- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been thinking some about the source of some of my anger concerning the Church and I think part of it is a simple disconnect that happens for most people at some level. I don’t know if anyone else experiences these problems as well, but it seems to me that I’ve just done a bad job of separating these two things in a sufficiently specific way to avoid anger. Now, I think sometimes this point is obvious: it’s always in the Church’s interest for you to do more work, accept more callings, take out more trash, etc. We all have to implicitly acknowledge the other and set boundaries, TBM or not. Sometimes, though, the conflict is a lot deeper than stuff like that. For example, it’s probably not in the Church’s best interest for me to know very much about Mormon history. As a self styled intellectual, I definitely think this is in my interest, particularly if it helps me to come to a fuller knowledge of the truth and the Church. It’s not in the Church’s interest for me to regard church commitments as less important than family commitments. It’s definitely not in the Church’s interest for me to pick and choose what I’m going to do and believe.
The problem is that I forgot that this isn’t really the Church’s fault. Wouldn’t your job love it if you bought everything the CEO told you? Wouldn’t your job love it if you just worked twice the hours for half the pay? Wouldn’t your friends love it if you bought them stuff all the time for no reason? Of course, definitely, and why not? Everyone wants you to serve them completely in the abstract. In the case of the Church, they actually believe that a near complete service will make you happier, so they don’t even have to feel bad about using you because they don’t think that’s what they’re doing.
Of course, sometimes you should do things that aren’t in your interests (for example, to meet your ethical responsibilities). But there’s a difference between that and actively pursuing a goal that’s not what you believe in. So, I think in order to be a “good” “cafeteria Mormon”, I need to learn to not be mad when we’re just pursuing different goals. I don’t get mad when somebody tries to block my shot or set a ball screen because that guy’s just doing his job, and it’s a worthy job. Maybe I shouldn’t be mad at the Church for trying to do its honest best and should instead focus on setting reasonable boundaries.
Gabe, that is a great insight. I think you are exactly right– about everything except the following: Quote:It’s not in the Church’s interest for me to regard church commitments as less important than family commitments.
I’ve heard the leadership stress family over all else as long as I can remember. This conference, I heard someone say it’s not OK to neglect family for church. In our bishops training last week, our Stake Presidency talked to the bishops about delegating everything they can and spending their time doing what they alone can do. They then asked the bishops, “Which group should receive most of your time and attention?” The bishops pretty much all said, “the youth”. I said, “your families”. They said,Quote:“Your wives will look back and call these the hardest years of their lives. Don’t make it any harder for them and your children than you absolutely have to make it.”
I understand what you are saying, but I think “The Church” values family commitments as more important than church commitments. I just think that real feeling gets lost in the pressure of daily administration far too easily – particularly at the local level.
Yeah, I definitely agree that this is what we teach, so I probably should not have been so strong with that statement. I was especially harsh because it’s also usually what we practice. There have been a few things along this line that have bothered me lately, though. For example, if I ever get married, I’ll be forced to make a choice between excluding my family from my wedding (as I’m the only member in the family) or talking a spouse into waiting a year to be sealed in the temple, which would probably cause her and them a great deal of pain as well. I just cannot understand the reason we do this and I especially cannot understand why we force members who are married civilly to wait a year for the chance to be sealed in the temple. I get the justifications (“we don’t want people taking the temple marriage less seriously”) and I can see why this would be in the Church’s interest (if people have to pay up to go to their kid’s wedding, they’ll probably pay up). But the idea that it’s about anything other than social pressure just doesn’t fly, especially since we allow members in countries that require civil marriages to be sealed immediately. If there’s a doctrinal basis for that, then I assume we’d practice that doctrine all the time.
This is also a problem because there are patently obvious alternatives. For example, have a ceremony in the foyer of the temple or in a room especially prepared for that purpose, then have the couple and the sealer alone go into the proper room and have the ordinance done. Nobody feels excluded, nothing has been trivialized. The only thing that would stop that is a desire to make sure that there’s some level of exclusion. I wish that weren’t so. OK – a lot of people who want to witness the ordinance wouldn’t be able to do so. But honestly, so what? They’re still involved at the same level as everyone else, they still witness the same vows…..
I also think some of our other practices cause similar strains. Any time we exclude someone from anything on the basis of worthiness, it causes divisions in families, even when there’s no worthiness issue (“Jim has missed five temple nights in a row, I wonder what’s happening with his marriage”). I don’t think this is as deliberate as the marriage thing, but it’s an issue.
In short – I think the Church does a great deal to make sure that family relationships aren’t compromised by church activity. I also think that when we’re forced to choose, they’d rather come out on top. I probably shouldn’t be mad about that in light of my first post, but it is what it is.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree totally about making allowances for marriages and sealings. I also think there are alternatives that would be easy to implement. I think most of the reason we don’t have working alternatives is that the “wait to get sealed” delay still is tied to integrally to the “shotgun wedding” mentality. I advocate a separate ring ceremony that is a wedding in EVERY way except the actual “I now pronounce you man and wife” line. Ring exchange, reading vows, walking down an aisle, flower girls, whatever – Get sealed in the temple, then get have a full ceremony, if you want. Include everyone. I wish it could be the other way around, because I agree it should be possible here like elsewhere.
