- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
rebeccad wrote:Quote:
So…either she apologize and clarifies….or the statement stands…and the doctrine is set.The church released a statement that clarified that doctrine is not set by the comments of one general authority in one talk, but by what is taught consistently over time. I think that statement was released specifically because there are occasions like this.
Agree completely, though at least it should have the true correct view out there if this isn’t their view. Do we have a good talk by a leader on women’s rights and having freedom and encouragement to fight for them or should they still not vote?
DBMormon wrote:cwald wrote:Yeah.
Hey Ray, Bill, anybody…do you think SLC is going to address this, much like they did with BKP comments about “why would god do that?”?
I guess, like Bill kind of said…Is this comment the position of the church? Or was it just a badly worded and thought out sentence that the church will be embarrassed about and get the PR department out?
I’m just curious what the more faithful members think is going to happen.
99% of the church is unaware of this comment as they are not scouring the discussion boards and internet like us. first thing…. they have to know about it, only then can they have an opinion. I am not recommending we drag them into it, only that most are unaware.
As a side note, I am uncomfortable with the word “faithful” being used to describe those who are different then those of us. While the word has a negative connotation, the word naive is more appropriate. I am faithful, I believe the church is exactly what it claims to be, yet I am aware of what (for the most part) is doctrine and what isn’t (culture, mores, norms). The only thing that separates me from others in my ward is awareness. that means they are not more faithful but more naive. Again it has a negative meaning in our minds but it is accurate.
I also don’t like TBM as I want to refer to them as different then me but I am also TBM. I would prefer FBUM = Faithful but Unaware Mormons….. lol I realize I am asking something that won’t change but anyway my thoughts
What do you think
Lol
Having said that, there are some people who are aware and fully-believing and would call themselves NOM or ‘finding reasons to stay’. I admire that. I appreciate you as one of them giving us your time. Are FBAM?
Jeff Lindsay is (in my mind) one of the decent FBAMs? My brother is also an aware but fully believing mormon.
What would you call someone who stays but doesn’t believe all the claims. E.g. I would consider D&C 1:30 to apply to God’s broad global church (made up of many understandings and doctrines but all following the core principles of service, love and proactivity that Matt 25 discusses), but I don’t apply it solely to the LDS church (and say all others are wrong).
I am also not able to fully accept certain foundational events of both the world and the LDS church as factual, but recognise their symbolic value. This definitely includes Eden, A&E, Noah & the Ark, some of exodus etc, and possibly extends to the literal visitation of certain angelic persons to Joseph Smith. I currently stop marginally short of doing the same to the Book of Mormon.
So am I also FBAM. I try to live the principles. I just don’t accept the origin of those principles.
What does that make me… FBNFBAM (faithful but not fully believing aware mormon).
Sorry for the thread derail. To bring it back round on topic, the reason this suddenly became so raw is that Sis. Dalton’s comments (and some of the reaction on other ‘FBAM’ boards) suddenly made me realise how much of the church attitudes and even doctrines I’m simply not aligned with any more. Her comments are, in isolation, but in the context of everything else, become a perfect example of what’s wrong with me and the church.
Never the twain shall meet?
I’ve let this topic roll in my head for a few days. I heard about it through my husband who read it on a different board. At the time he read it and even now, I thought it was insightful on communities in many ways. I apologize if what I am about to print comes out wrong. It’s not intended that way. I’m struggling with phrasing.One of the standard practicing assumptions when someone becomes disaffected or struggles is the idea of offense. We’ve all heard it and wrestled with it, but from a certain point of view the reactions we have expressed could easily be viewed as looking for offense. The entire address was not a rip and burn session. One particular paragraph jumped out at listeners and reactions were expressed.
Did Sister Dalton mean it, express it, what ever in the way it has been received. I don’t know. I don’t know if there is anyway to know. But maybe we let it get under our skin. As this thread continues I sense that may have happened. I also agree that many main stream practicing members have no idea about this, or if they do, it will probably be washed over by something else.
