[university]

Roy wrote:

I am listening to the Nelson BYU-H Devotional. Sister Nelson says in regards to gifts of the spirit:

Quote:

The Savior paid the price for every gift of the spirit we will ever need to help us but it is up to us to prayerfully discover which gifts we need…[snip]…Perhaps we need the gift to have our sexual feelings to be in harmony with eternal laws.

Edit: sorry that I inadvertently dropped the word “sexual” from the above quote. It has now been added back in.

This is the moment where I want to insert a GIF (moving picture) of a person slapping their forehead in frustration.

Also, how bizarre :crazy: . Is she somehow implying that we can get this “gift” from Christ in this life??? I thought we moved away from teaching that through the atonement we can change our sexual orientation? Hope she’s not implying that.

*another face palm*

[university]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

And for the members, it’s a real Milgram’s test. I refuse to push the button.

Feminist Mormon Housewives posted a write-up about the policy using the same analogy.

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2016/01/the-mormon-milgram-experiment/

[university]

^^ These posts reminded me of something. Awhile ago, I was talking to TBM girl around the same age as me. She started talking about how she was tired of how “the world” belittles motherhood so much. I encounter this attitude a lot from other Mormon women, especially those who have decided to be a stay at home mother. I do understand where they’re coming from. I don’t think mothers get enough credit. But I don’t think that this lack of appreciation for what mom’s do comes entirely from “the World.” I also think that a lot of the pressure to be the perfect mom comes from within church culture itself. There is so much pressure to be perfect–to have the perfectly cleaned house, to spend quality time with each kid, to be at all the sporting events/lessons/etc., Frankly, a lot of women put pressure on themselves to do the impossible.

Back to my main point: It was very clear that to this girl for a woman to say, “I’m tired of being told my primary value lies in motherhood. I want a career!” or “I want the Priesthood” meant “Motherhood isn’t that important.” I politely commented on how women should be able to choose motherhod or a career or both without being judged for it. She agreed. That is a different perspective then what I’ve encountered from older Mormon women in the past. But I must say, it’s common among the Mormon girls I talk to. Even though they want to be a stay at home mom, they’re not going to judge the girls who also want to work (although the Brethren do).

I guess my takeaway from all of this is that the issues of women in religion, and particularly in this Church, seem to be coming up a lot more frequently. I’m hopeful that even though there aren’t women in the leadership of the Church, and the ones in higher Church positions seem to just be an echo chamber of “all is well in Zion,” we’re going to have some gradual movement in some attitudes about gender just because of different social views. Also, I have a friend who comes from a prominent Mormon family, who has followed the route I envisioned for him: BYU, marriage, very involved in the Church. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up in Church leadership at some point in his life, it’s a family legacy. He makes social media posts all the time about how we shouldn’t shame men for their emotions (different from Elder Packer who once advised young boys that Heavenly Father wants them to be “masculine men”) and recognizes some gender equality issues. He blames church culture, not doctrine, but it’s a start.

I think gradual change is coming. I just don’t know if I’m patient enough.

[university]

The Church absolutely has a right to set its own boundaries. That doesn’t mean that they are morally right. Nor does it mean they have to work for you in your life. But you can’t control the Church. You can only control yourself.

As far as respect, what does “respect” mean? Acknowledge their reality, abide by them, agree with them? “Respect” could go in a lot directions. Just as the Church has a right to set its own boundaries, so do I. So do you.

My advice? Feed your spirit in what ways work for you. If your goal is to live your life in the Church, and you’re sure of this, then you are going to have to find a balance of living within the Church’s boundaries while still being true to what makes you happy. If you’re not sure, there’s no rush at all to do anything huge. Just keep living life in ways that you are being true to your conscious and the rest will follow.

