From Mormon Women, a Flood of Requests and Questions on Their Role in the Church | NY Times

[Dr. Jones]

Indirectly, yes people feel that way if they still believe in the church and were excommunicated due to sin. However, excommunication is not permanent because a person can repent and return to the church. However, it is nonsense to think that if you don't repent that excommunication means any else but going to hell. You might not hear it or people in the church might not use these exact words but they will call you an apostate. There is nothing worse for a believing mormon than being excommunicated. There is also the public shame of it when they announce the decision in priesthood meeting. So most of the males know and eventually the majority of the ward members find out through gossip.

My father was excommunicated and I felt the shame of it with all the gossiping about it. As I grew up and realized that I never believed in the church, I decided to leave the church, I was not excommunicated but left on my own. People will say you must of been sinning to leave but I hadn't at the time I left the church but I've received a letter from church headquarters that there will be grave eternal consequences if I don't reconsider my decision. I interpreted that as I am going to hell. I am sure many of my friends secretly think that and some have publicly said it. I have lost a few friends but I don't think I am going to hell. I don't believe in hell.

I've never regretted my decision and wish I had made it earlier in life. I have a lot of good memories in the church (socially) and I believe there are many good kind Mormons in the church. I've never tried to recruit anyone out of the church and would never do so because it took me many years to remove myself because it was part of my social circle. I will respectfully discuss my doctrinal and personal issues I have with the LDS church if asked or if an LDS person feels they need to reconvert me. My only hope is that the church addresses some of these social changes with the compassion of Christ instead of the judgmental minds of men. So far they don't have such a good track record. However, I believe churches can and should repent (apologize) just like people.

Wow. . LOVE that last sentence.

 

[colton]

While your experiences are true it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Oh, I am sure it happens. To paraphrase Larry Niven, no cause is so noble that you can't find jerks who follow it. But in my experience the vast majority of LDS members are content to leave judging of who is saved and who is not up to the Ultimate Judge.

 

[Zulu]

Oh, I am sure it happens. To paraphrase Larry Niven, no cause is so noble that you can't find jerks who follow it. But in my experience the vast majority of LDS members are content to leave judging of who is saved and who is not up to the Ultimate Judge.

It's tricky.... Somewhat if a catch 22...

In the church and I assume many denominations and other religions we are taught to not only repent of sin but to also avoid it.. We are taught to avoid the very appearance of evil... This is taught in church as don't hang out with those people who sin less you fall into sin!!! Often many church members come off holier-than-thou because of this and very judgey!!!

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I know maybe 15 or so excommunicated. That's not my point, though.

My point is that living in Utah I see way too many stressed out (including bishops and stake presidents, mission presidents, etc) over measuring up to the standards expected of them. Does God expect much? I don't claim to know His level of expectation. But what I do feel is a spiritual sorrow for those that have not just been excommunicated, but for those that are active but feel like they're drowning in appointed responsibilities.

I'm sure this post will come off as a pandering toward grace is greater than works (it's not the meaning, though I do believe that to be true), but my intention is more pure. I simply witness, on a daily basis, very good people so tired and struggling to keep up that they have little time to rest and have fellowship with their Lord and Savior. Am I bashing the LDS church? Please.. no. I just believe it, like others before it, has gotten out of hand and it is slowly replacing God Himself in the lives of the average member. I'm not being cute, at all, when I say that mourns my spirit.

I have seen people stressed and under pressure in regards to church callings and feeling like they have to do too much. In my opinion there is a cultural issue that for some reason people feel like they need to do more, and all activities need to be big, or bigger or more complex than the last one. This sort of thing adds stress and pressure. I believe it is a cultural pressure that doesn't need to be there.

