- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Anyway, your friend wants multiple wives in the eternities, but his wife’s not into it. Sounds like he’s a true blue Mormon, alright.
In his defense, he didn’t say he wanted multiple wives. He’s not really that type to even talk about or comment on other women. He’s very respectful and admiring of his wife. I felt his conversation(s) on this topic were doctrinal, not personal.
Interesting take on faith though. Black and white isn’t faith. I gotta admit, it seems to take more faith to know all the dirty stuff in our history and still maintain some level of faith in the whole thing as possibly true. His approach is to reject what seems to be true about our history, rather than embrace it and deal with it.
But again, at this point, I was sorry I had opened up the rabbit hole. He’s very happy where he stands in his relationship to the gospel. I hate to be one to disturb this in other people. If the goal of our life is to have joy and happiness, then stirring up doubt that shatters it all, in my view, isn’t a goal of mine. We could argue whether it’s better to be in bliss in the midst of untrue beliefs, or to be miserable with the truth in hand.
By the way, JS never denied the affair, according to Bushman, but he said it was not adulterous. I think the whole plural marriage thing is what allowed JS to be sexually liberated while being righteous at the same time — at least, in his world.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Anyway, your friend wants multiple wives in the eternities, but his wife’s not into it. Sounds like he’s a true blue Mormon, alright.
I love what Claudia Bushman (wife of Richard Bushman) said about polygamy (don’t have the exact quote). She pressed her husband if he would take on additional wives in the afterlife and he squirmed and said if God told him to. Claudia said, OK, then I promise to do my best to make you and all your wifes as miserable as possible.SilentDawning wrote:
He eventually said “Everyone is trying to discredit JS”
Not to get too political, but the first thing that came to my mind: “FAKE NEWS! IT’S ALL FAKE NEWS!” Or in more TBM terms, “ANTI-MORMON!!! ANTI-MORMON! It’s all lies!” It seems like to go-to defense, when you don’t have any solid counter-arguments.
It’s been taught as over-the-pulpit doctrine that both polygamy is required for exaltation, and that God is a polygamist. And Brigham Young said there was nothing he spoke over the pulpit that wasn’t meant to be taken as literal scripture for the saints. You’ve got to either pick and choose what doctrines to believe, or blatantly ignore everything Church leaders have said pre-1985.
I’ve got one of those TBM wives who vehemently opposes polygamy, and doesn’t believe it’s doctrine. She told me her ancestors flat-out refused to practice or believe in the doctrines of polygamy, and wouldn’t support it in the next life either. I still don’t quite get how she holds those two contradicting views… both that the Church/Restoration/Priesthood is true, while straight up denouncing polygamy. It looks to me like a strong case of doublethink.
SilentDawning wrote:In his defense, he didn’t say he wanted multiple wives. He’s not really that type to even talk about or comment on other women. He’s very respectful and admiring of his wife. I felt his conversation(s) on this topic were doctrinal, not personal.
I would say that in the same vein as him talking about his wife, he was also talking about you and your beliefs. Doctrinal and opinionated, not personal or meaning any malice or harm.He did reveal his hand a bit though on what he thinks, and may not realize how offensive his thought is to any woman…or any friend like you that believes differently.
He simply is ignorant to the offensive side of his well-intentioned beliefs. (ie. “I thought you benefit from my honesty that you look fat in those pants”)
I don’t know if your talking to him will open his mind to it, or if it is fruitless and doesn’t need to be discussed with him further. But most of the time we don’t really enlighten others who believe differently. And you just allow them to be different and leave it alone.
dande48 wrote:
I still don’t quite get how she holds those two contradicting views… both that the Church/Restoration/Priesthood is true, while straight up denouncing polygamy. It looks to me like a strong case of doublethink.
My opinion from afar? Good for her and good for you. It’s something to celebrate and I hope lots of the faithful work toward this position. My wife doesn’t believe polygamy is from God, either. I have good friends who are strong members and leaders in the Church who feel the same way. I believe 25 years from now, that’s what most members will think. Personally, I don’t think of these and contradicting views at all. Rather, I think of it as a great example of what we often promote here: non-black-and-white thinking.On Own Now wrote:
dande48 wrote:
I still don’t quite get how she holds those two contradicting views… both that the Church/Restoration/Priesthood is true, while straight up denouncing polygamy. It looks to me like a strong case of doublethink.