[university]

I’m still very frustrated with the Church’s stance on polygamy, especially when it refuses to confront the way it was taught and implemented in the past. The Church can avoid looking at materials that reference these realities and censor them out of its current teachings, but these historical realities are still there. Historical documents still exist. When people go looking, they can still find them. They’re going to have to wrestle and reconcile the past with the very different teachings of now—with the Church leaving the possibility open that things could be like that again. Even worse, I fear people will feel like they’ve been lied to. But that’s not new. It’s just going to alienate some of the brightest young minds in this Church, imo.

However, I will say this: I am glad the answer for a young girl, when she raises her hand in Seminary and asks if polygamy is required for exhalation, can now be “no.” That doesn’t solve the question of whether if the husband “chooses” polygamy she will be forced into it…but I guess I’m opening up a huge tangent that I don’t want to pursue right now.

I still can’t believe that for a Church that claims to “know” so much–down to what types of tea you should drink (see me reference the other thread, haha) for years they’ve been telling girls they “don’t know” if women will be forced to share husbands in the afterlife. So yes, I do celebrate this small, small victory.

[university]

nibbler wrote:

Personally, I find this sad. It even goes against modern day revealed scripture. It appears that we have a subconscious desire to be “commanded in all things” or to “command in all things,” maybe a little of both.

I agree, but what do you mean by it going against modern day revealed scripture?

Heber13 wrote:

It’s interesting we have so many policies and rules around different kinds of teas and infusions. In the grand scheme of things, that seems silly to me. But it does show how strictly we hold on to the idea and try to put God into things that I can’t imagine matter.

Yes, but I understand the mindset. I have a friend who, after returning home from a mission in Asia, won’t even eat anything flavored with green tea–this was a big problem for her mission in Asia, as that’s a very popular flavor for ice cream, etc (I’m not sure, but I also think this is a policy for her mission, as she’s also tried to prevent me from partaking in green tea flavored desserts when we go out to eat because she assumes I’m in the same paradigm as her). But I get it. She just wants to show her devotion to God and for her, even refraining from an ice cream flavor is a way of her showing her devotion. I don’t follow the same paradigm, but I can see the beauty in it.

Old-Timer wrote:

Members and missionaries in Japan drink mugicha (wheat tea) regularly – at least, those who want to drink it do.

I didn’t like the taste. It was way too bland.

Yes, tea culture is really big in Asia. So big that even things that we wouldn’t classify as “tea” are referred to as such. For example, in some parts of China, chocolate milk is referred to as something along the lines as “chocolate milk tea” in Chinese. It’s my understanding that the current church policy for missionaries is that you can’t drink any “teas” that come from the tea leaf–black tea, green tea, etc., are off limits for the WOW. But you’re just fine to have other “teas” such as flower tea and others.

Old-Timer wrote:

It wouldn’t surprise me if athings changed in the future, but I would prefer a relaxation of the prohibition for baptism. We ought not require new converts to follow temple standards or be able to quit long-term addictions and abandon core cultural aspects in order to join the Church (especially, from an orthodox standpoint, without the Gift of the Holy Ghost).

I feel similarly about our modesty requirements, although they aren’t a requirement for baptism (or are they?). It find it kind of culturally insensitive to impose Western-based standards of “modesty” on other cultures. For example, in India, sometimes the traditional saree would technically be “immodest” with exposure of some of the stomach. However, in my eyes, when I look at a mother wearing a saree, the idea that she’s somehow “immodest” is ridiculous to me. Similarly, in some parts of the world, there is no air conditioning, no access to ice, and people live in extremely hot and humid circumstances. Men walk around shirtless. Women show more skin but it’s not perceived as sexual at all–it’s normal. To impose Western-based modesty standards on the people there, when they’re already struggling with extreme heat, doesn’t feel right to me, either. I feel like this is a similar thing with how we implement the WOW. Sorry for the thread jack. I just see some similarities.

I do understand the mindset that people have with the Church that “where much is given much is required” where basically since the Church promises so much, it needs to demand a lot. But just because I understand doesn’t mean I ascribe to it. And this attitude can create unnecessary stress and pain for oneself and others.