My opinion, which is backed by some of the things I have heard from some church leaders, is that we need to simplify. We don't need a huge complex activity, and in my opinion the complexity most often takes away from the point of the gathering. These activities are supposed to be a support to the families of those that attend. It should be simple, it should have a point, and it should have the Spirit to lift and help and strengthen. When too much is put into it, often those preparing are so stressed they get nothing good out of it. When stressed out, it is very hard to feel the Spirit and be uplifted.

I have also been told, and have also told others that these church callings are not the most important things and are to be a blessing to them and others they serve. Their spouses and families are their number one priority. If they miss a meeting or activity to take care of themselves or their family, that is fine and expected. Things will be fine, and can wait or move on without them if they have something else more important to do.

I really think people don't hear enough, or forget that the church is there to support the families, and while important and helpful, the family is most important.

I do think the stress issues and pressure are unnecessary and take away from the experience and take away from the family. It should be because you want to, not because you feel you have to. Also if you don't feel you can, you shouldn't be made to feel guilty. They should be asking what can be done to help you if you feel too stressed to accept a calling or more responsibility at that time.

 

[babe]

I know maybe 15 or so excommunicated. That's not my point, though.

My point is that living in Utah I see way too many stressed out (including bishops and stake presidents, mission presidents, etc) over measuring up to the standards expected of them. Does God expect much? I don't claim to know His level of expectation. But what I do feel is a spiritual sorrow for those that have not just been excommunicated, but for those that are active but feel like they're drowning in appointed responsibilities.

I'm sure this post will come off as a pandering toward grace is greater than works (it's not the meaning, though I do believe that to be true), but my intention is more pure. I simply witness, on a daily basis, very good people so tired and struggling to keep up that they have little time to rest and have fellowship with their Lord and Savior. Am I bashing the LDS church? Please.. no. I just believe it, like others before it, has gotten out of hand and it is slowly replacing God Himself in the lives of the average member. I'm not being cute, at all, when I say that mourns my spirit.

alright. . . .

Paul seemed to think the original commandment regarding women. . . . Eve being told she would be subject to her husband's leadership. . . . was not a bad thing. He even put it in a positive light, comparing the role of a man to that of Jesus, imploring men to love their wives as Jesus loves His Church, and to serve them the same way. . . .

men and women are not "equal" in the sense of being "equivalent" or identical. Practically every cell in the human body is impacted with the instructions inherent in the hormonal levels of estrogen and testosterone, with their manifold cascading biochemical ramifications. Men and women are different, that's the long and the short of it.

The male brain is different, and it suits having a different role in an interdependent schema. A woman who wants to "be equal" is actually devaluing herself, because it is her differing qualities and capacities that enhance her value. Similarly, a man who wants to be "effeminate" is devaluing himself by not caring to live out the role which maleness is better suited for. . . . .

and, btw, we really need to address our societal practices, and our commercial practices, of flooding our environment with chemicals that mess up our biological signal systems. . . . like plastics with estrogen mimic "plasticizers". . . .

Mormons grew out of the protestant and particularly "Baptist" line of theological thought, and have become a sort of "Neo-Catholic" Church. I am surprised at the resistance being seen today against the GLBT agenda, considering so many of the LDS leaders over the past hundred years have been drawn into the progressive camp, at least privately. I have thought they would make the jump when the courts rule GLBT rights into law, droning on about their mantra "We believe in obeying the Law". I have thought the Mormons would ordain women as well to the Priesthood, and continue their theology of conforming to the trends of society. Mormons never cease to amaze me.

You know, PKM, human beings are hardly ever what they think they are. We all live in some kind of idealized bubble, following a course we can hardly acknowledge as the fact of our existence, the truth of our actions, the problem of our thoughts. . . . .

God does not give us unconditional love. Among the conditions He requires are faith, and choices consistent with His virtues and designs. He might be willing to let us choose, as He is willing to let us learn, but His judgment will rest on our fundamental choice to love Him and value Him over the things/persons that are contrary to Him. The idea of grace only applies as a consequence of that choice, when we make it, for Him.