I say that because I find that some of the very issues that end up here – only end up here. There was huge concern over Elder Bednar’s address at BYU-I over facebook useage. The flame of it burned along brightly. Yet I didn’t see any drop in facebook by anyone. In fact the next GC we were encouraged to use the internet to spread the Gospel. This past election and wear pants to church explosion clearly demonstrates that Elder Bednar’s inflaming talk has been forgotten by everyone. I think Sister Dalton’s words will do the same. Yes some young women’s president might use it. But just as easily and kindly that case of history points to a different premise and that point could be made by another caring adult.
Over my lifetime in the church I have watched tides roll and be forgotten with such intensity that it rivals the death of Michael Jackson over shadowing the death of Farrah Fawcett. I think of things like “Raising the Bar”, “Fourteen Fundamentals” (so far I have not heard it repeated once on a ward or stake level yet.), Brief Closing prayers (this was a 1980’s GC talk and got a ton of mileage in my area – then gone), The Block service program – totally different than originally outlined. Stay at home mothers was gently changed to “Be at the cross roads of their lives”
I’m going to give Sister Dalton a pass on this one. I know I’ve said some stupid and inflammatory remarks in my life time, some out of anger, some out of fear, some out of an assurance that I was right. I keep hoping people will cut me slack, forgive me, or have amnesia. If the topic comes up I have my responses prepared to clarify it as I see it, for I do see it differently, but I’d like to be a person that points out those differences in love and not in defense.
mom3, it didn’t come out wrong. Thank you.
Mom3… That’s an outstanding post. And very true that the only things that ever gain much traction are the things that get regularly repeated in prominent places.
I hadn’t ever heard of the 14 fundamentals until I started digging.
Mom3….. Very well worded posting. I love your ability to be so charitable to all involved and give sister Dalton the benefit of the doubt. I also appreciate the spirit in which you wrote.
I agree that her comment while offensive to me was not the purpose of the talk at all. Dalton was not trying to be overtly offensive to anyone. She was simply restating the cultural standard. It is this implied cultural belief that if a woman finds anything frustrating about her role and place in the church than she is somehow not as righteous or “virtuous” and needs to be called to repentance. That implied judgment was something I found curious even before my faith crisis.
I am just concerned because as you gave great examples of “talks/culture” that have faded, there are others that have become entrenched in the culture. Examples, number of earrings, white shirts and clean shaven for men, the new modesty standard of not showing a shoulder even for babies, how garments should be worn etc, etc..
I’ve had to address cultural standards that are incorrectly taught in my job. Several teams I coach required meetings in order to rein in the the lds girls that were quietly calling the other girls, lds and not, “sluts and whores” for wearing normal length shorts and tank tops to practice. It was not all of the lds girls thankfully but these were club teams from all over the region so this was not an isolated teacher or young women’s leader in a single ward taking modesty to an extreme. That is why Dalton’s statement that is presented at the very end of the talk has the potential to be the only focus and taken to an extreme.
I pray that you are correct and that the talk is not picked up on or emphasized by anyone, those for or even against it. It does no one any good when the church is bashed and I have to remember that when I’m frustrated.
I wish as I stated earlier that there was a means to
respectfullyaddress concerns to those in charge. As a woman in the church the opportunity and authority to make even small changes are very slim in any matter even those that affect only women. Thank you for your well thought out post and for reminding all of us that Dalton was most likely not trying to purposely offend or hurt people with her statement. Again, I feel that she truly believes and loves the gospel and thanks for bringing that to the forefront and for adding balance to the conversation.
I’m glad so many of you are finding ways to brush this aside. I sincerely mean that. Good for you. For me, I feel like my LDS Health Meter just went down from 20% to 18%. There are many issues that I ignore, because I can continue to operate in the face of it. The priesthood/temple ban fits into that category for me… it was horribly wrong, but the church did eventually fix it, and the vast, vast, vast majority of members today are thankful it’s over. The issue of subjugation of women, however, is one of my few hot-buttons. Others are the tithing policy, including “pay it even when you don’t think you have enough” and active politicking against same-sex marriage (which I hope is now permanently behind us). Marrying young gets honorable mention in my uncomfortable zone. So, this talk hit one of my big-three, even if it was only a glancing shot, and dwelt heavily on one of my second-tier issues.
