- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I want understanding to change. We all complain about understanding not changing.
We ought not complain when understanding changes in ways that we see as better than the past.
This change in understanding is a good thing.
Old-Timer wrote:I want understanding to change.
We all complain about understanding not changing.
We ought not complain when understanding changes in ways that we see as better than the past.
This change in understanding is a good thing.
Part of me agrees, and part of me just can’t. Just like when the heading for 132 was revised a couple of years ago, or when the new church history seminary manual came out, or the Nauvoo polygamy essay was released, the church just now chose, yet again, to maintain that God commanded Abraham’s and early LDS polygamy.Until that is gone, many LDS women will feel great pain and shame. The article says it’s not required for exaltation, but does absolutely nothing to change or correct the understanding that polygamy is okay whenever God commands it, and that He could command it again. I really wonder whether leaders have any idea how damaging this is.
For me it just doesn’t work to redefine and envision one term while justifying polygamy. I think the costs of doing so are going to get out of hand soon. Why not start now trying to bring them down?
I want to see the glass half full, but women are more likely to see the glass half-empty because they’re the ones thirsty for respect and equality.
So, once again, I’m disappointed. I’m sad for my church and sad for my daughters.
I’m not suggesting that we start another discussion about polygamy, or that you all here are cold to women’s feelings about this issue. You aren’t, and I really appreciate that. Just want to express myself and put this out into the ether.
LookingHard wrote:Thanks Heber for taking the time to explain. The last week+ has just felt like any progress towards moving into Fowler’s stage 5 has relapsed back square into stage 4. I can’t quite figure out why I can’t even have some of the serenity of stage 5 that I had started to feel more and more.
I believe that’s the way it’s supposed to work. I view it as there being a gradient between stages, not a line between two contrasts. The borders are fluid and are crossed many times. I don’t pretend to know my “stage” (I’ll let Fowler worry about that
Heber13 wrote:I would think Polygamy for Abraham and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young was the same approach of them thinking about it and wondering how to solve a problem.
Yeah, but which problem. That’s the question.
😆 :angel: Heber13 wrote:I believe they are just trying to do what they think God is telling them about things they are taking to the Lord for answers. I believe they get it wrong sometimes. And like Elder Holland says…the Lord allows them to get it wrong to learn.
If the lord allows us to get it wrong in order to learn it begs the question, why involve the lord at all? People must involve the lord for something much deeper than simply knowing which path to go down.
nibbler wrote:If the lord allows us to get it wrong in order to learn it begs the question, why involve the lord at all? People must involve the lord for something much deeper than simply knowing which path to go down.
It’s a good question. It can be difficult to know if it matters or not, if we are going to learn one way or another.
Perhaps there is value in believing in a higher power, so that as we are deciding which path to go down, we are challenging ourselves to make it the best choice we are capable of making, having faith in a power beyond ourselves to help us make the best choice possible.
It is possible, however, that the divine power is inside us the whole time, not external at all. But I need to tap into that power somehow. Just randomly choosing the path isn’t tapping into it. So there is value to me in seeking God to be involved as I choose.
Heber13 wrote:nibbler wrote:If the lord allows us to get it wrong in order to learn it begs the question, why involve the lord at all? People must involve the lord for something much deeper than simply knowing which path to go down.
It’s a good question. It can be difficult to know if it matters or not, if we are going to learn one way or another.
Perhaps there is value in believing in a higher power, so that as we are deciding which path to go down, we are challenging ourselves to make it the best choice we are capable of making, having faith in a power beyond ourselves to help us make the best choice possible.
It is possible, however, that the divine power is inside us the whole time, not external at all. But I need to tap into that power somehow. Just randomly choosing the path isn’t tapping into it. So there is value to me in seeking God to be involved as I choose.
I was expecting a star wars quote along the lines of, “Luke, trust the force” to be your next sentence.Quote:Ben Kenobi: Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.
Luke Skywalker: You mean it controls your actions?
Kenobi: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.
[Luke gets shot by the remote]
Han Solo: [laughs] Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
Skywalker: You don’t believe in the Force, do you?
Solo: Kid, I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe there’s one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There’s no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. [Kenobi smiles] Anyway, it’s all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.
Kenobi: [gets up and takes a blast helmet] I suggest you try it again, Luke. Only this time, let go your conscious self and act on instinct. [puts the helmet on Luke, which covers his eyes]
Skywalker: But with the blast shield down, I can’t even see! How am I supposed to fight?
