- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is something I’ve been thinking about and I wanted your input on this. I told this story before on here. Long story short I told my branch president about my faith transition into a non literal believer and told him how I still love being part of the church and how I still wanted to marry a LDS girl. He basically told me I was no longer a temple worthy and I could not let me in good conscious let me go to the temple. Knowing this my heart sunk knowing that I would be rejected by most LDS girls. (Thanks to you guys I know it’s still possible and I just need to be open and honest)
So that got me thinking over the last couple of months. We often say here we need to establish boundaries for the church. Let’s reverse it that idea. Where are the churches boundaries? Are we entitle to breach these boundaries? For example, if I would of just told my branch president that I was a literal believer just so I can have my temple recommend, would that be crossing the boundaries of the church? Is that disrespectful? Was I rejected for a good reason?
This reminded me of a quote from one of my favorite authors and bloggers Mark Manson:
“Rejection exists for a reason – it’s a means to keep people who are not good for each other apart.”I know a lot of you gave me the feedback that I should of not said a word because I should never let authority determine my spiritually (to a point). But I’m wondering if being honest was a good way to keep me away from a situation that would of been dire to me.
This also connects to what the church was saying about LGBT children policy. I forgot the exact quote but Christofferson said something like how it’s more cruel to be vague and dishonest and better to have strong boundaries.
So what I’m asking to start this discussion:
What are the churches boundaries? Should I respect church boundaries? Are these boundaries a good thing? Is rejection a good thing?Anyways, discuss away. I figure this would be a good topic.
EDIT:
I forgot to add this part and I think it’s imperative to the discussion.
The church (specifically authority) has a certain set of values. Marriage, rituals, “traditional” families, etc.
If I don’t agree to conform to these values (i.e. The traditional family via LGBT practice) then I would be breaching boundaries. However, it wouldn’t make sense that I would breach a institution’s values. We are just not compatibly.
In summary crossing boundaries in its simplest form is when two conflicting values come together. Boundaries are set to keep conflicting values. If this happens we are just not compatible.
It’s a great topic. I ask myself the same questions as my new life unfolds. Just because I’ve finally given myself permission to have personal boundaries doesn’t mean that the church gives up its institutional ones. This may be a topic for a separate thread, but the other thread where Nibbler put the picture of the dog holding it’s own leash got me thinking. Is being in Fowler’s stage 3 of faith a bit like being a good dog? You are happy to please the master and you look to your master for approval. When you move past stage 3 you become a cat. You don’t generally care what your master wants – YOU are the one in charge! This is coming from a non-pet owner, but I have been around dogs and cats enough to know that most dogs are eager to please and cats could care less (other than feeding time) about their master’s wishes.
mczee said: Quote:I told this story before on here. Long story short I told my branch president about my faith transition into a non literal believer and told him how I still love being part of the church and how I still wanted to marry a LDS girl. He basically told me I was no longer a temple worthy and I could not let me in good conscious let me go to the temple. Knowing this my heart sunk knowing that I would be rejected by most LDS girls. (Thanks to you guys I know it’s still possible and I just need to be open and honest)
So that got me thinking over the last couple of months. We often say here we need to establish boundaries for the church. Let’s reverse it that idea. Where are the churches boundaries? Are we entitle to breach these boundaries?
Before I give you my answer, I would like to know:
– Why did you feel compelled to tell your BP this?
– What did you except he would say?
– How long has it been since this conversation?
– Has he discussed it since?
If you’ve already answered somewhere else, give me the link.
I’ve tried looking through other posts & can’t find the answers.
mczee wrote:So that got me thinking over the last couple of months. We often say here we need to establish boundaries for the church. Let’s reverse it that idea. Where are the churches boundaries? Are we entitle to breach these boundaries? For example, if I would of just told my branch president that I was a literal believer just so I can have my temple recommend, would that be crossing the boundaries of the church? Is that disrespectful? Was I rejected for a good reason?