To me, this is different from the “let women pray” issue, where some groups are fighting for women to be “able” to pray in General Conference, because I perceive no doctrine or even policy in the current practice of having GA’s pray in conference. I suspect that will change soon, just because the church is trying to be less tone-deaf when it comes to the separate “roles” of women. Another that doesn’t cause my blood pressure to rise is the pants on sunday issue. Whatever… I wear a tie every single week, and it’s uncomfortable, but I do it because I’m trying to be well-dressed. I don’t get a lot of annoyance in my soul because women are expected to wear dresses and men are expected to wear ties. I don’t think of this as a male-female issue.
But when a general president of a major church organization, speaking to a large audience of young, impressionable, still-forming, BYU students, says to marry young, raise a family, preferably a large one, like hers, that young women, if they will just learn their place and accept it, without the need to worry about perceived inequalities… then, for me, I, me… I cannot simply apply my normal “benefit-of-the-doubt” stance, and my mind immediately shifts to my adult daughters, and I begin to wonder what I can/should say to them to counter this line of thinking… and I find myself thinking of a future without the church.
I kind of agree. This is so easily fixed, and blatantly offensive, that if the church doesn’t address it, I see it being a deal breaker for many.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Just to be clear….I find the statment offensive and potentialy damaging but I do believe that Dalton is simply restating church culture and until we change that she will not know how awful the statement is to women everywhere. How do we change the culture? How do we educate without attacking? I do not know of any way a nonpreisthood holder can effect any change.
Statements like this will just reinforce the culture but to Dalton’s defense she has never been presented with or allowed to live as a woman in any other way in the church. Her statement reinforces the threat that for women to want otherwise is a type of evil, but that is all she has been taught her whole life.
How is change demanded while being respectful? I do not know the answer. I can agree with mom3 tone and charity and need to be respectful but still find the statement offensive and dangerous.
Sure, she no-doubt has reasons why she thinks the way she thinks. My frustrations have nothing to do with the messenger. She seems like a nice person… I’d love to sit with her at Starbucks and chat over a light snack… I’d be interested in her perspectives. So, my frustration is not in any way aimed at her, nor is my concern caused by her person. My disappointment is that an official of the church, in an official capacity, would use the pulpit to teach such things to the church’s next generation. I’ve been trying to formulate an idea since I finished reading William Dever’s book: Did God Have a Wife? He is an archaeologist (and an atheist ex-Jew) who is one of the world’s leading experts on ancient Canaanite digs. In the book, he details very clearly how the Bible looks very different from the archaeology. The Bible was written by “reformers” who wanted to change the actual Israelite culture from its polytheistic “council of gods” worship, including worship of goddesses like Asherah (possibly God the Mother as posited by the book and her role in worship in ancient Israel) to a monotheistic worship – Yahweh only. But centuries of evidence show just the opposite, that the Israelites were pantheists, including the royalty and the clergy. The reformers were actually a very tiny little minority. But they were the ones writing the record, and most people don’t actually dig up the past. The thought I’ve been having is that these leaders are trying to reform / control / direct the culture, but the culture has a life of its own. Some of the reforms will stick. Some won’t. One point Dever makes is that if you read the Bible then look at the evidence, what you see is the reformers contradicting reality at every turn. You can tell people not to lobby for rights, but hopefully people have the good sense that god gave them to make the decisions that are in their own best interest, not to lay down like cattle at the abbatoir.
I really don’t believe for a second that Pres. Dalton has any idea why her comments are off base. But anyone with the gift of the holy ghost can make their own decisions in their life regardless of what she said to a group of BYU students. Likewise in ancient Israel.
Hawk girl thank you for the reference for the books. Ill add them to my read list. Interesting point about the “reformers”. Hopefully the masses will as you said lobby for rights as prompted by the Holy Ghost.
