Reminded this AM that I still can be triggered

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

Quote:

So true in my mind. I’m wondering how long it will take for the church to pay attention to how this whole endeavor is going and change its approach. Do they realize we read? The polygamy essays are still “the straw” for me.

Ages.

I really do believe that, we don’t confront our shadow very often. We confront things outside of us, but not internal.

I’m becoming not just sympathetic to, but more convinced that people leaving the church is essential to changing the church. Maybe it’s really the only way to get attention.

[Anonymous]

I know my answer will thread jack this a bit but I would like to address it in the thread it came up in because I think they go hand in hand.

Quote:

Ann wrote – I’m becoming not just sympathetic to, but more convinced that people leaving the church is essential to changing the church. Maybe it’s really the only way to get attention.

I hear you but I don’t know. I guess I am a firm believer in Rules for Radicals tactics.

From my earliest years people left the church. Often quietly, at least as a kid saw it. It wasn’t just an individual but at times an entire family. This was 30 or 40 years before the massive FC rush. At that time it was stated “they were offended.” All around me people had narratives to prove it. Not the individual themselves, but all the rest who were still in.

Things haven’t changed much as Nibbler pointed out in his response above. We just now have a new club to beat leavers with. To me, the opposite is the only answer for change – if change is even possible.

Imagine if every disaffected soul returned with a mission to spread the gospel. What if you weren’t the only soul struggling with polygamy and felt a kinship in your ward. Even if it was silent or only hall chattered. Would it help?

To my way of thinking, every time another person walks, retrenchment grows deeper. Especially the enboldened leavers. It fires both bases and polarization happens. Can a soft explanation can go a long way to softening the hard edges?

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Roy wrote:

Specifically about polygamy, it is their job to take the present church doctrine and understanding of polygamy as the way things should be and then work backwards from their proving their case.

I want to push back just a bit on this. Brian is an anesthesiologist (no problem with that occupation one of you knows why I say that). Which is one of the main issues that I have with upper church leadership. I think it is the responsibility of the LEADERSHIP to weigh in on some of these areas, but if feels to me they just let people struggle and pass off their responsibilities to apologist so they can keep their hands clean from the mess that this (and other topics are).

I understand our leaders are real people with limitations and personal lives. But my guess is that outsourcing this to someone with an incredible tin ear for the conversation he’s leading will prove to have been a mistake. But then! Then we’ll hear, “Brian Hales was an energetic, accomplished student of church history whose opinions do not constitute doctrine.”

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

But then! Then we’ll hear, “Brian Hales was an energetic, accomplished student of church history whose opinions do not constitute doctrine.”

Yup. I believe that Brian is there to calm the individuals that will say “Bro. Hales knows all about this stuff and he isn’t bothered by it.” He is the Hugh Nibley for the next generation. I was frankly surprised that his fairly recent wife so quickly began co-writing with him. What level of historical expertise does she provide to the team? My more cynical side believes that the “defending polygamy pill” is slightly easier to swallow coming from a husband and wife team than just with an exclusively male voice.

Plausible deniability all around.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

I know my answer will thread jack this a bit but I would like to address it in the thread it came up in because I think they go hand in hand.

Quote:

Ann wrote – I’m becoming not just sympathetic to, but more convinced that people leaving the church is essential to changing the church. Maybe it’s really the only way to get attention.

I hear you but I don’t know. I guess I am a firm believer in Rules for Radicals tactics.

From my earliest years people left the church. Often quietly, at least as a kid saw it. It wasn’t just an individual but at times an entire family. This was 30 or 40 years before the massive FC rush. At that time it was stated “they were offended.” All around me people had narratives to prove it. Not the individual themselves, but all the rest who were still in.

Things haven’t changed much as Nibbler pointed out in his response above. We just now have a new club to beat leavers with. To me, the opposite is the only answer for change – if change is even possible.

Imagine if every disaffected soul returned with a mission to spread the gospel. What if you weren’t the only soul struggling with polygamy and felt a kinship in your ward. Even if it was silent or only hall chattered. Would it help?

To my way of thinking, every time another person walks, retrenchment grows deeper. Especially the enboldened leavers. It fires both bases and polarization happens. Can a soft explanation can go a long way to softening the hard edges?

That was my point I made in the A&E series on Scientology where I mention that Patrick Mason “fears for the fundamentalist takeover of Mormonism.” I remember someone pushed back on this statement saying they thought a “takeover” from hardliners. Maybe it isn’t so much a “takeover” as the non-fundamentalist abandonment leaving hardliners – but the result is the same.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Ann wrote:

But then! Then we’ll hear, “Brian Hales was an energetic, accomplished student of church history whose opinions do not constitute doctrine.”

Yup. I believe that Brian is there to calm the individuals that will say “Bro. Hales knows all about this stuff and he isn’t bothered by it.” He is the Hugh Nibley for the next generation. I was frankly surprised that his fairly recent wife so quickly began co-writing with him. What level of historical expertise does she provide to the team? My more cynical side believes that the “defending polygamy pill” is slightly easier to swallow coming from a husband and wife team than just with an exclusively male voice.