My opinion from afar? Good for her and good for you. It’s something to celebrate and I hope lots of the faithful work toward this position. My wife doesn’t believe polygamy is from God, either. I have good friends who are strong members and leaders in the Church who feel the same way. I believe 25 years from now, that’s what most members will think. Personally, I don’t think of these and contradicting views at all. Rather, I think of it as a great example of what we often promote here: non-black-and-white thinking.
The issue of plural marriage aside, the issue is that if you say ‘I don’t believe this about Mormon doctrine, but I believe this” it implies the whole thing isn’t what the church says it is — a divine organization with divine roots, and the truth given by decree from prophets. For the longest time, people called plural marriage doctrine. Then, it was made non-doctrinal for this life when the church’s assets were threatened if they continued with the practice. But it is still believed to be doctrine in the eternities, although down played now.
It’s almost like when you start being a buffet Mormon from a BELIEF perspective, it opens up a can of worms. And at that point, it becomes not much different than any other religion out there….
As our stake president’s wife pointed out “We are ALL cafeteria Mormons and cafeteria humans.” When it comes to doctrine, nobody really buys everything that’s been said for several reasons: 1) they don’t know everything that’s been said, 2) leaders have contradicted each other, so which thing do you choose to agree with (they like to brush these under the rug, but these disagreements exist), and 3) people have different life experiences, so things matter to a different extent to one person more than to another. hawkgrrrl wrote:
As our stake president’s wife pointed out “We are ALL cafeteria Mormons and cafeteria humans.” When it comes to doctrine, nobody really buys everything that’s been said for several reasons: 1) they don’t know everything that’s been said, 2) leaders have contradicted each other, so which thing do you choose to agree with (they like to brush these under the rug, but these disagreements exist), and 3) people have different life experiences, so things matter to a different extent to one person more than to another.
Although I agree with this — not only because people have PREFERENCES, but because they have different STRENGTHS — TBM’s draw the line on certain HARD commandments…
1. WoW
2. Tithing
3. Chastity
4. Attending church regularly
5. Faithfulness on bedrock doctrinal, historical issues
And then, TBM’s are often cafeteria on the SOFT items
1. Sabbath Day
2. Family History Research
3. Acceptance of callings
The problem is when you are cafeteria on the HARD commandments, that is when the conversation turns unpleasant. I can have a cafeteria conversation on the soft items with TBM’s no problem, but on the hard commandments? You get the push back like I did on my trip.
I don’t know SD. I know several TBM types who don’t tithe on gross, consider caffeinated soda perfectly acceptable (while others bristle at any caffeine), and don’t attend church while on vacation for example. And often when being totally candid and in private, there is also considerable variation in the “bedrock doctrine” beliefs. I agree with Hawk, and Curt often makes this assertion as well – we are allcafeteria Mormons to some extent. In actuality it is impossible not to be. Caffeinated soda and tithing on gross: Maybe there’s the hard and soft view of SD’s list of hard commitments. I think most members would feel accepted even when they don’t abstain from caffeinated soda. After all, it’s not a part of the enforced WoW, sodas are a hedge for the members that take things to the extreme. How accepted would someone be if they openly disregarded the counsel to totally abstain from drinking alcohol? They unapologetically drink it, maybe even show up to the ward BBQ with a 6 pack of beer.
Tithing is another one of those where there’s some wiggle room. I’ve been in wards where suggesting tithing on anything less that gross would cause the stewards of the ward to go out of their way to make sure everyone knew you were in the wrong and reiterate the correct way to pay tithing. Other wards might be more in tune with the between you and the lord approach. I think someone could get away with openly not paying tithing and making it known that it’s never going to happen but of course it would be hard for that person to be a full participant in the tribe.
nibbler wrote:
Caffeinated soda and tithing on gross:Maybe there’s the hard and soft view of SD’s list of hard commitments. I think most members would feel accepted even when they don’t abstain from caffeinated soda. After all, it’s not a part of the enforced WoW, sodas are a hedge for the members that take things to the extreme. How accepted would someone be if they openly disregarded the counsel to totally abstain from drinking alcohol? They unapologetically drink it, maybe even show up to the ward BBQ with a 6 pack of beer.
