- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I understand your frustrations, Rob. And my heart goes out to you when I hear your pain in your posts. I’m truly sorry. There is sure enough blame to go around. I don’t excuse them, or shrug my shoulders at it.
My intent is not to blame the victim, but hopefully to empower.
If leaders gave you advice and teachings and it burned you…you have a choice now to move forward and deal with it.
In your extreme hypothetical (but reasonably true) examples, what would you think professional therapists or counselors would say to the person who was hurt by an authority figure?
Remember…this is a forum for working towards solutions. Venting is fine when we find ways to work towards finding peace in our lives. Because venting just to vent isn’t what we do, so you can expect responses on how to cope with the source of the venting here because that is why we take time to read and post here. If you don’t want suggestions, don’t read my posts. Or call me out as you wish and we can discuss, even if we never agree. My views don’t fit everyone. It is just from my experience and something others may want to consider.
I can understand you don’t like my suggestions to cope with these valid issues by simply letting go of the high expectations of leaders and the church. You have very valid complaints and emotions. You invested, you trusted, you believed…and now you feel burned. It sucks. It is not your fault.
But what has worked for me is to reduce the emphasis on “why” leaders taught me what they did or go back and make them answer for it. Partly because I think I had a role to play in how I processed it, and partly because I allow them to be stupid, ignorant, and flat out wrong…just like I am sometimes. Because I don’t want to be stuck constantly venting, and I have found reducing the co-dependence of leaders or the church is not only helpful, but actually highly healthy and mature…perhaps even something God wants me to learn in life. Burn me once, shame on you church…burn me twice and shame on me. That doesn’t mean I don’t wag my finger and say “shame on you”…they deserve that…but I am not going to continue to let them burn me. My trust is reduced, my boundaries are raised. I am in control of my destiny, despite the pain that comes my way.
I don’t ask my pastor about sex, how to play basketball, or how to invest in the stock market. Perhaps there was a day I thought they would get answers about everything in life and I should trust them…I think they taught me to. But…I learned that doesn’t work. And the more I study, the more I think I am right in believing they are mortal men doing the best they can, and God wants me to think for myself, including times they tell me otherwise. By framing boundaries of what church leaders do speak for and what they don’t speak for is one strategy to work towards relieving your frustrations.
The church sucks at talking about and teaching about sex. I think we agree on that. So…now what? You can try to go change the church if you want so they can teach you about sex if you want to…but I choose a different path…I simply don’t give them authority in something I don’t believe they have authority on…my sex life. Shame on them for overstepping their bounds and presenting themselves as spokesman for god on subjects that they are just giving mortal opinions on. But … shame on me if I keep trusting them about it.
Just my ideas. Take them or leave them. Just trying to help.
It is not meant to blame the victim or excuse wrongs. It is meant to discuss some ideas on how to move forward.
Heber13 wrote:
I can understand you don’t like my suggestions to cope with these valid issues by simply letting go of the high expectations of leaders and the church. You have very valid complaints and emotions. You invested, you trusted, you believed…and now you feel burned. It sucks. It is not your fault.Nah…I’m good with your suggestions. You don’t bug me…and I know I can call you out sometimes and you can handle it. That is why I sometimes focus on you Heber. Its all good,..and I hope you know that its respect why I sometime focus on you often.
Quote:Because I don’t want to be stuck constantly venting, and I have found reducing the co-dependence of leaders or the church is not only helpful, but actually highly healthy and mature…perhaps even something God wants me to learn in life.
I vent here because its the only place I can. I am surrounded by TBM who can’t, even for a moment, step outside the box and consider a different perspective.
To me, there is a big difference between denial and forgiveness. To do the later, you have to accept mistakes have been made,…but the former is a STRONG position many TBM take: they justify GA choices and “deny” any mistakes are or have been made. Its a poisonous pathway, because it negates feelings in favor of idealizing, even worshiping, leadership.
Quote:
Burn me once, shame on you church…burn me twice and shame on me. That doesn’t mean I don’t wag my finger and say “shame on you”…they deserve that…but I am not going to continue to let them burn me. My trust is reduced, my boundaries are raised. I am in control of my destiny, despite the pain that comes my way.
I’ve been burned more than once, and so the sting I feel is self induced shame. I’m man enough to admit it. I got nothing to hide. Everyone here knows that, and if we met face to face, I will still be me.
Quote:
I don’t ask my pastor about sex,
I don’t ask my counselors either. I don’t think I will ever again see a LDS counselor if I ever see a counselor again. They parrot the same line.
Quote:
The church sucks at talking about and teaching about sex. I think we agree on that. So…now what?
The only thing that can be done is what you suggested earlier. It really is the only choice…forgive, protect myself moving forward from being burned yet again, and move on.