[university]

amateurparent wrote:

I’ve wondered if missionaries drink tea in Japon and China .. As it is such a social standard. Anyone know?

Earlier in the thread I also wondered about similar things. Mainland China’s not open to missionaries. Preaching religion there is against the law. However, I’ve heard that the policies about what types of tea are forbidden are strictly outlined for missionaries in Japan and Taiwan. From my interactions with returned missionaries from Asia, they have more knowledge about what types of teas are “forbidden” than even I do because of the strictness. So, from the people I’ve talked to, no, they don’t drink tea.

[university]

Yes, I agree. And I don’t think these points should be limited to religion. They happen in everyday life.

However, I think a lot of the time we are socialized to treat women a certain way, or view them a certain way, but we don’t even know it. It’s not always that a person views women as a temptress or child…they just have sub-consciously learned how to treat women. I guess that goes for everything. Gender roles and acceptable behaviors associated permeate a lot of how we do things. We’re so immersed we don’t know that we’re doing it.

For example, I’m frequently interrupted by men in professional settings. These men are often great colleagues, even friends, who respect me and consider me an intellectual equal. And yet, they interrupt me more than they interrupt their male colleagues. And it’s not that I’m a chatterbox that won’t stop talking 😆 I didn’t even realize this was happening to me until a male friend made a social media post about how he might have been doing this to women all along and needs to start making sure he let’s women say their piece. It was something I can’t unsee. I don’t take it personal, but I am more assertive now. I’ve found that once men hear about this, they’re shocked, and the try to be careful not to talk over women they truly do respect.

Similarly, even today, sometimes I’m more harsh on women when they share their opinions–but I have stop myself and ask myself if I’d be as critical of her if she’d been a man and said the same thing. Usually, the answer is that I wouldn’t be. We can turn it around and see that men are often expected to take leadership positions or be more active in making a decision when they might not want to–and people are hard on them–call them lazy, etc.—when they don’t.

[university]

I don’t think so.

I could be wrong.

It’s an obedience test and there isn’t much incentive right now for the leadership to change it. With no incentive, no change. Plus, most members I know still think of it is an important marker of being an upstanding member of the Church. It’s become a cultural marker for us as a people. They’re hardpressing this issue, even in Asia, where drinking tea is very, very common. It’s hard to get someone to give up tea when it’s a staple in the culture. One of the few ways I could see aggravation for change to occur is if China opened up for our missionaries and the missionaries were having significant setbacks because of the tea issue. Even then, maybe they’d just say that “green tea” is okay and keep black tea on the “do not drink” list

We’ll see.

[university]

Saying this information makes me feel kind of creepy. I don’t mean to be. Oh well

Supposedly, most of the 15 own multiple properties. Some of them have been confirmed by documentation, some not. Some own multiple homes, some own multiple apartments, some have a combination. There are probably other properties that we don’t know about. For example, President Monson, who lives quite modestly compared to some of the others (just my ignorant opinion–could totally be wrong here) still owns his old house, but (is rumored to have) an add on property that is much larger behind it (although we’re not talking lavish, here) and lives in an apartment in Salt Lake. Not here to point fingers, just adding some information to the conversation. Like I said, I don’t think he lives lavishly.

I have some more concrete knowledge about some of the properties of the 12. I’ve walked past some of them as I was in the neighborhood. Some of them are located in luxurious areas. Significantly wealthy eras. Surrounded by mansions. And yes, some of them are quite nice. This used to be a shelf-issue for me. It didn’t jive well with all the anti-wealthy pride rhetoric the BOM taught me as a kid. I can absolutely see why people would be upset with this and it would damage their testimonies or make them question where their tithing money is going, even if some of these apostles might have been making a lot of money before they were called.