There’s lots going on in this comment, bear with me.
First I’d want to establish the purpose of holding a temple recommend. Does someone holding a temple recommend benefit the church (using organization as the definition) or does it benefit the individual?
If I take things to an extreme, lying to obtain a recommend in order to go to the temple, I believe we would only be hurting ourselves. The policies governing the conditions for holding a temple recommend remain unchanged, policies do not have feelings, policies don’t care if they are violated, it comes down to the people. Let’s look at some of the players in the lying to get a temple recommend scenario:
Other temple patrons: I think the experience otherpeople have in the temple remains unchanged. People that go to the temple with the proper spirit will find what they are looking for regardless of whether someone else in the temple lied to get in. To anthropomorphize the temple… from the perspective of the temple I don’t think that the temple loses the spirit the moment someone that isn’t living the standards walks through the doors. I believe the experience one has in the temple is entirely up to the individual, their experience in the temple will be commensurate to how sacred they hold the temple to be. The person that lied to get in: The temple wouldn’t be as special of a place because the lie to obtain a recommend would effectively devalue the worth of the temple. By lying to get in you’d be hurting yourself. The church: I’m not sure what you mean by “church” so I’ll cover a few definitions: The community – we should try to respect other people’s beliefs, I believe we have a responsibility to maintain a respect for the rules so in that sense there is a boundary. A “critical mass” of people didn’t respect the boundaries for obtaining a temple recommend the temple would cease to be a temple in the eyes of the community.
- Leaders – I included this because some people refer to leaders when they say church. Leaders are just individuals and they are also a part of the community so that stuff I said before… repeat it here.
- The organization – in the strictest terms and trying to separate the organization from the people. If it’s straight up policy and rules then policy and rules are uncaring and unfeeling. They don’t care whether someone enters the temple surreptitiously.
I like the church as a community definition. We should probably follow the golden rule in that regard. Respect the boundaries of other church members the way we would like our boundaries to be respected.
Other notes:
There is no question during the temple recommend interview that asks whether you literally believe, believe symbolically, or believe in some other way. Also, the only time belief enters the equation is when you are asked whether you believe in god, Jesus, and the holy ghost. No church history, no Book of Mormon as being historical in nature, nothing other than do you believe in god, Jesus, and the holy ghost and it’s a “yes” or “no” question. You’d have to go out of your way to volunteer information to communicate specifics of your belief.
First and foremost that tells me that you don’t have to have a literal belief in things in order to be considered worthy to enter the temple, otherwise there would be a question like “Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is the most the most correct history book of any history book on earth?”
Going off script during the interview yourself only gives your bishop or stake president the opportunity to go off script and get away from the actual temple recommend requirements.
I read over this a few years ago and it was interesting about answering recommend questions. http://mormonstories.org/howtostay/HowToStay.htmlhttp://mormonstories.org/howtostay/HowToStay.html” class=”bbcode_url”> and specifically
http://mormonstories.org/howtostay/HowToStay.html#How_I_approach_the_temple_recommend_questions ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonstories.org/howtostay/HowToStay.html#How_I_approach_the_temple_recommend_questions I know as a bishopric member years ago I was surprised how many people struggled with how to answer. Some of these folks I knew for years and I think they feel the recommendation questions are “are you perfect in these areas?” I was constantly having to mention to people that the Lord WANTS them to go to the temple and the recommend was not asking if they had progressed to were they were ready to meet their maker.
LookingHard wrote:This may be a topic for a separate thread, but the other thread where Nibbler put the picture of the dog holding it’s own leash got me thinking. Is being in Fowler’s stage 3 of faith a bit like being a good dog? You are happy to please the master and you look to your master for approval. When you move past stage 3 you become a cat. You don’t generally care what your master wants – YOU are the one in charge!
This is coming from a non-pet owner, but I have been around dogs and cats enough to know that most dogs are eager to please and cats could care less (other than feeding time) about their master’s wishes.