Kenobi: Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them. [remote shoots Luke] Stretch out with your feelings! [Watches Luke succeed in blocking the lasers] You see? You can do it.
Solo: I call it luck.
Kenobi: In my experience, there is no such thing as luck.
Fast forward to Episode 7…Han Solo sings a different tune, don’t he??? Perhaps Kenobi is on to something. What seems like hokey religion and luck sometimes feels very real and orchestrated, despite our conscious self telling us otherwise.
I understand, Ann. We all see things our own way. I’m cool with that.
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.
Old-Timer wrote:I want understanding to change.
We all complain about understanding not changing.
We ought not complain when understanding changes in ways that we see as better than the past.
This change in understanding is a good thing.
I agree with this. I guess what irks me is that when understanding changes, we don’t (as a Church) own it, and move past it. We create a bunch of weird mental hoops that people have to jump through to try to resolve old with new. Of course that’s not always the case, but seems par for the course.
In regards to polygamy, we have to remember that it’s still possible for a man to be sealed to two living women. You simply get a ‘clearance’. The church defines sexual purity as ‘sexual relations with those to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded’ – so they’re using the legal system to regulate conjugal polygamy. So, when the laws eventually change to legalize polygamy, the Church will be in a very strange stance indeed, because all I have to do is get a temple marriage, legally divorce wife 1, legally marry wife 2, get a clearance to be sealed to wife 2, then legally remarry wife 1. Full earthly polygamy that spiritually sanctioned by the Church!
The church’s own policies don’t enforce their own definition of traditional marriage!
I vote we get rid of polygamy altogether. Grandfather people in, and then prevent clearances for divorced or widowed men.
I vote we seal anyone to any spouse to whom they want to be sealed (but not allow polygamy in this life) and let the people involved and God sort it out in the end. I include gay marriages in that, whenever they are legal. I am not saying that to support the current policy but because I don’t want anyone else making that decision for me or my wife or my children or anyone else. This is as personal a choice as there is, so if this can be mandated, anything can be mandated – and I am in favor of less mandating and more self-determination.
Also, just to be clear, I say that as someone who hates polygamy.
Old-Timer wrote:I vote we seal anyone to any spouse to whom they want to be sealed (but not allow polygamy in this life) and let the people invloved and God sort it out in the end. I include gay marriages in that, whenever they are legal.
I am not saying that to support the current policy but because Indon’t want anyone else making that decision for me or my wife or my children or anyone else. This is as personal a choice as there is, so if this can be mandated, anything can be mandated – and I am in favor of less mandating and more self-determination.
Also, just to be clear, I say that as someone who hates polygamy.
A good step in the right direction.Will the church’s steps in the right direction be faster than the people beating a path to the exit. For some, these “small, small victories” (university, above) are too small – as in, “We can’t even seethem from here in the 21st century.” The church has a perfect right and its own logic for doing what it does. But it can’t control the outcome. If this article, for instance, had been picked up by news outlets and plastered all over in 48 hours, we could expect hilarious spoofs on late-night TV in which “reporters” talk about breaking news out of Salt Lake. You don’t have to be a polygamist to go to heaven! Maybe there would be another reporter cutting in from the Middle East saying that he’s heard a conflicting story, that heaven is all about harems. There is so much material still left on our books for a great send-up. And that’s really neither here nor there, but a lot of people just can’t reconcile their modern sensibilities with what they see as an exploitative, degrading practice.
I wish the church would let down its defenses for a minute and listen. I love the church, but it’s starting to feel like the heartbreaking kind of love you have for someone you must leave.
Elder Christofferson just posted something about Joseph Smith on his Facebook page. I only looked once, but it seemed to be getting a lot of attention. (I don’t know why anyone wants Facebook attention, but it’s the world we live in.) Is he really, truly mystified? That’s what people want to know, I think: Do our leaders get it? Can I identify with them, trust them? On the other hand, I acknowledge that they have a lot on their plates. Untangling and managing the temple sealing policies we’re talking about in this thread is a big job that I don’t envy.
Ann wrote:Will the church’s steps in the right direction be faster than the people beating a path to the exit. For some, these “small, small victories” (university, above) are too small – as in, “We can’t even
seethem from here in the 21st century.”
I agree. I do see progress, but it feels to me that the progress is so small that they are still falling behind. Maybe it is more with me I feel myself drifting farther away faster than the church is opening up just a little tiny bit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.