[Wonnerful]

good point

[Wonnerful]

All good advice. I am looking for something with a topic by topic sections like Mormon Doctrine, but is NOT like it in that it is not like the way McConkie thought about most things.

[Wonnerful]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I agree with what everyone has said basically.

[Wonnerful]

dande48 wrote:

Wonnerful wrote:

I want to give a gift to an LDS friend that can replace their Mormon Doctrine by McConkie for obvious reasons.

My first thought was this, but then you specified you wanted it to be another book, and now I’m at a loss for what to recommend.

That was funny.

[Wonnerful]

Great comments, lots of food for thought.

I would like to think that the LDS church is at least headed in the direction of being more accepting of gay people (which seems to be the case). There stance seems to be basically against “acting on their same sex attraction,” same as any sexual activities outside marriage. But the feelings themselves and even the identity of being “gay person” seems to be accepted officially.

I would like to think that soon most LDS who are gay will grow up and feel generally accepted inherently, as fellow gods in embryo and accepted members (except not being allowed to act on it as devout LDS), and then when they reach maturity will simply make the choice to be celibate, try to be heterosexual, or simply leave the Church. I would like to think that in the future that will be done without huge issues of shame and low self-esteem because hopefully the Church is working toward teaching LDS parents and members to not shame gay people for simply being gay (which seems to be the case). I like to hope that is the future. And maybe, just maybe new revelation will make things even better.

Thinking like this makes me more pro-Mormon. Also, when I consider how other Christian Churches deal with the issue, the LDS Church starts to look rather progressive in some ways compared to some other conservative type churches.

[Wonnerful]

The last two comments are very hard to hear and still want to go back to the LDS church. I am resigned. I don’t know anyone who is gay but I have empathy for gay people.

The only way I could justify going back to the LDS church, by that I mean just attending and being part of the culture, is to say to myself that I would be a voice of reason and spread empathy as much as possible. My best reasoning to be a Cultural Mormon now is, being a silent critic on the outside is actually less useful and practical than being an outspoken enlightener on the inside.

Or am I deluding myself that my progressive opinions, even if stated softly and carefully and respectfully, would be received open mindedly in a largely conservative church?

[Wonnerful]

Old Timer wrote:

“Promiscuity” is a natural result of cultural prohibitions on committed relationships, especially when all monogamous relationships are considered promiscuous. Really strong nonconformists rebel against such prohibitions, but most people don’t have the ability or desire to fight such a battle.

Just saying.

I don’t know if this is accurate, but I remember reading somewhere that lesbians are less “promiscuous” or sexually active than gay men. The reason would be obvious, as men have in general more testosterone and tend to be the hunters/initiators of sexual contact; that is not to say that women can’t be that way too, but I am speaking generally from a biological perspective. Then again, if art imitates life, I think the women on The L Word (cable TV series) were quite frisky, I would know I watched the series twice, love me some lesbians, LOL.

[Wonnerful]

mom3 wrote:

I work to move the needle of understanding in classes, etc. I watch and time myself carefully, but I have been smilingly vocal about accepting and embracing our non-heterosexual family members.

We have eons of training to overcome. That can take time. I don’t love the policy one bit. I also comprehend the generation that made it. I draw on quotes from LDS sources, like the website about loving, connecting and accepting all people.

Baby steps of sincerity can go a long way.

As I ponder a possible return to the Church after resigning, I think that is how I would need to treat it. I have been reasoning that being an LDS insider who nudges the Church forward in this area is better than being a silent critic outside of Mormonism.

[Wonnerful]

longbottom wrote:

I wish I posted more here (or at all, really), but let me give my heartfelt thanks to those regular posters on this board who have literally given me hope when the world looked hopeless. I lurk on this site EVERY SINGLE DAY, and it has helped me immensely in my new spiritual journey. Anyhoo, I was researching “New Order Mormons” and I stumbled upon a blog about the topic written by a TBM. It was a mostly benign article, asking about this “new group” she had heard about but didn’t understand. I noticed that there were like 175 comments. Since it was a TBM blog, I was interested in how TBM’s felt about those who have issues with church doctrine but WANT TO STAY ACTIVE. I expected there would be some ignorance but mostly people wanting to help anyone who actually WANTS to stay in the church, stay. I was wrong. Instead I saw well-intentioned ignorance, misunderstanding, and judgment. I might have been one who chimed in likewise a year ago. But some were outright hostile towards any non-believers who want to stay but openly NOT believing all the doctrines as they are understood in Stage 3. The comments ranged from “These fence-sitters are just cafeteria Mormons who are trying to get off easy” to “Crap or get off the pot! You’re either in or you’re out”. There was a sense with many of them of “I’m doing and believing and sacrificing, and you should too to claim membership”. A 100% commitment to believing EVERYTHING is still expected.