Tithing is another one of those where there’s some wiggle room. I’ve been in wards where suggesting tithing on anything less that gross would cause the stewards of the ward to go out of their way to make sure everyone knew you were in the wrong and reiterate the correct way to pay tithing. Other wards might be more in tune with the between you and the lord approach. I think someone could get away with openly not paying tithing and making it known that it’s never going to happen but of course it would be hard for that person to be a full participant in the tribe.
I agree Nibbler that there are wards/stakes with much more pronounced (sometimes literally) “standards of belief.” And I don’t know of any ward that would be very accepting of an active member showing up at a ward picnic with a six pack of Natty Daddies. But that’s actually the point – members often are very intolerant of the more open/visible things than other things while at the same time choosing to disregard some of the less visible things. Using your example, no one knows if I tithe on gross or not unless I tell them. We do have a very vocal member of our ward who takes every opportunity he gets (very literally) to say that is the only correct way – yet I know several other very faithful (“TBM”) types in our ward who will admit they do not pay on gross and never have. Generally speaking, my ward is probably considered to be on the conservative side of things – but having been a member of this ward for a very long time and having been in leadership positions here I know there are sometimes vast differences in belief and practice. Those things aren’t necessarily readily apparent, and the casual short term observer might say “the Coruscant Jedi Temple 42nd Ward thinks X” when in reality there is a wide variety of thinking on any given subject, even among the (perceived) most faithful. I believe in most wards the silent majority far outweighs the vocal few, and the those vocal few don’t speak for the ward or for God (even when they might think they do). And even among those vocal few, there are things they choose not to partake of – they just hide it, intentionally or not. There is no “sinless” person.
I still maintain there are lines that, when crossed, marginalize you more than others. One is not going to church for no good reason, another is non-payment of tithing at all, another is not holding a TR, yet another is obvious WoW violations like drinking caffeinated coffee, smoking etcetera. People who are paying on net, are in fact, paying tithing, and probably holding a TR. People drinking caffeinated soda are not necessarily in violation of the WoW. They haven’t crossed lines to the point it would be unanimous they are breaking basic commandments.
SilentDawning, you are a much better man than I am. My first reaction would of been anger. The second would of been silence. You did neither.
Thanks. I appreciate the encouragement, I really do. SilentDawning wrote:
I still maintain there are lines that, when crossed, marginalize you more than others. One is not going to church for no good reason, another is non-payment of tithing at all, another is not holding a TR, yet another is obvious WoW violations like drinking caffeinated coffee, smoking etcetera.People who are paying on net, are in fact, paying tithing, and probably holding a TR. People drinking caffeinated soda are not necessarily in violation of the WoW. They haven’t crossed lines to the point it would be unanimous they are breaking basic commandments.
And yet all those people – paying on net or gross as long as they declare themselves full tithe payers – are still in the minority. Under 25% of members are tithe payers of any kind (full or not). That number is far lower outside the US and Canada. There are very likely in your ward a few active members who have seen the inside of a bar this week or tip the bottle at home and there are likely a few more than that who have visited a Starbucks or had a lemon tea at home. Frankly, the list could go on and on. I know a guy in my own ward who was a high councilor for many years who frequented a “gentleman’s club” (as they are known in these parts) and was known to have had a lap dance or two – and he is married. Our current WML openly admits for years that he has struggled with coffee, and a counselor in the EQP often talks about his addiction to porn.
I don’t disagree that when these things come to light those members may be marginalized, although we’ve head two bishops in a row now who tend to look the other way. There are known couples (straight and gay) in our ward who are “living in sin.” They are mostly inactive, but a couple of the hetero ones show up at least monthly to ask the bishop for financial assistance – and get it. There is no movement to excommunicate or otherwise discipline them. Our stake, since the November 2015 policy, has excommunicated no gay couples – but there are several.
Here’s my point of view – the “church” only has as much power as we let it have. I go to church to take the sacrament and be uplifted. The sacrament has meaning to me, but it has that same meaning in other churches as well. If people want to judge or marginalize, fine, I don’t care. I am a high councilor and I know I could be released from that “lofty” position any day – which is also fine. I’d actually rather not have a calling. And that’s the thing: I don’t need it both ways.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.