From my perspective, their properties (remember, there probably are multiple ones) could be seen as excessive for lower or middle class people. However, I think a person coming from the upper class (which, in America, few people seem to think they’re actually in) would think they really are modest. I think it’s just a perspective issue, and perhaps I’m giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt, but I think they’re are trying to live simply. But perspective does alter how that looks.

For example, Elder Oaks no longer lives in is old home (although I don’t know if he still owns it or not. I think the Church does now). His current home also isn’t huge, even though he lives in a luxurious area by Elder Uchtdorf. I’ve seen it. It looks modest compared to the huge properties by it.

[university]

I don’t want to disclose too much about myself on this website.

But my name on here is University…So I’m going to share some personal information. Essentially, without going into too many specifics, my field of study is humans behaving badly in the modern era…so, from WWI: armed conflict, mass killings, mass rapes, genocides, slave trades, sex slave trades, you get the picture. Probably the stuff that makes most people’s stomachs turn. The point is, my heart has broken a lot because of what I’ve chosen to pursue for my career. It’s made worse by the fact that I’m surrounded by people that barely know a thing about all the horrible things that are going on in the world and what’s happened in the past. And then the fact that I feel a lot of these things could be prevented if more people cared. But I understand why people don’t know what’s going on and what’s happened. And I understand why people care not to know, even though that ensures that history repeats itself. It’s a tough situation.

I will say that I am probably desensitized to a lot of things that would upset people, like graphic images and details of surviving horrific events. However, there’s always something that gets me, always some aspect that pulls on the heartstrings. And I’m glad. I don’t want to lose that emotional connection. I will say it makes for awkward conversations when people ask what I’m doing at school. When I go into specifics people get uncomfortable or don’t even know what I’m talking about. It’s refreshing when I meet someone who shows genuine interest and wants to discuss and learn. That’s what I’ve found. For people who survive horrific events–from being sold into sex slavery as a little girl–to having their father killed in battle—they often just want to know that someone cares and will listen.

For me, I don’t think it’s bad that you get down about these kinds of realities. Regardless of whether or not you believe in a literal translation of the scriptures, Mormon theology believes in the God who weeps. We believe in the God who descended below all things and still is able to find joy even after being acquainted with all of this. But make no mistake, the scriptures depict a Christ who was very well acquainted with deep, deep sorrow. And because he knows how horrible the world is, he is able to better empathize with us, or so the theology goes. He has wisdom. For me, when I am saddened by all the truly horrible things that have happened and are happening, I comfort myself by telling myself at least I care. And I am better able to empathize with others because I’ve looked some very ugly things in the face and still find beauty in the world. And because I care about the things I know, I need to do something to try and make life better for all the people I meet. I can’t fix the world. But I can do my part to try and make it better.

Also, it might comfort you to know that I’ve been amazed at how humans can pull through such horrible circumstances. Rarely is there a rosy happy ending like the fairytales would say. But there are survivors to these events that truly survive. They thrive. And I think that’s a beautiful thing indeed.

P.S. For uplifting material, if you’re the “Rated-R” watching kind, The Shawshank Redemption is a personal favorite.

[university]

Quick thoughts:

Thought it was a great film. Some people called it too predictable–and yes, it did err on the predictable side–but I think it was exactly what the franchise needed to do to press “reset” after the prequels while restoring and and beckoning back to original trilogy’s glory.

With that said, watching Han talk to his son–while I suspected that he was about to be killed–was torture. I almost yelled at the screen. I did mutter over and over, “He’s going to kill you!” to the person sitting next to me a few times. They probably didn’t appreciate that 😆

With that said, still a great scene.

I’m hoping Rey isn’t Luke’s daughter. It would be too easy. I want a better twist. Some people are saying she could be Ben Kenobi’s grandaughter. I’d be in favor of that :thumbup:

My only complaint is I have tons of questions and have to wait a few years to get more answers… :clap:

[university]

GBSmith wrote:

My concern is not what the Bundy’s and their followers did is that they see God’s hand in it and claim a confirmation of the Spirit that they’re doing the right thing. When someone claims a witness that what they’re doing is right with a capital R and it’s clearly not what you believe, how can you give credence to anyone’s testimony or trust what you might have felt yourself?