In an effort to keep this thread on topic… here you go:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7249 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7249 And I’m sure everyone is familiar with the old joke:
Quote:The dog says, my master feeds me, gives me shelter, takes me hunting with him, gives me affection. He must be a god.
The cat says, my master feeds me, gives me shelter, lets me go hunting in the yard, gives me affection, I must be a god.
I added this to the OP because I thought it was critical to the discussion: The church (specifically authority) has a certain set of values. Marriage, rituals, “traditional” families, etc.
If I don’t agree to conform to these values (i.e. The traditional family via LGBT practice) then I would be breaching boundaries. However, it wouldn’t make sense that I would breach a institution’s values. We are just not compatibly.
In summary crossing boundaries in its simplest form is when two conflicting values come together. Boundaries are set to keep conflicting values. If this happens we are just not compatible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Minyan Man wrote:mczee said:
Quote:I told this story before on here. Long story short I told my branch president about my faith transition into a non literal believer and told him how I still love being part of the church and how I still wanted to marry a LDS girl. He basically told me I was no longer a temple worthy and I could not let me in good conscious let me go to the temple. Knowing this my heart sunk knowing that I would be rejected by most LDS girls. (Thanks to you guys I know it’s still possible and I just need to be open and honest)
So that got me thinking over the last couple of months. We often say here we need to establish boundaries for the church. Let’s reverse it that idea. Where are the churches boundaries? Are we entitle to breach these boundaries?
Before I give you my answer, I would like to know:
– Why did you feel compelled to tell your BP this?
– What did you except he would say?
– How long has it been since this conversation?
– Has he discussed it since?
If you’ve already answered somewhere else, give me the link.
I’ve tried looking through other posts & can’t find the answers.
You can find the forum here:
Just talk to my YSA branch president about my unbelief…
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=6975 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Forgive me for sounding super lame – but is the basic question – should I marry a Mormon Girl in the temple to make other people happy? The answer is No.
If that is the bottom line question I have another question. Are you feeling pressured to get married, go to the temple, etc?
Cultural pressure is real no matter what that culture is. If you were a Hopi Indian and you were scheduled for a ritual there would be pressure from the tribe leader. Stepping in or out always has consequences. In our religion the word consequences implies negative results. That’s how we manage obedience. Consequences though can be good or bad. If I eat healthy I get consequences. Hopefully ones I like.
In my life I have known quite a few people who married people outside of our religion. Each one has been successful. Each has taken different long term roles. In a couple of them the non-lds spouse joined the church. In a couple of others they had a mixed religion family. Each outcome had a lot of pluses and minuses, but what they did seem to have was genuine love, respect, and honor for their companion.
If you still believe in God or a Divine Guider ask him-them to guide your marriage choices.
There are times when boundaries are “perceived” to be boundaries of others. Sometimes those need to be checked if they are really boundaries or just perceived by us. For example, “No one will ever like me if I didn’t serve a mission”. That will actually be true for some people, but it is not true for all people. I think teenagers go through this and test boundaries, and parents have to hold to boundaries to show what is really crossing the line while the teenagers figure out what is important to their family and what is important in the world around them outside the family.
In that way, rejection is a good thing because it shows where that person’s boundaries are. As you move out of the parent’s homes, you see boundaries move all over the place, there is not just the parent’s view and no others, and there is also value in the parent’s views that can be respected and not outright rejected.
One problem at church is the leadership roulette which moves the boundaries by individual leader when we are expecting them to be universal.
Because one person gets rejected, and establishes the boundary with them, doesn’t mean you’ve found a universal boundary for all.
One woman’s idea of the perfect faithful husband is not the same as another woman’s preference in what they are looking for in a husband.
You should be accepting rejection along the way, as you find the right fit, while testing your boundaries of what you want to fit into without trying to change who you are.
You want the safety of a relationship that lets you be you, and your boundaries match the other’s.