Plausible deniability all around.

Exactly. Did anybody else see the “leaked” document where the church replied to someone with “Hugh Nibley is not a church spokesman”. Quote him when he is useful, but throw him under the bus when he is no longer useful.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

mom3 wrote:

To my way of thinking, every time another person walks, retrenchment grows deeper. Especially the enboldened leavers. It fires both bases and polarization happens. Can a soft explanation can go a long way to softening the hard edges?

That was my point I made in the A&E series on Scientology where I mention that Patrick Mason “fears for the fundamentalist takeover of Mormonism.” I remember someone pushed back on this statement saying they thought a “takeover” from hardliners. Maybe it isn’t so much a “takeover” as the non-fundamentalist abandonment leaving hardliners – but the result is the same.

Yep, it’s like evolution instead of intelligent design. Selection bias looks like intention.

I’m seriously considering voting against the Brethren in Ward and/or Stake Conference as an alternative to voting with my feet, partly for this reason.

[Anonymous]

Reuben wrote:

I’m seriously considering voting against the Brethren in Ward and/or Stake Conference as an alternative to voting with my feet, partly for this reason.

Frankly I wouldn’t do that. No good will come of it. I have likewise been inclined not to sustain individuals (including GAs) in the past and took the passive approach by abstaining. Simply don’t raise your hand. You have made your point quietly in your own way and it will go largely unnoticed. It’s a principle thing. It works for me, but I do recognize it may not work for all.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’m seriously considering voting against the Brethren in Ward and/or Stake Conference as an alternative to voting with my feet, partly for this reason.

I am with DJ on this. Our church is sensitive to any push back it gets. We have been since 1830. I truly believe every time a person takes a hard stance, it just emboldens the very thing your pushing against.

Leaving your hand in your lap leaves room for you to still be included in conversations. No matter how noble something larger may seem. It very rarely turns things for good. The only reply might be – “Duly noted.” Yet the room is small enough for others to make mental notes you may not want.

Just my .02 cents, since I am keeping up with DJ.

[Anonymous]

Apologetics has a long-standing tradition of giving authority figures plausible deniability. They can say things without saying them and deny them whenever expedient. You are beginning to see already.

Quote:

“every time a person takes a hard stance, it just emboldens the very thing your pushing against.”

That which we resist, persists.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Ann wrote:

But then! Then we’ll hear, “Brian Hales was an energetic, accomplished student of church history whose opinions do not constitute doctrine.”

Yup. I believe that Brian is there to calm the individuals that will say “Bro. Hales knows all about this stuff and he isn’t bothered by it.” He is the Hugh Nibley for the next generation. I was frankly surprised that his fairly recent wife so quickly began co-writing with him. What level of historical expertise does she provide to the team? My more cynical side believes that the “defending polygamy pill” is slightly easier to swallow coming from a husband and wife team than just with an exclusively male voice.

Plausible deniability all around.

I had a post that I accidentally deleted.

Upshot: The Haleses’ tendency to, as hawkgrrl says, sweep facts under the revisionist rug is doubly bad because it sets such a low standard for the modern conversation about polygamy. I was triggered by an account on another site of a g-g-g grandmother’s authenticated and tragic polygamy story being whitewashed.

I don’t really like calling a person by name. It feels harsh, but one person essentially carrying the church’s water on this means we will talk about him and now his wife. I know they are good people; I just don’t agree with their approach. In addition to all the online discussions, there are three volumes (plus the “toward an understanding” fourth volume) totaling 1,794 pages. When they publish as many pages of authentic, non-cherry picked journals and reminiscences from women, and really wrestle with the implications for their apologetics, I’ll have more respect for their work. Right now I sense their love and loyalty to “the cause,” but no real human consideration for the cost then and now.

[Anonymous]

Bill Reel has a nice interview with Carol on the topic of her book, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy.

It can be found here:

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/01/premium-carol-lynn-pearson-haunting-hearts-heaven/

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the link.

Quote:

This is the issue that life has chosen me to bring to my people.

Quite a statement coming from the author of “Goodbye, I Love You.” She got 8,000 responses to her survey and 2,500 stories. She’s sent signed copies of this book to all top leadership.

Quote:

Crazy-making.

Section 132.

Quote:

If men could understand what that section does to a woman’s heart and spirit and psyche, they wouldn’t stand for it.

She talks about the damage that looming polygamy does to marriages, intimacy, families, etc. Our insane (my word) sealing policies are discussed. We just need to take harem-style mortal polygamy completely off the table. Then we can help people understand that life is messy – gazillions of people marry more than once – and we need to accept that. Which is a far cry from saying that God was cool with breaking the heart and spirit of your great-great-great grandmother who was pregnant with her sixth when her husband brought home a nineteen year old and hardly had the time of day for her anymore. That is crazy-making, telling girls to love a God who couldn’t find any other way to accomplish his work and, who knows, may need to go that route again.

[Author]

Posts