[university]

mczee wrote:

Thank you for your perspective. I’ll try not to be overly critical and show more empathy. There is a lot of pain associated with LDS women in my life and how I’m viewed as a less than worthy person so sometimes I can be very critical.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think you’ve been too critical here. You had a valid response. I think you handled the situation well and I think it’s awesome that you’ve recognized your boundaries and what you want from a partner. :thumbup:

It’s an unfortunate reality that many LDS women (and members in general) can be judgmental. I hope you know it’s a safe place to come and rant about it here, or share. You’re not less than worthy in my eye and there are plenty of women out there that will agree.

[university]

Congratulations on making progress on dating! I think this was a great moment for you. I think it says a lot for your self-acceptance that you were able to reason to yourself, “We’re not a match” and not feel bad about it. It’s also great that you know your values and what you want in a relationship. :clap:

Full disclosure: I used to be a lot like the girl you’re talking about.

A few years ago I was seeing a guy who I knew hadn’t gone on a mission. I’d already had the beginnings of my faith crisis, but I wanted to get married in the temple. I wanted to overcome what I considered doubts. Even though I considered myself “not ready” for the temple at the time, I still figured it into my ultimate plans…well, it was a bit more complicated than that, but I’ll cut myself off here.

On a date I asked him if he’d served a mission—very warm, trying not to be judgmental in anyway. He said no. I asked why—he said he wasn’t ready to talk about that. I dropped the subject. We stopped seeing each other shortly after. Sometimes I wonder if he thought it had to do with the mission thing—that wasn’t the reason at all. For me, there wasn’t a romantic attraction. I told him this, but I digress.

You have to understand—young women in this church have it drilled into their heads that a temple marriage is absolutely essential for their eternal salvation and happiness, and this starts at a very young age. Really, they start the wedding dress and temple pictures really early for small girls in the church. Back in the day, pre-faith crisis, the purpose of dating to me was to find an eternal companion, and to me, the temple was the core piece of that, so my thought process was: why date someone that you can’t have that with? To me, it was a waste of time and I was playing with fire: I could fall in love with someone that couldn’t take me to the temple, and what then? That would mess with the narrative I’d bought into my whole life. I was very aware of this possibility and didn’t even want to flirt with the idea of starting a relationship with someone who wasn’t “temple worthy.” I’d also had relief society lessons about this topic pop up for years. The message? Temple Worthy is THE most important quality in a man right alongside “Worthy Priesthood Holder”—whatever that means. They even had us make lists of our “ideal eternal companion” with Temple Worthy at the top. Multiple times.

For a lot of LDS women, the temple is the castle in their own princess fairytale the story has served to them since before kindergarten. I know LDS women who are very liberal, don’t attend church, drink alcohol, etc., who still hold out that they “won’t settle for anything less than a temple marriage.” It’s that one thing some women can’t give up on, because it’s been drilled into them that this is the ONLY way to get their happpy ending.

I think, despite a lot of women wanting RM’s, there are a lot more LDS women nowadays who don’t see that as a pre-requisite. However, my experience is they’ll still want a “valid reason” for not serving a mission, as in to check your commitment level to the Church and prospects as someone who will marry her in the temple and be supportive of raising the children as TBM. While “not serving a mission” is not a requirement for temple marriage, I would say a lot of YSA Mormon women see it as a red flag for a man not valuing the church as much as she does, perhaps having some struggles with sins that she doesn’t want to have to cope with (pornography addiction is a big one that comes to mind—that’s very scary for a lot of YSA Mormon ladies). Basically, she probably wants to know what she’s getting into before moving forward, which is why she asked you why you didn’t go. I did the same thing. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying how she handled it was appropriate at all. And the “Stalwart” and “Worthy” thing was off-key.

Bright side is not all YSA Mormon women are like this, but I would say the majority of TBM will be. Yes, this is an assumption—but I stick by it. It’s my experience that TBM YSA women are like this.