 

[Dr. Jones]

alright. . . .

Paul seemed to think the original commandment regarding women. . . . Eve being told she would be subject to her husband's leadership. . . . was not a bad thing. He even put it in a positive light, comparing the role of a man to that of Jesus, imploring men to love their wives as Jesus loves His Church, and to serve them the same way. . . .

men and women are not "equal" in the sense of being "equivalent" or identical. Practically every cell in the human body is impacted with the instructions inherent in the hormonal levels of estrogen and testosterone, with their manifold cascading biochemical ramifications. Men and women are different, that's the long and the short of it.

The male brain is different, and it suits having a different role in an interdependent schema. A woman who wants to "be equal" is actually devaluing herself, because it is her differing qualities and capacities that enhance her value. Similarly, a man who wants to be "effeminate" is devaluing himself by not caring to live out the role which maleness is better suited for. . . . .

and, btw, we really need to address our societal practices, and our commercial practices, of flooding our environment with chemicals that mess up our biological signal systems. . . . like plastics with estrogen mimic "plasticizers". . . .

Mormons grew out of the protestant and particularly "Baptist" line of theological thought, and have become a sort of "Neo-Catholic" Church. I am surprised at the resistance being seen today against the GLBT agenda, considering so many of the LDS leaders over the past hundred years have been drawn into the progressive camp, at least privately. I have thought they would make the jump when the courts rule GLBT rights into law, droning on about their mantra "We believe in obeying the Law". I have thought the Mormons would ordain women as well to the Priesthood, and continue their theology of conforming to the trends of society. Mormons never cease to amaze me.

You know, PKM, human beings are hardly ever what they think they are. We all live in some kind of idealized bubble, following a course we can hardly acknowledge as the fact of our existence, the truth of our actions, the problem of our thoughts. . . . .

God does not give us unconditional love. Among the conditions He requires are faith, and choices consistent with His virtues and designs. He might be willing to let us choose, as He is willing to let us learn, but His judgment will rest on our fundamental choice to love Him and value Him over the things/persons that are contrary to Him. The idea of grace only applies as a consequence of that choice, when we make it, for Him.

So do you believe that, generally speaking, the LDS church has allowed the works part of the equation to get out of balance with other similarly and seemingly 'important' things? I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts, in perticular, because you seem to be very fair with your own analysis and speak it as you see it.

 

[babe]

So do you believe that, generally speaking, the LDS church has allowed the works part of the equation to get out of balance with other similarly and seemingly 'important' things? I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts, in perticular, because you seem to be very fair with your own analysis and speak it as you see it.

I have a little movie called "Ring The Bell" that I watch sometimes, and love as you might as well. It is about a sports talent agent who, chasing a baseball talent, runs into some actual Christians. It features "Casting Crowns" in one of their local events/concerts. I get a little sad with the outfits that emphasize the first step of Christianity over all the path that should be the Christian life. Mormons will respond to that emphasis with something like "Faith without Works is Dead", and will expect a member to keep the Word of Wisdom, pay a tithe, and do a lot of other things, calling their "walk" the Gospel. But I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis that it amounts to displacing God in your life with conforming to the "commandments of men".

Jesus said we are all sinners, that all come short of the glory of God. It is inherent in our minds to displace God with some kind of idolatry, some kind of idea of our creature thinking in the place of actual reverence for our Creator. . . . .

I have had this little lecture I wanted to hold forth over my wife for years that would redirect on pretty much my whole vision of her shortcomings. Sunday night, driving back through LA. . . well, at least through the burbs on the 210 Freeway, there was a Calvary Chapel minister holding forth on the First and Second commandments, discussing how idolatry can include our ideas, as well as our stuff and cultural priorities. I wisely shut my pie hole when I saw she was listening in agreement. That minister gave out my would-"ve-been lecture pretty much as I had contemplated, and gave me a platform for some compliments which go down just like pie, with no gagging or choking, to her delight. In her mind, it is just what she has always believed herself, and might have tried to "teach" me.

