoritarian religion exercise control over the thoughts and behavior of its members? Limit the membership’s access to such rituals if they deviate from conformity to the religion’s code of conduct or display unsatisfactory levels of obedience.

This might read as blasphemy, but I’m not meaning to be malicious here, or say that the LDS Church is alone in this. It’s a common thing for successful world religions. And I’m not even saying this is bad. It just is.

[Author]

Posts