- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thankful wrote:
I sure hope you are right Cwald. I feel SO adamantly upset by this unnecessary policy, and yes, I consider it unrighteousness dominion.
I am very comfortable labeling this as “organizational abuse.” I hesitate to call it “unrighteous dominion” because of some of the baggage those word have. If I start calling certain church policies “unrighteous dominion” then more than a few might assume that I am calling the church leadership unrighteous.
Quote:“when we undertake … to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”
I can understand how this policy might be defined as unrighteous dominion. I also understand how the LDS church could meet the criteria of a cult.
But because these words have so much baggage attached in addition to any standard definition – I am hesitant to use these terms.
Good point Roy. Though I don’t much see the difference between someone exercising “unrighteousness dominion” and someone being abusive. Calling it organizational “abuse” implies unrighteous behavior in my opinion. (Unless we think God is a-ok with abusive behavior.) After seeing the lasting damage this policy can cause to some family relationships, it’s hard for me to see it otherwise.
Common Twit, you mentioned that you see a problem with the church not allowing couples to marry civilly to include family. But in other cases, you are fine with the rules.
We are in agreement. Like you, I see no problem with the church imposing a waiting period for those who can’t honestly pass a temple recommend interview. I think that is exactly fitting. My problem is the church choosing to punish people who can and do qualify for temple recommends, but try to please family by doing both a civil wedding and a sealing.
SamBee wrote:Cadence wrote:I see no problem with waiting a year to go to the temple. In fact I think everyone should get married civilly then in a year they can get sealed if they desire. Pushing people into a temple marriage first seems the problem to me. I think the sealing a year later would actually have more meaning.
Good point.
I do know however, some couples refuse to have sex until the sealing. Not sure how that would work for a year though!
I think it would not work at all. If couples are going to take the notion that a sealing is really all about sex then not much you can do. That is why I advocate everyone what a year. If everyone is in the same boat then no big dealQuote:I do know however, some couples refuse to have sex until the sealing.
Some people are idiots – or zealots who will make things more difficult for themselves and others no matter what. Insisting on out-righteous-ing the rules is stupid.
SamBee wrote:some couples refuse to have sex until the sealing.
Haha. Well, it may be the couple doing that, but there’s no way it was the guy’s idea.If somebody told me that was their plan, I think I’d just give them a pleasant smile and say, “Hey, that’s a great idea. Just to show my support, I’ll give you 5 dollars for every day you make it. Give me a call sometime to let me know how much I owe you.”
Thankful wrote:Good point Roy. Though I don’t much see the difference between someone exercising “unrighteousness dominion” and someone being abusive. Calling it organizational “abuse” implies unrighteous behavior in my opinion. (Unless we think God is a-ok with abusive behavior.)
I guess you are right. Perhaps some context would be helpfull to understand how I am usung the words “organizational abuse.”
Quote:So, IMHO, organizational abuse up to and including excommunication is a virtual certainty for someone, somewhere, sometime. To be fair, I believe that all organizations suffer from “organizational abuse” and that there is always the dichotomy of the needs of the individual vs. the needs of the group.
To the degree that the needs of the group usurp the needs of the individual, organizational abuse exists.Cwald wrote:One of the sections I have highlighted in the How To StayLDS article says something to the effect, “only you can prevent organizational abuse. Only you can prevent the church from taking advantage of you.” If the church is taking advantage of you – stop it. (easier said than done, right?)
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2474&hilit=+organizational+abuse In this way – when your decision to fly a flag or park a junk car on your lawn in curtailed by your home owners association or city ordinance – this is organizational abuse.
In talking about church organizational abuse – perhaps the most extreme and thought provoking examples would be individuals that are excommunicated or otherwise disciplined for political purposes. If the church as a whole would suffer for the association with a particular individual – at what point do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one (or few)? Just because the action can be justified as a necessary evil doesn’t lesson the anguish of the individual who finds themself castoff from church fellowship.
I can’t speak for God but his organizations do not seem immune from organizational abuse. Richard Bushman asked an interesting question in RSR. Paraphrased – If above every doorpost in Zion is written “Holiness to the Lord” – what happens to individuals that don’t wish to display such signs above their doors?
Is there an official justification of this policy? Just curious since I’ve been trying to come up with my own. The best I’ve been able to come up with was the same justification I always heard for not having a ring ceremony… that they don’t want any other event(s) to outshine the importance of the sealing ordinance. As in the civil marriage becoming a huge production to the point where the sealing takes a backseat.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.