But there are also girls out there that a frustrated by the same thing coming from the male side—who don’t want “Temple worthy” and “Honor my Priesthood” to be a qualification. Congrats on recognizing and setting your boundaries.

EDIT: she’s probably bringing this stuff up a lot because she likes you and is trying to get a sense of your church commitment before things progress.

[university]

Heber13 wrote:

I will also add…I think there are specific situations that will surface if a person tries to break from the mold and still try to stay. Even if in time, that person may be proven right.

The system is setup to penalize some. I’m not sure why, except maybe they don’t know how else to be an organization without some rules, and with rules come accountability to those rules or else “why have any rules at all?”.

Tithing, WOW, Chastity…these seem to be hard lines in the sand that don’t allow for too much flexibility.

And they lead to:

1) Can’t see family and friends sealed in the temple;

2) Can’t baptize your son/daughter;

3) Can’t have certain leadership positions or callings;

…and a few things.

Those are important prices to pay to not just go along with the mold.

I honestly don’t know what to make of that. But I do recognize that is the way it is. But outside those things, I think people should accept each other despite church policy. And sometimes, that isn’t enough to be able to stay. It makes you feel you’re being told you are insignificant as a person, because you are unworthy to a set of man-made rules. The church teaches you will go to a lesser kingdom, and blessings like eternal families will not be yours, and that leads to pressure from families.

It seems to me to be a conundrum. Despite so many other great things about church that bring people together to serve each other. These “worthiness” discussions seem to hang over individuals, because that is how the church is setup.

Very good points.

Also, Church language feeds into perspective. “Worthiness” or if you’re “worthy” to go to the temple sets the psychological tone for how these acts are interpreted amongst members and even those that don’t conform. The temple interview covertly implies that these actions–paying tithing, WOW, Chastity, are the bare minimum for being good, essentially. So if you don’t pay tithing–if you don’t keep the WOW of wisdom–you’re “unworthy” of fuller access to God and his blessings. It can do horrible things for shaming members. We have discussions on here a lot about how shame is unhealthy for sexuality, but I think this principle applies to the gospel, period.

I don’t buy that the Church has something for everyone—it’s a nice goal, but it’s not true. I think we’re all mostly on the same page with that. Surely one wouldn’t advocate that the Church could have worked for every African American during the days of the Priesthood ban and overt racism?

For me, every membership I have with an organization should be a give-and-take. I get something I want/need from the organization, and I give back. Right now that give-and-take isn’t working for me and the LDS Church.

[university]

churchistrue wrote:

I’m sure this is pretty rare, because polygamy doesn’t usually work this way. But what would happen in a situation that’s analogous to the most common scenario with the new same sex parent policy?

Wife1 and Husband1 are married. Normal, active LDS, non-polygamous marriage and family.

Wife1 and Husband1 have a couple kids early in their marriage. Get divorced. Standard Utah custody arrangement. Husband1 gets kids every other weekend plus one night a week. Husband1 gets involved with FLDS church, converts, and takes on a couple wives.

Now child is baptism age. He’s gone to church his whole life. This polygamy thing with his dad is kind of new and weird, but they figure it all out. Husband1 is excommunicated from LDS church but is a good dad, gets along with his ex, Wife1 is really big into Mormonism and Husband1 doesn’t want to mess with that, so he sends the kids to LDS church when he has custody either by themselves or he attends with them.

Would the church really not allow these kids to get baptized? It’s probably rare, but it has to have happened at least a couple times. I wonder how it’s handled.

I wonder as well.

This is my biggest problem with this new policy. And this is what I feel will tear families apart the most.

I have word from a reliable source of a young woman being sent home from her mission because one of her parents is gay and “cohabitating” with the same-sex partner. I’ve also read similar accounts from gay parents about their child’s baptism now being called off even though it was scheduled for the upcoming weeks—even though they were supportive, even though the other parent is who is taking the child to church every week. These kids have gone to church their whole life and probably will continue to with their straight parent (or will they? Will they stop coming because they feel so cut off from everything?). But now they’re cut off from all those rights of passage in the church because the church is trying to “protect” them? Bogus.