Quote:
Just my ideas. Take them or leave them. Just trying to help.
You got good ideas. In fact, most of the hash that flys around out there has VERY thought provoking and inspiring even ideas.
For what its worth,…chocolate helps. And sometimes good mexican food with a cold beer. What?….my bishop will call me on drinking a beer?…HAHAHAHAHA…I got bigger problems than that.
Anyway….this is where I’m at. The LDS church hurt me with their position on sex and marriage when I grew up. They didn’t correct that position, but responded with silence. I think they made a BIG mistake with how that was handled, and how it has unfolded in my family. I hold them accountable for that. My trust in them has been severely damaged. I will NOT be burned again,…and I will continue to work through forgiveness to them.
And that is all I can do.
Rob4Hope wrote:My trust in them has been severely damaged. I will NOT be burned again,…and I will continue to work through forgiveness to them.
And that is all I can do.
Amen, brother.
Rob4Hope wrote:That is why I sometimes focus on you Heber. Its all good,..and I hope you know that its respect why I sometime focus on you often.
Maybe you can start respecting nibbler a little more…he is due for a turn!
Heber13 wrote:Maybe you can start respecting nibbler a little more…he is due for a turn!
get ready Nibbler…its coming your way……….
😈 😈 😈 hehehe <--think wicked cackle with this part....
Ha. Go for it. I have thick skin… except when I don’t. I’m mostly sensitive about my third eye. Just don’t mention that Rob has “4 eyes” or you may see some real commentary. 😆 I’m gunna lay it on everyone. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: DarkJedi wrote:…
I haven’t heard a GA of any type, much less a Q15, say anything about having large families or “multiplying and replenishing” (a phrase I always thougt was interesting, BTW) lately…I’m not being lazy and asking you to do the research for me, but I’m working on the assumption there have been things said that have rubbed some of us the wrong way and I just am unaware of them. I await further light and knowledge! Actually I still remember Neil L. Anderson making some of the following comments in General Conference a few years ago and it looks like some 70 brought up the theme of, “Multiply and replenish the earth” again just last April even though I didn’t listen to or read that talk yet so it looks like this notion definitely didn’t die with Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and other previous leaders.
Neil L. Anderson wrote:After Adam and Eve were joined in marriage, the scripture reads, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”2 In our day prophets and apostles have declared, “The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife.
We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” This commandment has not been forgotten or set aside in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We express deep gratitude for the enormous faith shown by husbands and wives (especially our wives) in their willingness to have children. When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord. These are sacred decisions—decisions that should be made with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith.
…Many voices in the world today marginalize the importance of having children or suggest delaying or limiting children in a family…As the world increasingly asks, “Are these all yours?” we thank you for creating within the Church a sanctuary for families, where we honor and help mothers with children…Elder Mason had another experience just weeks after his marriage that helped him prioritize his family responsibilities. He said: “Marie and I had rationalized that to get me through medical school it would be necessary for her to remain in the workplace. Although this was not what we [wanted] to do, children would have to come later…According to Elder Kimball, one sacred responsibility was to multiply and replenish the earth…I immediately walked to the offices, and 30 minutes after reading his article, I found myself sitting across the desk from Elder Spencer W. Kimball.”
“I explained that I wanted to become a doctor. There was no alternative but to postpone having our family. Elder Kimball listened patiently and then responded in a soft voice, ‘Brother Mason, would the Lord want you to break one of his important commandments in order for you to become a doctor? With the help of the Lord, you can have your family and still become a doctor.
Where is your faith?’” Anyway to me this talk sends a very mixed message. Sure he technically says this is a private decision for the husband and wife to make that is between them and the Lord but listening to the whole talk it seems like the overall take away would typically be that Church members supposedly shouldn’t wait to have many children (unlike the world’s norms) and if they don’t live up to this expectation then they lack faith and are ignoring a specific commandment. Personally I think this is yet another example of Church leaders trying to get away with having it both ways as much as they possibly can. For example, it seems like they are happy to let some extremely zealous Church members continue to feel like they shouldn’t ever watch R-rated movies but at the same time they are not going to deny a temple recommend over this for all the Church members that already watch R-rated movies all the time.