Boundaries and rejection are not “bad things”. And I don’t think we avoid all pain and hurt along the way.
The church definitely has boundaries you have to respect — it has culture that has to be respected. I personally would not make naked breaches of its culture in places I know it would shock people. I respect that. I respect its rules….I respect it’s preference for protecting its members from attitudes like the ones I hold. I will not try to recruit active members to my way of thinking, like Kate Kelly did… Where it gets complicated is when the church interacts with the deep parts of your own life. For example, my daughter will go into the temple someday. I don’t enjoy the temple and don’t find the return on investment from paying tithing to be worth it. Even if you consider the spiritual returns you are supposed to get. Should I straighten up in time to go to the temple with my daughter? Pay tithing for a reasonable period before and after, even though I feel the church has enough and other causes could use my money better?
In that case, there is judgment involved. I still haven’t solved that problem. But I am preparing to face it at some point.
So — boundaries — yes — respect them. But you have to mediate the effect of those constraints and boundaries on your life — sometimes its the only way you can stay active in the church.
Regarding your situation, I would not have told the Bishop about your non-literal belief. That is done however. It’s his right to react to that belief however he wants — and if that means shutting you out of the temple, so be it.
Action going forward? I have a few ideas for you to consider. You know what is best for you, but here are some paths…
a) Go back to the Bishop and indicate you want to develop testimony again. Indicate you would like to have the missionaries over to teach you the discussions again…go through them and pray, read, come to church and strive for testimony.
b) When you get some testimony, even an improvement, let your Bishop know but be more careful how you describe your testimony…
Another approach is to not worry about it right now — it’s not urgent, and women don’t know you are non-literal until you tell them. Nothing is stopping you from getting to know people, date, and then reveal how you feel at a later time…
Another approach is to move into a new Stake and start over again with new leaders. Fortunately, they don’t talk between stakes and sometimes, across Wards within a stake (although that is risky)…
Just a few ideas.
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
sureof 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. SilentDawning wrote:Where it gets complicated is when the church interacts with the deep parts of your own life. For example, my daughter will go into the temple someday.
Exactly! The church has a policy that shuts out all but those in “good standing” from important life moments of immediate family members. In those cases, I absolutely understand some people lying to be there (not as a participant but as a supportive spectator) in support of their family.
OTOH, I would hold a somewhat different opinion of someone that lies to take part in the ritual. The rituals themselves include making commitments of loyalty to the church. The rituals mean something don’t they. If people get baptized just because all their friends are doing it then it loses something.
I wish that there was an option for people to view a loved one’s temple sealing without strictly holding a TR.
I wish that decisions regarding spiritual/religious commitment were more personal and not tied to life events. (turn 8=get baptized, Turn 12=get lesser priesthood, turn 18=get higher priesthood & Make ritual promises of loyalty to the church/get endowed & serve mission, get married= make/reaffirm ritual promises of loyalty to the church.) We set these up as a sort of cattle chute that forces people to hit these religious loyalty benchmarks at predetermined points in their life.
I agree with what Roy said. I want to say, however, that having certain rites of passage do create a culture. We may not agree with the culture, but at least the church is managing it, and shaping it. I think we can all agree that even if we don’t agree with all aspects of the culture, the church HAS designed levers that create the kind of culture they want. I have been in organizations that have a culture that has developed in an ad hoc way, based on the personalities of the strongest people in the organization. That is not conscious, and it makes the organization dependent on the involvement of those people to keep it going — unless they make those cultural values part of their policies, systems, leadership selection practices, etcetera. I am working on creating a culture of reliability and commitment in my own little organization, and it involves agreeing to certain things before you get the benefits of volunteering…however, If I were doing this in the context of a religious organization, I would not be willing to divide families the way the church does. Leaders have to have certain characteristics to participate as well…
But back to the church. I don’t want to have to lie to go to the temple, but I want to minimize the impact on me in ways I don’t like at the same time. It will be tricky…we all have to find our way through that minefield.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.