Seems like a lot of people, especially when defending this policy, are imagining a scenarios where there is a same-sex couple and adopted children. The policy seems to fit a lot nicely into the box they’ve created in that situation. However, the policy is not written in a way that is limited to that scenario. People forget that. Additionally, people are forgetting that even if a parent is no longer living in a same-sex cohabitation scenario, even if they “repented” years ago, that child cannot have access to any of the official rights of passage: no baptism–no Priesthood–no nothing until they turn 18 and get approval from the First Presidency (I’m a little iffy about needing to move out in that scenario, I’d have to read it again). So much for repentance.

I really feel the Church leadership has overlooked so much with this policy and it’s a testament to the fact that despite their insistence that they are, they’re really not listening to gay members and the families of gay members. Truly, the haven’t listened. “Being gay” is not a religious community. Believe it or not, even the First President in the Bishopric might decide to come out and live with a partner in a few years. There are gay members dispersed all throughout our congregations, we just don’t see them. And this policy will have horrible implications for a child of parents going through a divorce because of this.

If they have considered these implications and moved forward with this policy, they are being cruel.

This policy straight-up is about protecting straight church members who buy into the “gay marriage is an abomination” rhetoric. Church Leadership may even believe that it is primarily about protecting children of gay families, but it’s not. This policy is going to hurt so many people. It’s creating artificial consequences for entering into same-sex relationships that punish entire families for the “sins” of the gay members.

[university]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

university wrote:

Quote:

…A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship,[/b] whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1.

The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2.The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

I got this from Feminist Mormon Housewives, but its all over local news sources.

I found out from a facebook friend…Mormon and Gay. She’s in shock.

From a business perspective, this move makes sense…But my Church shouldn’t be operating like a business.

My prayers are with all of those who are considering suicide tonight and for all those who will be driven to it because of this (rumored) policy, not to mention the heartache this will cause and is already causing.

I have no other words right now.

How does this make sense from a business perspective? I don’t get it, is this their idea of taking some bizarre differentiation strategy to extremes? If this report is true my guess is that it will mostly result in bad publicity and many Church members losing faith and/or leaving that would have given Church leaders the benefit of the doubt if they hadn’t done this. To me it doesn’t make much sense from any perspective other than a hardliner religious zealot perspective. Even then what does it accomplish that wouldn’t already be accomplished by the regular hardline chastity policy? And why are only the children of gays and lesbians singled out this way and not straight people cohabiting, convicted felons, etc.?

You make some good points and I should have worded it differently. I shouldn’t have said “business” I should have said something else. Never-the-less, I see this horrible reality:

The Church doesn’t want to change its doctrine and doesn’t want members that will challenge it working from the inside.

Cutting out youth that have gay parents = cutting out dissenting voices on the issue of gay marriage.

This would be “strengthening” its membership by weeding out “problematic” members, and the Church apparently doesn’t care about attracting the kind of members that would disagree with this policy. Basically…so what about the bad publicity, they don’t want those people, anyway.

I’ve also seen the faithful perspective that allowing children in the Church while still a minor would be cruel because they’d have to grow up being in a church that teaches they aren’t in a valid family, Thus, “make them wait until they’re 18” to make that choice, so to speak (I don’t agree with this).

Additionally it kind of cuts the Church out of dealing with some of these issues and puts it on the members to sort out. Let the lesbian mother wrestle with the horror of whether or not to come out and live with her girlfriend, for fear that now her whole family will suffer. Her kids can’t get baptized, her son can’t serve a mission until he moves out and renounces her (she wouldn’t want to put him in that position), among other horrible, awful things. There are now clear guidelines about this kind of stuff :sick:

I’m cutting myself off here before I go on a rant about how awful this policy is.

It’s horrible.

I’m one of those millennials.

[university]

Is there a way we can merge this with Mom3’s post?

Hi, all. Obviously I came back to check-in on this forum after a long absence…and it’s not coincidence that I came back on the night that this happened:

Quote:

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1.

The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2.