Change does need to occur.
Dax – Let me warn you that the Dever book is a bit of a slog. Kind of scholarly for my taste, but there were interesting points. Good luck! I have loved reading your thoughts. Thanks for sharing them. Since I tend to be long winded I hope I can address the seeds of my feelings concisely. I don’t know if you read the full last line of my original thought – but I tried to present the idea that as a woman and an active member I see things differently from her. I really have formulated a personal answer that I would share on that matter. I find it scripture and history based and is validly supportive of pro-active women. (I won’t go into it all here). Over the past 3 months I have been a central observer of two strong religious organizations responses to one another when they differ. I have been stunned at the equal vehemence and disregard for the observance of their own christianity toward each other. Most of us saw it clearly in The Wear Pants to Church war that took over. We probably saw it in the election. Additionally I watched it in a National Christian Performing group our family is apart of. I imagine Christ cringed watching his brothers and sisters go at each other so viciously all in the name of him. Those events and the close hits that arrived at my home and family because of them caused me to search. In the searching I realized that a key teaching that all the great spiritual leaders taught was treatment of others. Ghandi, Buddha, and Christ share this in common.
As I watched the Sister Dalton threads two things kept tickling my heart. The first was the parable of the good samaritan. I know I don’t need to re tell it, but I kept trying to imagine her beaten on the side of a road, would I stop and help. She could be my enemy, we don’t see eye to eye. I don’t know how much we don’t see eye to eye. Maybe only a little, but would I see her humanity and care deeply enough for her to see beyond our differences? I hope so. I would like to imagine I am that type of person. At the same time – the sermon on the mount invites us “to do good to those who despitefully use and persecute us.”
In short I don’t want to continue to be a good person in name only. Sister Dalton’s words were and are an opportunity for me to check my heart and decide what is most important to me. I still stand for women, for Emma who lobbied for a cleaner room in the school of the prophets – from it came a Word of Wisdom. I stand with women who wanted to be charitable and who banded together to do so. That banding created a potentially great women’s organization named Relief Society. I stand for matriarchs as well. And many many more powerful examples of what women can, will and should do. For me, as a women, I must forgive-even if an apology or correction isn’t presented. So since I still don’t know her reasons or her intent I feel compelled to try to fully give the benefit of the doubt and go forward with my vision of women still firmly etched in my heart.
Thanks again for all of your thoughts. You have made my day today.
Just to throw this out there, in order to make a point: I don’t believe President Dalton was talking about political lobbying for civil rights. I believe she was talking about public lobbying for internal church rights – and I believe she probably had the movement for women to wear pants to church in the front of her mind. That doesn’t change the fact that I do believe important things need to be expressed and change needs to be requested even within the Church, but . . .
Take the “lobbying” for women to be able to wear pants to church. Women already had that “right”. Wearing pants to church wasn’t forbidden. Thus, there was no need to “lobby” for that right – and the initial movement wasn’t about “lobbying for rights”. It was about a request for women to do what they already were allowed to do – to exercise a right they already had. However, it quickly mushroomed to the point where lots of people and news sources were talking about women standing up and demanding the right to wear pants to church. The Church’s official response said, essentially, “Women have that right already.”
Take the current brewhaha about women praying in General Conference. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if a woman prays in a General Conference within the next year or two – but I actually think the “lobbying” happening online might delay it for 6-12 months past when it might have happened without an organized “lobbying” effort. The Church is aware of discussions like this, and, I believe, has made changes and statements as a direct result of that awareness – maybe not as many and as quickly as most people online would like, but in multiple instances, nonetheless.
If President Dalton was trying to address “lobbying for rights” with those examples in mind, I’m much more inclined to soften my immediate reaction to that part of the talk – especially since the rest of the talk really was full of good points. I still don’t like the choice of wording, and I still don’t agree completely with the concept of that sentence, but it’s much easier to understand what she might have been trying to say and let go of the extremes of the emotional reaction.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.