It’s a good example of Stage 3 being over-prone to black-and-white thinking. There was one recurring theme that most of the TBM’s had in their comments: they felt threatened by people who expressed doubt or questioned anything about the perfection of the church, and that “these people” should just leave rather than being lukewarm fence-sitters. I get the feeling that some are more concerned that those “nonbelievers” will influence others to doubt and disbelieve than they are that they might actually want to help them stay. I can understand the difficulty of being comfortable having people there who openly doubt or disbelieve church doctrine or practices, because disbelief is, by definition, a threat to belief! There were a few commenters like us who defended the plight of the disbelieving, but I just read over and over “These people need to read their scriptures, pray, and follow the prophet!”, as if “people like us” have never considered doing that. Some have spent years and decades doing that to no avail. What then? Just leave? Yet I would have said the exact same thing a year ago! it really hit home that Stage 3 Mormons are incapable of understanding how it actually is for us. It’s not a bash. Being a man, I am incapable of understanding what it is like to give birth. I can say whatever I want about how birthing should feel, but the new mother can ignore my opinions without guilt, knowing better. Stage 3, black and white is safe, clear, and a viable way to live a fulfilling life. But ultimately, unable to handle hard evidence contrary to previous thinking. That would move the believer into a VERY uncomfortable Stage 4. When grey appeared, I felt like I had no choice but to question everything I once “knew”. I did not choose to question my beliefs. The challenge came from outside myself.

I do love the people of the church, I always have. TBM’s are definitely good and great people, and generally people I love being around and serving with, and when the harsher article comments were called out by those of our persuasion, and they did apologize for their harshness, but stood by their veiwpoints. Thanks for listening!

Was this the post http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2012/07/the-threat-of-new-order-mormons/ ?

[Wonnerful]

Beefster wrote:

Simple: It’s a bad policy from a flawed organization run by flawed people. I don’t expect there to be gay sealings, but not labeling them as sinners/apostates and robbing them of their temple recommends wouldn’t be too much to ask.

The policies have gotten better over the years (mostly), but the thing is that celibacy will never be satisfying as long as it is forced upon the individual by the organization’s expectations. Gay members will forever feel left out. The church obsesses over marriage and families and guess what gay people will never have if they remain celibate? When the very essence of what it means to be a good Mormon is robbed from you by the very institution that gave it, there will be serious issues. While the church might work for a select few gay people, most of them are better off without it IMO.

Wow, that is a really good point. Cuts through all the apologetics and gets to the real issue, how they are made to feel as outside the norm within the social norms the Church sets up.

Then again, as a heterosexual single man over 30 who at this point am pretty sure I don’t want kids and don’t want to marry, I am not sure I fit the social norms either if I were to return to the Church after resigning.

[Wonnerful]

Old Timer wrote:

By being a voice of reason within my sphere of influence.

Also, by refusing to use the word “Gays”. I would never says “Straights”, so I never say “Gays”. “Homosexual people” is longer, but it is much more accurate, kind, and non-dismissive in nature. I know you meant NO negativity or disrespect in what you typed, but recognizing the little ways we marginalize is important.

I also changed the sub heading of my post.

[Wonnerful]

Old Timer wrote:

By being a voice of reason within my sphere of influence.

Also, by refusing to use the word “Gays”. I would never says “Straights”, so I never say “Gays”. “Homosexual people” is longer, but it is much more accurate, kind, and non-dismissive in nature. I know you meant NO negativity or disrespect in what you typed, but recognizing the little ways we marginalize is important.