Similarly they are not going to tell members that already believe that tithing should be 10% of gross income that this is open to interpretation but at the same time they haven’t pushed any specific interpretation enough to drive out active members that pay less or even no tithing for extended periods of time. So in this case it seems like they would prefer for members to have many children as soon as possible but they don’t want to push it too hard because of the number of active members that already don’t subscribe to this idea. I have a few hardcore TBM neighbors with 7-8 children and it sounds like this kind of thing is still even more prevalent in many Utah county neighborhoods so this mindset is still alive and well at least within certain families in the Church.
amateurparent wrote:I find it interesting that, as a culture,
we have no problem expecting straight people to live a celibate life…We expect LGBTQ to leave the church .. And we are surprised when they stay…Personally, I find it horrific that the church culture sees spinsterhood as a better option than a mixed-religion household. They are essentially stating that it is better that children not even be born than to be born “out of the convenant”.I wish the church would promote same-religion marriage but suggest that mixed-religion marriage/children/family is a better option than spinsterhood. This is a good point, it isn’t only gays and lesbians the Church is officially asking to remain celibate (including no masturbation allowed if you want to live by the letter-of-the-law) but anyone that is not married. To be fair, I haven’t ever heard Church leaders or official lessons specifically say that it would be better to remain single long-term than to consider marrying a non-member or “unworthy” Church member but it looks like this is quite often the actual end result of the strong emphasis on temple marriage, worthiness, that people shouldn’t ever lower their standards but continue hold out hope that things will work out for them in the future even if only the next life, etc. A few years ago I read a story about a 30-plus year old Mormon virgin in Australia. I guess it was newsworthy because it seemed so unusual to people that such an attractive and successful woman would go all this time without ever having sex. It sounds like she eventually got fed up with the Church and ended up marrying a non-Mormon.
To me that actually sounds like a fairy-tale ending compared to all the single and divorced members in the Church that will end up living celibate and alone for the rest of their lives largely because of the hard-line strict chastity rules and idea that they should only consider marrying other “worthy” Church members in the temple. In fact, Dallin H. Oaks recently called singleness a “painful affliction” which I thought sounded rather dramatic at first but the reality is that taking the Church’s teachings extremely seriously really does make it into a painful affliction to expect people to endure year-after-year. I realize that Church leaders feel like they can’t change doctrines that supposedly came directly from God but at the same time it seems like Jesus already taught ideas like forgiveness, not judging people, etc. and Paul taught the general idea of grace more than works and personally I think the Church could use more emphasis on these ideas and less emphasis on the supposed importance of temple worthiness.
Heber13 wrote:I’m just dumping some pent up emotions….no one is being attacked, but this is hot…
PREACH, my brother!
I appreciate the moments where I find peace and forgiveness with Church leaders; I really do. But I realize that finding peace is COMPLETELY up to me. The Church offers no apologies; and leaders never admit they were wrong; they speak with a confidence that’s unwarranted
and they know it. They openly speak about protecting the Church at all costs: even to the suppression of history, science, and perpetuating half-truths. They teach that criticism of Church leaders is wrong, even if it’s true. It’s not too unlike a child that’s abused by a close relative… where the abuser refuses to admit wrongdoing, and most of the family sides with the abuser. That child recognizes that the only path to peace and the only way to maintain their other relationships is to forgive the abuser and move on with their life. But then they have to watch as their other cousins and siblings cozy up to the abuser, and they see the telltale signs of abuse — they know that a few victims might be saved if they speak up, but it will come at the cost of alienation from the rest of the family and community. For even the most zen among us, being put in this situation is absolutely maddening. Not to mention unfair.
Whew, I feel better now.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:DarkJedi wrote:…
I haven’t heard a GA of any type, much less a Q15, say anything about having large families or “multiplying and replenishing” (a phrase I always thougt was interesting, BTW) lately…I’m not being lazy and asking you to do the research for me, but I’m working on the assumption there have been things said that have rubbed some of us the wrong way and I just am unaware of them. I await further light and knowledge! Actually I still remember Neil L. Anderson making some of the following comments in General Conference a few years ago and it looks like some 70 brought up the theme of, “Multiply and replenish the earth” again just last April even though I didn’t listen to or read that talk yet so it looks like this notion definitely didn’t die with Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and other previous leaders.
Neil L. Anderson wrote:After Adam and Eve were joined in marriage, the scripture reads, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”2 In our day prophets and apostles have declared, “The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife.
We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” This commandment has not been forgotten or set aside in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We express deep gratitude for the enormous faith shown by husbands and wives (especially our wives) in their willingness to have children. When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord. These are sacred decisions—decisions that should be made with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith.
…Many voices in the world today marginalize the importance of having children or suggest delaying or limiting children in a family…As the world increasingly asks, “Are these all yours?” we thank you for creating within the Church a sanctuary for families, where we honor and help mothers with children…Elder Mason had another experience just weeks after his marriage that helped him prioritize his family responsibilities. He said: “Marie and I had rationalized that to get me through medical school it would be necessary for her to remain in the workplace. Although this was not what we [wanted] to do, children would have to come later…According to Elder Kimball, one sacred responsibility was to multiply and replenish the earth…I immediately walked to the offices, and 30 minutes after reading his article, I found myself sitting across the desk from Elder Spencer W. Kimball.”