The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

I got this from Feminist Mormon Housewives, but its all over local news sources.

I found out from a facebook friend…Mormon and Gay. She’s in shock.

From a business perspective, this move makes sense.

But my Church shouldn’t be operating like a business.

My prayers are with all of those who are considering suicide tonight and for all those who will be driven to it because of this (rumored) policy, not to mention the heartache this will cause and is already causing.

I have no other words right now.

[university]

I don’t know if I’m going to come back to this site. I’m taking a break. However, I’ve come back to peak around. This thread was very interesting to me. I’ve read through all of it. I thought maybe, as a millennial LDS girl, I could add a new perspective into the mix. I recognize that I can’t speak for all LDS women, I can’t even speak for millennial LDS women. I can only speak for myself. But in my experience, the girls I know, the women I have interacted with my whole life, all have an issue with polygamy. I’ve never spoken to a girl that is fine with it—except for me. In my conversations, I was the only person that was like, “I’d be fine with it.” But I’ll get to that later.

Polygamy is not something that we can just ignore and it will go away. Because it hasn’t been disavowed, and is a part of our Church legacy, and is still implemented in temple practices, it will continue to be in our psyche, especially the LDS woman’s psyche. It’s like this silent cross the women in my life are afraid to talk about—and I’m not just talking about family. When I’ve “come out” to LDS women about my “doubts” of the Church, the first response I typically get is, “Is it polygamy?” Yep, the women I talk to think polygamy is the reason I have doubts—because polygamy is something they can see as causing a good LDS girl so much anguish that she’d want to leave the Church. I’ve had conversations about polygamy in Relief Society, Sunday School, Seminary, and personal conversations outside of Church with girls all throughout my life. It’s not something that’s dying out. This will continue to be an issue for women.

That being sad, I don’t think polygamy is on the minds of a lot of LDS women a lot. It becomes something they have to put on the shelf. Most of them reason out that God would never ask them to do something that would make them miserable and they don’t study further than that. That becomes their reconciling moment—they choose to have faith that it won’t be forced into it. Since they’re not reading D&C 132 deeply and they’re not looking into church history which deviates from the standard narratives so they don’t have reason to believe they would be forced into it. They don’t know that Joseph’s supposed revelation threatened Emma with destruction, or that he didn’t get permission from her in many cases. They don’t know about the Law of Sarah. I’ve also had a friend tell me she thinks it was the Lord testing his people and it won’t happen again. However, with that said, it’s still the inevitable “polygamy” topic which tests and tries us women to exercise excruciating faith (again, speaking from my experience) will come up again and again in our minds and hearts.

The way the church teaches this doctrine perpetuates the pain for women. The entire doctrine, even as it is still taught today, is a sexist abomination in my opinion, and I use those words purposely. The fact that the Church teaches they “just don’t know” what will happen in the next life is beyond awful. I understand that it’s better than teaching that polygamy’s required, but I feel like I’m grasping at straws to find that positive point. I’ve witnessed what happens when a woman asks sincere questions about polygamy in the next life. At one point, this was me. The standard response is, “It was practiced in the past, we don’t know what will happen in the afterlife.” A follow up question, “So will it be required in the Celestial Kingdom?” Answer: “Some people think so, some people don’t. We just don’t know.” It’s outright horrific. The Church, which claims to have all essential truth, to have the answers to life’s biggest questions, that gets on its high horse about gay marriage, can’t even answer women whether or not they’ll be forced to share their husband with other women for eternity? It’s tragic. It’s wrong.

I also think some of the Church’s issues with gender inequality beckon back to our polygamous history, but that’s a conversation for another day. I do think one of the reasons we don’t talk about Heavenly Mother is because so many people in our church think God has plural wives…but again, conversation for a different day.

Just for clarification, I am not against polygamy as a consensual practice, but our church’s polygamous systemic practice is one that perpetuates gender power imbalances, and historically, reduced women to objects—rewards to be taken by powerful, rich men. It’s awful stuff. And the fact that our LDS women have to live in fear of what will happen in their afterlife, and in some cases, what their husband might choose, is awful.