I think that’s a difficult question to answer, especially when so many people of various faiths (anywhere from Islam to Scientology) claim special spiritual witness that their path is the only path. Some claim they know that their way is the only way back to God.

I have a friend who, on numerous instances, has told me that she’s received a spiritual witness that her then boyfriend is going to be her husband…then comes the inevitable breakup and seeming forgetfulness about something that was once a very spiritual experience. I’m told this a common experience with people who pray about their significant other becoming their spouse?

I guess for me, I trust myself. I trust that I’m honest with myself and not just interpreting my emotions as divine guidance. It is very difficult for me to trust the testimony of others. I think that’s something I’ve “lost” in this faith transition.

[university]

An armed group takes over a building in the middle of the wilderness? Sounds more like the Gadianton Robbers to me

Sad to see the Church get pulled into this but unfortunately, I do think the statement was necessary from a PR standpoint.

I’m tempted to elaborate on the double standards in America with this situation (like how I doubt that if this was an Islamic Militant group referencing the Qu’an and saying that the land should be used for refugees we’d have such a tempered response from the government or even how the National Guard would react to Black Lives Matter doing the same thing) but I think I’ll refrain for now

[university]

amateurparent wrote:

University, you mentioned that YSA wards tend to be more liberal. Do you think they are more liberal, or just more open about their beliefs at this point in their lives?

I ask because when someone hears that I went to BYU for my first degree and was married in the temple, I get filed away under TBM.. From those few little details of information, too often someone will fill in all the blanks in my life story without knowing me. They see a mom at church who is wearing church appropriate clothing. They don’t know me and they miss all the details that matter.

Yes and no.

I mostly say this because, in my experience, YSA Mormons are generally more liberal than other demographics. This isn’t just limited to Mormons. For me, this is generally true of most Americans in the young adult demographic. It’s just a generational difference. Millennials are more tolerant. We have our flaws, yes, but in my opinion, our tolerance is a strength.

I do think my generation’s mantra in the Church is “Judge Less, Love More.” I’m reminded of the famous “Tattooed Mormon” Al Fox. I recall seeing some older Mormons, even just a decade or so older than me, rejoicing in the Church’s acceptance of her, as if this was a sign of progress. To me it was a no-brainer. I didn’t get what the fuss was about. I think she’s kind of the symbolic face of the future of the Church.

However, I also do believe the YSA generation, even in the Mormon circles, is influenced by the “You do you, I do me” culture, which focuses less on obedience and conformity. So perhaps, yes, we’re just more open with our beliefs.

I will say, though, that I had a remarkable YSA Bishop a few years ago who was there for me when I had the onset of my faith crisis (at the time it was very much a crisis). We had conversations about women’s roles in the Church–how he made efforts to make things more inclusive for women in the ward leadership. He even straight up told me once that the Church Leadership has to change and will change. We talked about how the Church is no longer a Church for white men in Utah and will eventually have to adapt to be more inclusive of women and the world–let me also say that he didn’t support female ordination and is against gay marriage. But do you see where I’m going with this? Of course, this man was a rarity, definitely won leadership roulette there, but in our conversations he expressed that some of the issues I mentioned came up a lot for him with a lot of other YSAs. I took his word for it.

With that said I think a lot of my generation is leaving or fading away from the Church. Maybe I’m just overestimating this but I really think this is true. Conversations with TBM’s who don’t know I’m kind of disaffected and have access to their “inactive” lists confirm that there is a really high rate of inactivity in my age group. Of course, I think this is kind of natural for YSA members but it may be more of a problem now than it’s been before. I have no way of knowing.

[Author]

Posts