Especially since marriage is such a social institution. It’s not just a religious ordinance and it’s not just a covenant between two people. It’s about family coming together to honor another branch of the family tree. It’s supposed to be everything to us and yet we cause such pain. I’ve pretty well made up my mind that I won’t exclude my family from my wedding day or my marriage, and I guess anyone who wants to marry me (poor soul!) is just going to have to be OK with that. At the same time, if I were to end up with a very conventional Mormon, I would not want to cause her family pain by delaying what would surely be a special day for them as well. It’s just a bad situation and it doesn’t have to happen. Again, I guess it’s essential to remember that the Church isn’t the only place where family pressures are created. Our jobs, our schools, heck, even our families can do that. I just wish we could do a little better when we teach how important the family is at every opportunity.
So, I guess on the original point of my post, this is just the sort of situation where I’m going to have to practice what I preached. I’ll have to remember that the Church isn’t evil, it isn’t trying to force me to do anything……it’s just an institution with its own rules. I don’t like the consequences of those rules, so I’ve got to be a man and take responsibility for my own path without blaming them. I chose them too.
*Valoel stands up and applauds* I loved your original post Gabe P. Thanks for sharing that perspective. It’s all about the boundaries. The leaders at Church trying to get us involved in programs don’t have any sinister agenda. One of the main (and good) purposes of the social organization we call “church,” is in fact to get us out of our shells and involved in the community. Personal boundaries are the counterbalance. What are we able to give to the community? How much do we want to give right now? That all depends on us.
I enjoyed this post and think (maybe naively so) that if you are true to yourself and like you said, practice what you preach, you will find a bride who will also want to be inclusive and will understand your feelings surrounding this issue. Best wishes! professionalmom wrote:I enjoyed this post and think (maybe naively so) that if you are true to yourself and like you said, practice what you preach, you will find a bride who will also want to be inclusive and will understand your feelings surrounding this issue. Best wishes!
Indeed. In any case, you gotta keep believing.
Gabe P wrote:it’s always in the Church’s interest for you to do more work, accept more callings, take out more trash, etc.
Gabe, I’m a bit late to this discussion, but really like your post and this has definitely been an issue in my home.
I remember attending a 4 hour stake meeting where the focus was making sure we put families first. In order to attend, I had to miss my daughter’s soccer game. I thought that was so ironic.
I agree with you we certainly need to set boundaries, and I have never felt church leaders make me feel bad for telling them I couldn’t do something because my family needed me. I may agonize over whether I should tell them or not, but have NEVER been made to feel bad about it.
Another point I wanted to bring out, regarding what is in the church’s interest, I think if you listen to President Hinckley over the years, he always challenged us to make sacrifices, raise the bar, lengthen our stride, knowing we will be blessed for it. I think church leaders sometimes need to gently push us a little out of our comfort zone because it is in OUR best interest, not just because they need people to serve, but leaders have good intentions that it will bless our lives. It is in the Church’s best interest to strengthen members’ commitment by enriching their lives, or people will leave and the church will lose. The Church can only prosper if it is blessing people’s lives, otherwise without the people, it is nothing. For that reason, I think they will challenge us, but they don’t know what is too much for us to handle, which should be our responsibility for pushing back, knowing they will respect us for such.
Heber, I can generally agree with most of that. The only quibble I’d have is that with the idea that church leaders are going to push us for our own good and that it’s up to us to set the limits. I definitely think we shouldn’t attribute evil intentions, but I also don’t know that we should attribute good intentions either. I’ll never forget this quotation from “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” (horribly paraphrased) “Whenever I see something that used to be human and isn’t now, or ought to be human and isn’t, I watch my step and feel for my hatchet.”
I feel the same way about any institution that wants me to do something for my own good that also happens to be in their interest. I really do think the leaders of the Church care about us, but I also think “lengthen your stride” really means “serve the institution with all your heart, might, and mind”. In that sense, I don’t think they really think serving the church will directly make us happier. I think they believe that our service is necessary to create a stronger church, and a stronger church will then make us happier, creating a virtuous circle. That’s true to some extent, but I find it more accurate to determine the extent to which being involved in the church is a reasonable sacrifice on my part and then give only that much. There is no limit in my mind to what any institution will claim to be in your interest as long as it’s remotely possible that your sacrifice will enrich them.
I know that’s a pretty negative view, but it’s not just the Church. It’s any corporation and we’re not good and pure enough to be any different.
I really enjoyed this post, and I am glad that I came to it a bit late because everyone’s replies were so interesting. I agree with much of what was said, especially of how the church states that family should always come first. It is true that they do… I just find in my own personal experience, and that of the people I have seen in the 4 different wards that I have lived in, it doesn’t work this way in practice. It almost seems like one thing is being said and another thing is being done. The practice of neglecting your family for the sake of your calling is rampant in the church, and whether the church condones it or not, they are the ones responsible for setting in place the conditions for it to happen.