For the record, I also used to be one of those girls who said I would be fine with polygamy in the afterlife. I sincerely meant it. I came to a place where I thought to myself, “We’re all going to be perfect, eventually. I don’t care if I have to share my husband as long as I’m loved—not just by my husband, if I have people in my life that truly love me. Then it’s okay. There’s probably going to be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom, anyway. Maybe I’ll even want to have my husband take other wives because we’ll all be so righteous and so good that jealousy won’t be a problem.” Funny fact: when I first started finding out information about Joseph Smith’s marriages to women that were already married, I even considered the notion that *gasp* we’re going to have lots of polyamorous relations, male/female, female/female, male/male and that there might not even be sexual relations. After all, I was taught in Seminary that in the next life we will have bodies of flesh and bone, not flesh and blood, so how are women going to get pregnant the way they do in earth if this is true? Ha ha.

Clearly I’ve changed my views. Granted, I wasn’t always so accepting of polygamy. I remember reading a book about Church History (faith promoting) when I was a pre-teen and sobbing when I got to the passages about polygamy—it was awful. I went to bed crying myself to sleep. It’s a tragedy that a young girl with so much faith should be hurt that deeply by doctrine. As I got older I thought that maybe it was a divine practice that was implemented wrong because of human failings. Now I see the church’s implementation of polygamy as something deeply sexist and wrong.

I should also mention that I have a friend who is in an open marriage. She has a husband and a partner. She defies the stereotypes of that kind of person being someone who is selfish and doesn’t value her marriage—she truly loves her husband. She’s one of the kindest people I know. She’s constantly doing things for other people, whether it be her husband, in-laws, parents, family, partner, etc. I personally wouldn’t want that lifestyle for myself. I would be jealous, and I’m busy enough already, I can’t imagine juggling two relationships at once. But none-the-less, she’s happy. I’m not afraid of non-conventional marriage arrangements. I just think the way the church taught, and teaches polygamy, is wrong. And I don’t see it changing anytime soon. But from what I’ve experienced, girls in the Church aren’t forgetting about it. They’re just putting it on the shelf. But until the Church deals with this issue, we’re not going to resolve our gender-inequality issues. I feel like the two are strongly linked. Maybe working on one will help heal the other.

[university]

Thank you all so much for these responses. They really made me smile and helped lighten the load a little bit They also just made me feel happier and more hopeful for my future, as well as ponder some potential strategies for how to continue developing relationships.

For the record…I’m an ENJF. Although some days I feel more like an INFJ. Maybe I’ll post in that thread sometime

[university]

I agree with a lot of what’s been said.

I also will say, as someone who might end up marrying and raising a family outside of the church, I do understand the need to tell people something about your faith status to people. If I do end up marrying and raising my family outside of the church, I will simply have to communicate something to my family. They will want answers. Right now I’m trying to figure out how to reveal a little bit about my situation to loved ones so if that does happen, it doesn’t devastate them by catching them off guard. It’s that fine line of wanting to prepare them for the possible yet not wanting to rip the whole band aide off.

Anyway, while some people can say nothing about their faith situation to their TBM loved ones and friends and get by, I understand for others, these kinds of tough conversations needs to happen.

When you’re ready, if you decide to, I agree with what was said before that maybe an outline would help. I don’t think letters work well with these kinds of conversations. I theorize that in most relationships dealing with this kind of loss/change, people need to see the one they love connecting with them when they inform them of the situation.

Well wishes to you!

Also–Mom3–Thank you so much for sharing that podcast. I haven’t finished it yet, but it definitely touched me, and made me shed a few tears as well

[university]

It is interesting for me to hear about this Denver Snuffer situation go down from the outside. I don’t know much about him—the only information I have about this I get from the cyberworld, and even then, it’s limited. It is intriguing how he can have such an impact on the lives of some and then have no influence at all in other circles. In my world, and in the world of other Mormons I interact with, he’s non-existent.