I take your point, but keep in mind that I was saying that “the Church” would use the term “Gays” in a future essay, “the Church,” not me … And if I am not mistaken when I skimmed the LDS book That We May Be One, Tom specifically uses the term gay. So you are right I definitely mean no harm as I support gay rights and gay marriage and the right for “homosexual” people to act on their attractions without shame. (Note: that one person’s post said to put “homosexual” in quotes). Or should I change it back to “gay”? I’ll let you guys decide at this point.

[Wonnerful]

SilentDawning wrote:

There comes a point in coping where any issue — whether their conscription model of service, leadership abuse, forced tithing, history, doctoral stances, bad programs and structure, policies on gays — is dealt with in a similar manner.

I compartmentalize it. if it doesn’t affect me (like the treatment of gays), then it is easier. If it affects me, then I manage it by a) reducing my involvement in areas I have to confront it b) not mentioning it to anyone at church, but discussing it here

I have also learned to take the church with a grain of salt. I have a testimony, but I live my life in the church believing this “true church” has a much bigger margin of error than the leaders or culture would be comfortable with us believing. They can be dead wrong about issues, and they are very slow to see the light. For example, the new ministering program, while a great improvement and welcome, is a case in point. That program has been in trouble for a very long time — perhaps decades. Yet it took that long for them to see it was flawed.

So I see many policies they enact as evidence of the imperfection of the church, it’s lack of self-awareness, and its slowness to change. I accept these things in the church, while getting out the frustrations in discussions here.

I hope that answers your questions…

Yes it does.

[Wonnerful]

Thanks Roy,

You gave me a lot to think about. I think you are right that I should try rubbing shoulders first and not jump in and try to get rebaptized.

This is all very new to me. Just three months ago I would have told a person they were crazy if they said you’re gonna start playing with the idea of going back to the LDS community.

I was fine as a secular atheist for a decade. But then I read An Atheist Defends Religion and Marcus Borg’s book Speaking Christian (and other books of a similar nature) and things changed within a matter months. I then started going to churches in my area and not liking the culture or doctrine or worship style of any of the churches and there is no UU church in my town.

Add to that the new inoculation program in the church (e.g. the essays) and the being more transparent than before and I find myself less angry with the LDS like I was. In fact, after learning of other churches threatening kids with Eternal Conscious Torment, and the being LDS again as my tribe of choice, starts to look really good in contrast to the other churches from a humanistic perspective.

[Wonnerful]

To dande48,

Your thoughts resonate with me quite a bit. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I like how you said, “I own my membership, and set my involvement by my own terms. I also do not have a calling, or accept Church assignments. But I am more than willing to help out, if its a personal favor.” I may just try that out.

You said, “At Church, you can expect to be corrected. Try not to hold it against them. Your eternal soul is on the line.” I use to be combative and binary, but after fifteen years of arguing with everyone about politics and religion, I am older and wiser and realize it’s usually a waste of energy. I like to imagine every TBM as I was when I was a TBM, how would I treat my old TBM self? That is, if, in this thought experiment I can’t whisper in his ear that it’s him from the future and not to be bothered by the seed of Cain dogma as it will be repudiated in 2013 in an essay. I’d likely just go along with his mindset and realize he can’t think any different at this point in time.

I like how you said:

I subscribe to Lemony Snicket’s views:

Lemony Snicket wrote:

“People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.”

I like that quote a lot

Your thoughts on worthiness and confession were helpful thanks. I like the way you think of worthiness, I think you meant to say you hate the word “worthy” but like the concept of worthiness as a barometer of one’s level of principle-centeredness and happiness.

You make some good points about worthiness interviews being not all bad. Food for thought. I also liked your thoughts on tithing, definitely made me rethink things. Do you know any board threads or articles that talk of LDS wealth in a positive light as you describe it. I realize that I have only read negative stuff about LDS wealth and tithing.

Great quote you gave:

Kenny Rodgers wrote:

You’ve got to know when to hold ’em,

Know when to fold ’em,

Know when to walk away,

And know when to run

I really like your thought process, thanks for sharing. If I went back I would be playing a role but that may be OK. I have played binary game of needing to correct people and think in true and false binary terms all the time. That just causes tension and division. As Dale Carnegie says we are not creatures of logic but emotion, as you put it Hume was right.

[Author]

Posts