“I explained that I wanted to become a doctor. There was no alternative but to postpone having our family. Elder Kimball listened patiently and then responded in a soft voice, ‘Brother Mason, would the Lord want you to break one of his important commandments in order for you to become a doctor? With the help of the Lord, you can have your family and still become a doctor.
Where is your faith?’” Anyway to me this talk was a very mixed message. Sure he technically says this is a private decision for the husband and wife to make between them and the Lord but listening to the whole talk it seems like the overall take away would typically be that Church members supposedly shouldn’t wait to have children (like the world suggests) and if they do then they lack faith and are ignoring a specific commandment. Personally I think this is yet another example of Church leaders trying to get away with having it both ways as much as they possibly can. For example, it seems like they are happy to let some extremely zealous Church members continue to feel like they shouldn’t ever watch R-rated movies but at the same time they are not going to deny a temple recommend over this for all the Church members that already watch R-rated movies all the time.
Similarly they are not going to tell members that already believe that tithing should be 10% of gross income that this is open to interpretation but at the same time they haven’t pushed any specific interpretation enough to drive out active members that pay less or even no tithing for extended periods of time. So in this case it seems like they would prefer for members to have many children as soon as possible but they are don’t want to push it too hard because of the number of active members that already don’t subscribe to this idea. I have a few hardcore TBM neighbors with 7-8 children and it sounds like this kind of thing is still even more prevalent in many Utah county neighborhoods so this mindset is still alive and well at least within certain families in the Church.
Good catch there, DA. I was inactive during 2011, although I could hear GC at my house (and even facilitated my family watching it). Anderson isn’t at the top of my list of “must hear” speakers, so even if I were paying some attention I probably would have missed that one.
I agree the (over)zealous mindsets like having bunches of children, not drinking Coke, and not watching R rated movies just because they’re R rated are still common in the church, even here in the east. But I do see hope that they are less common. It’s actually kind of funny – my son and I make bets on whether there will be caffeinated soda at non-church events hosted by church members (graduation parties, etc.), and sometimes we’re wrong.
(As a side note you just moved Anderson farther down my list. There’s not much room at the top anyway, what with Rasband and Renlund moving their ways up!)
There is such an emphasis on marriage & having children in the church. On top of that, in the olden days of polygamy, the emphasis was multiple wives. The more wives the higher your position in the Celestial Kingdom.
I wonder sometimes how the atmosphere would change if a single, unmarried man were called to be a Bishop, Branch President, Stake President or
General Authority? How would the atmosphere change if that man was living with another man, with no discussion or speculation about sexual
orientation? Would it change for the better? I would like to think it would.
Does anyone know of a situation where a single or widowed man was called to one of these positions?
Minyan Man wrote:There is such an emphasis on marriage & having children in the church. On top of that, in the olden days of polygamy, the emphasis was multiple wives.
The more wives the higher your position in the Celestial Kingdom.
I wonder sometimes how the atmosphere would change if a single, unmarried man were called to be a Bishop, Branch President, Stake President or
General Authority? How would the atmosphere change if that man was living with another man, with no discussion or speculation about sexual
orientation? Would it change for the better? I would like to think it would.
Does anyone know of a situation where a single or widowed man was called to one of these positions?
A single man can be a branch president, but i think there is a rule that no single (unless widowed) man can be a bishop, SP, or higher. Not sure, but I think it is a policy.
It is a policy, based on the New Testament statement of Bishops being married. Ironically, that statement says “of one wife” – which conveniently was ignored for certain years.
😯 We humans take whatever position we want and can use the same scriptural verse or passage to justify conflicting positions. This topic is no different. I understand that, and I understand I do it also – but at least we have “as far as it is translated correctly” as an excuse.
Old-Timer wrote:It is a policy, based on the New Testament statement of Bishops being married…We humans take whatever position we want and can use the same scriptural verse or passage to justify conflicting positions. This topic is no different. I understand that, and I understand I do it also – but at least we have “as far as it is translated correctly” as an excuse. That doesn’t explain why we couldn’t have apostles that were divorced and remarried. For example, suppose someone’s wife goes off the deep end in a way that is not really the husband’s fault; I don’t see why that should automatically disqualify someone from being an LDS apostle. Brigham Young already had several divorces so it’s not like what we see now is something that has been set in stone from the beginning of time. Personally I would like to see some apostles that had been divorced for several years and remarried simply so that they could actually experience what it is like to be unmarried in the Church and expected to be celibate for an extended amount of time not as old men but earlier in life. Maybe then it wouldn’t be quite so easy for them to assume that it’s alright for the Church to continue to be so unfriendly and unforgiving toward single and divorced adults that are older than about 22-23.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.