I don’t want to hijack the thread and we can move on, but is he claiming he had a visitation from Jesus? Sounds like it’s a splinter group in the making.

I don’t understand what I guess this forum calls the “conservative” wing of church rebellion. It is quite peculiar to me. From my perspective, it feels like the ‘”conservative” wing applies rigorous scrutiny to current leadership, but if the same level of scrutiny was applied to the early leaders of the Church, and even the Book of Mormon itself, the foundation of church origins wouldn’t stand up to it, either.

But I guess that’s how we all are. We sort what we analyze and critique based off our paradigms and convictions.

[university]

From my perspective, reforms in governments, religions, societies, etc. have multiple threads of aggravation. I think that while society likes to believe that it’s the moderate methods that are effective, historically, these moderate methods are frequently accompanied by more extreme efforts that made theirs seem more reasonable.

I do think Ordain Woman prompted more conversations about women in the church and how their voices can be better recognized. There has also been a defensive reaction, but Kate Kelly’s “movement” has prompted some action, all-be-it small. It’s all very slow but I don’t think this would have been an even slower process had it not been for the major public interest in Ordain Women’s protests which prompted conversations about women in the Church.

I don’t think we’ll ever know what Kate Kelly’s strategies were.

[university]

Interesting thoughts. They touched me. I feel like I have a similar experience.

I think one of the saddest things about this faith crisis for me is I feel like Mormonism is my spiritual language. But now I’m learning a new one and losing the connectedness I had with Mormonism. I’ll always “speak Mormonism” so to speak. It’s in my blood. It’s my native language. But I’m losing the fluidness of speech and it will probably continue. I don’t think I’ll ever lose all of it. And just like languages, there are things that can be “spoken” in Mormonism that don’t exist in other languages. And there is much in my new language that there’s no translation for in Mormonism. I think that’s why I couldn’t begin to articulate my beliefs to my mother if she ever asked. There’s no answer she could understand without improper translation.

[university]

A few more things:

Thanks for the recommendations for the Mormon Matters podcats with Dan. I haven’t had the chance to check him out yet but I will.

And thanks for the link to your post, Hawkgrrrl.

I think what’s a struggle with me with fearing rejection is that A:) I’m young and I think as I mature these things won’t matter as much anymore and B:) I’m the workaholic type and admittedly a bit closed off. I’m a strange little extrovert. I don’t even know if I buy the introvert/extrovert paradigm, actually. In formal or academic situations I’m in my element and very outgoing. I’m also friendly and caring. I enjoy public speaking, hanging out with people when we discuss “the serious stuff”, etc. And yet in casual settings, I’m closed off. Put me in the traditional college setting–a football game or a party–and I’m the big introvert. I hate big groups. I get shy and insecure in those settings. The point of this is, I have very few friends. I know a lot of people say that but I mean it. I don’t think acquaintances would guess this about me because I apparently have that “she-has-everything-so-put-together” vibe going on.

Anyway, usually when I do make a friend it means I go deep. Problem is, I have more to lose if things go south. I think it makes the authenticity thing hard because I want to be appreciated for who I am not in spite of who I am. I don’t have to throw my opinions all over people but the thing about my personality is…I’m really into “intellectual” topics. It’s part of how I relate to people. For example, when I talk about politics, social norms, etc., that’s when my sense of humor comes out. So, when I’m with friends, and I have to filter out half of the things I like to talk about…I’m left feeling kind of unfufilled, you know? Couple that with all the anxieties and frustrations with potential rejection it’s not good. Recently I’ve been feeling frustrated with some of my friendships and even thinking to myself, “What do we have in common? I can’t be myself with this person…I love this person, but maybe I should phase this relationship out.” Problem is…if that friendship ends, that leaves how many “friends” who are left?

Anyway, after I graduate I’m moving away and I think that will be a great thing and do wonders for my ability to feel free to be myself. I think it will be good for me sorting through my spiritual/religions beliefs, as well.

Also: I am seeing a therapist and have been for a while. She’s LDS but very supportive. No pressures whatsoever from her

Again, thanks for all the comments.