In my ward, I was recently released as first counselor in the Primary Presidency, and they still have not found anyone to replace me. The second counselor is the wife of our bishop, and was called to that position when she was 7 and a half months pregnant with her fourth child. After she had her baby, she was back at church in primary running sharing time when her baby was only three weeks old. The Primary President has five children ranging in age from 6 months to 8 years old, and her husband is the first counselor in the bishopric! I remember when he was called to that position, his wife had just given birth to their fifth child and they released him from the Stake High Council. I sat there in SM thinking, oh that will be so nice for his wife to have him with her at church to help out with all those young kids. Thirty seconds later they were calling him as a member of the bishopric and asking him to take his place on the stand… so much for being with his family!
I also remember a few years ago when my husband was called as the second counselor in the bishopric, the bishop looked right at me and said that this was a bishopric of young families, and that those families came first. At the time the youngest of our five kids were an infant and a toddler. The bishop said that if any of the members of the bishopric felt that they were better needed sitting with their families instead of on the stand then they were welcome to do so. This sounded so nice… but turned out to be a total joke. My husband would sit up on the stand shifting uncomfortably in his seat watching me wrestle with our five children throughout SM, sometimes to the point that I would be almost in tears. He never did get up and come down to sit with me. Even my friend who sat in the pew in front of me (and tried her best to help me but had her own kids to deal with) would get so frustrated and say, “How can he just sit up there and watch you struggle like this???” When I confronted him about it, he said he just felt SO much pressure to stay up on the stand since the other men with young families did too… he just didn’t want to be conspicuous.
😯 I was so annoyed by the whole thing that I gave up on SM for the remaining four months that he was in the bishopric. I just told him flat out that I wasn’t doing it on my own anymore, and I started to arrive at church right at the end of SM. I have always secretly wondered if my behaviour expedited his release from the bishopric
My DH is not alone in feeling the peer pressure at church to behave one way when the official word does not approve it. I see people neglecting their family all the time for the sake of their calling because they feel guilty if they don’t keep up with what everyone else is doing. I am sure we have all heard it said that the family as a whole will receive blessings as a result of the sacrifices made when members of it are taken away so much by their callings. To me the biggest blessing my family could have would be to have more time together!
Anyway… that’s the end of my rant. Cool post Gabe, and I COMPLETELY empathize with your feelings on the “closed-off” temple, which would come as no surprise considering some of my previous posts. I don’t think it is possible to measure the amount of heartache that tradition has caused. You might be interested in an article written by Todd Compton in the March 1999 issue of Sunstone titled, “Thoughts on the Possibility of an Open Temple”. If you haven’t read it yet I think you will enjoy it.
Fwiw, the Church gets blamed a lot for our failure to live the ideal. It’s only natural, but it is what it is – unfortunately. Quote:It almost seems like one thing is being said and another thing is being done. The practice of neglecting your family for the sake of your calling is rampant in the church, and whether the church condones it or not, they are the ones responsible for setting in place the conditions for it to happen.
I think this usually happens for one of the following reasons:
1 – humans are motivated to ask for too much. Sometimes this is justified because they “aren’t asking for more than they are personally willing to do” (but that doesn’t take into account the other person’s unique circumstances. Also, some people just have different standards for how they want things done or they are micromanaging, controlling types who think it has to be the way they envision it, placing very specific expectations on others.
2 – humans are motivated to give too much / perfectionism. People are afraid of falling short or feel that “God expects more,” or feel guilt for other reasons.
3 – people care too much what others think of them. Some people don’t want to tell someone no who is above them in hierarchy (there is an unhealthy amount of deference for authority), or they are afraid of displeasing others or being viewed as not good enough.
Once you get rid of #3, you get rid of most of #1 and #2 unless you have a lot of personal guilt type baggage as a person.
Hawk, I think that’s right. I also think we bring it on ourselves as an organization. For any large group, all three of those patterns that you identify are adaptive. People asking for more, saying no less, and constantly feeling like they’re not good enough is necessary to get people to do stuff that’s not good for them, but is good for the group. There are two reasons to pay taxes: because they’ll beat you up if you don’t or because you feel like it’s the right thing to do. Since the Church has limited access to the first remedy (with the exception of excommunication/disfellowshipping), they’ve got to employ the second. As individuals, we’ve got to be aware of these things at a personal level and do the things which are necessary for us. We’ve also got to get used to the idea that the Church has pretty much never asked anyone to reduce their level of commitment and never will. It won’t stop with that nursery calling, it won’t stop with giving them ten percent of your money. It won’t stop until you tell them firmly to jump in a lake. Sacrifice – yes. Self-immolation – no.
Gabe P wrote:It won’t stop until you tell them firmly to jump in a lake.
Or that you are so worn out by your work at the homeless shelter (assuming that’s what you do) that it would be a mistake to commit to more. Sacrifice, even great sacrifice, is good. Cloistering is bad. And Jesus seems to have taught that making promises is a bad thing, and that saying no may be good?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.