[university]

mom3 wrote:

Quote:

the prediction that in 10 years we won’t be able to talk about religion outside our homes

Or perhaps we will have dug our own hole.

Aren’t we supposed to look at the beam in our own eye?

Good news is, I barely talk about my religion outside my home. Guess I’m ahead of the curve.

All the anti-religious paranoia reminds me of Fox News. I know I should be more empathetic towards people’s genuine concerns…but…

If Elder Oaks is predicting that Mormons will face public backlash for some of their viewpoints if these views don’t evolve with the times…then, why yes, he’s correct. While Elder Oaks may lament this, public acceptance for LGBTQ individuals and relationships will continue to grow as my generation gets older. The church will have to tone down their rhetoric or they will get backlash. Mind you, there are still bigots in my generation, make no mistake. But generally, outside of conservative areas, it’s not popular with my generation to believe things along the lines of the “gay agenda being a danger to the well-being of society”, “gay lifestyles being one of the worst sins”, etc. While Elder Oaks may believe this is about religion, I’ve rarely experienced anti-religious sentiment amongst even atheist millennials (although it does happen and there can be a level of mockery). Rather, millennials are tired of the social/political views the church (and conservative churches) tends to support. Since these views are supposedly informed by the religion, then millennials start getting irked with the religion itself. That’s where a lot of the mockery stems from. Bottom line: most millennials want to learn more about how to love your neighbor than the sins of their neighbor.

Also, religious beliefs of millennials are largely dependent on where they live, but I will take a guess and say at large, my generation seems to be weary of authoritarian, obedience-based religion. I would say millennials are more spiritually-based than religiously based. I think they’ve become weary of dogma that’s associated with religion. The Church can either evolve naturally with this evolution of beliefs, to be more spiritual than dogma-based, or continue on its course. I could see both happening. I’ve heard some good general conference talks that are hits with millennials that seem to touch more on this spiritual aspects of the faith. We’ll see what happens.

For the record: once I started my faith crisis, one of the areas that really hit was that I no longer believed the assertion that countries that turn away from religion are more wicked. In some of the least religious countries (aka, some countries in Europe), women have a better quality of life, there is less sexual trafficking, domestic violence, murder, war, etc. Some of the most religious places in the world have the worst qualities of life. The assetion that less religion = more “sin” isn’t correct, unless you’re counting premarital sex. Even then, I doubt most members nowadays would believe premarital sex is worse than high concentrations of sex trafficking operations or rape. And when people talk about how the United States is getting more wicked, I have a hard time. I’m not saying our day doesn’t have it’s own challenges, but I want to comment, “Slavery? Institutionalized Racism? Genocide of the Native Americans? Women having no legal protection against rape by their husbands? Overt sexism? Yeah, we’re so much more wicked now.” :crazy:

[university]

Old Thread but thought I would reply to say thanks for all the responses. I read them all when they came in.

As of now, I’m inactive. I don’t go to Church but I will for special events. My best friend knows I have doubts but I confuse her and she’s not going to pick up the subject (hallelujah!) One other TBM friends knows I don’t attend Church but doesn’t know I doctrinal issues. The rest of my TBM friends think I’m just like them: going to Church, strong testimony, etc. Apparently, I give off a very “Mormon” vibe, although recently people have been mistaking me for a non-member.

I have some non-member friends that know I don’t go to Church. I don’t discuss my religious views much with them but I will answer their questions about Mormonism.

I’m being far more authentic in my life, so that’s great. I still can’t be in certain friendships and with my family. I’m trying to sort out the situation with my mom. I don’t want to hurt her because I love her so dearly. At the time being, it also wouldn’t be good for her well-being for me to hint at anything.

I feel like this has been my worst nightmare, tailor-fit for me. The only silver lining I can find at the moment is that when I come out of the rabbit hole (and I do think/hope I will), I’ll be able to say I survived one of my worst fears becoming a reality. Hopefully I’ll be a more loving and empathetic person, as well.

Thanks again for all the support.

[Author]

Posts