I sorta think there might be a whole lot of that kind of "sharing" in our faiths if we actually loved one another enough to understand, and maybe less of our penchant for imposing our emphasis on others, in a manner that is in itself making an idol out of our faiths. . . . .

I feel sad about non-LDS Christians, as well as LDS folks, when I'm measuring their ways against what I see as the actual teachings of the scriptures. . . .

 

[One Brow]

men and women are not "equal" in the sense of being "equivalent" or identical. Practically every cell in the human body is impacted with the instructions inherent in the hormonal levels of estrogen and testosterone, with their manifold cascading biochemical ramifications. Men and women are different, that's the long and the short of it.

The male brain is different, and it suits having a different role in an interdependent schema. A woman who wants to "be equal" is actually devaluing herself, because it is her differing qualities and capacities that enhance her value. Similarly, a man who wants to be "effeminate" is devaluing himself by not caring to live out the role which maleness is better suited for. . . . .

While noting that there are differences between the "typical" or "average" man and their female counterpart, applying these differences as applying to all men/women is gender essentialism at its worst, and places both men and women into boxes, many of which are more confining than defining. Personally, I've always looked good in pink.

 

[babe]

While noting that there are differences between the "typical" or "average" man and their female counterpart, applying these differences as applying to all men/women is gender essentialism at its worst, and places both men and women into boxes, many of which are more confining than defining. Personally, I've always looked good in pink.

I'm pretty sure you look better in pink than in buff. . . . I could say the same thing about "blue" vs. some alternatives, as well, I'm sure.

I'd take "gender essentialism" as a high ideal, something equivalent to your progressive imperatives, I'm sure.

The high priests of marxism, socialism, progressivism, and every other form of statism are correct in their assessment that it is convenient to control the narrative and re-shape society in their own images. . . and even a necessity to their purposes, to make all of us human cattle "equal" in our chains, to make us manageable to their purposes.

I've been wondering what it will take to shake you from your delusions of grandeur as someone fit to instruct and inform all of us ignoramuses who just don't want to be your sheep.

I think we humans are in some respects glorious as we are. . . . by nature as well as by our credentials as "God-given" and "God-loved" creatures. People with idolatrous imperatives are hardly qualified to improve upon mankind. Liberty is my ideal, my idol so to speak. We have all the potential within ourselves to improve upon ourselves that any government can possibly have, no matter how many self-styled eggheads with their notions of how to manage the rest of us can imagine their ideals are "for the best", whether secular or religious in pretension. . . . .

the fundamental personal choice is sacred to our standing as human.

 

[Hantlers]

So do you believe that, generally speaking, the LDS church has allowed the works part of the equation to get out of balance with other similarly and seemingly 'important' things? I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts, in perticular, because you seem to be very fair with your own analysis and speak it as you see it.

This is totally un-related, but your works sentence reminded me of this phrase that I like.

'We are saved by faith, through grace, for works.'

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree that the works can get overwhelming and cloud the message, but it does seem to me that nearly every time Jesus taught directly about his gospel the lesson was followed with an admonition to do something, to change somehow. I have always had an issue with people who claim to be "saved" who never changed their lives at all, and they argue that accepting Christ is enough, while the continue with full on lewd and lascivious behavior. I think if you truly are "saved" it would be evident in your "works", not despite or apart from or even in contradiction of them. The New Testament is full of instructions of how to live (see the beatitudes, "let your light so shine", "be ye therefore perfect", etc.) that is is silly to think that there is NOTHING expected besides claims of belief. But there has to be a balance, it can't be just one with not even a nod to the other, imo.

 

[One Brow]

I'm pretty sure you look better in pink than in buff. . . . I could say the same thing about "blue" vs. some alternatives, as well, I'm sure.

I look good in reds and greens, as well.

I'd take "gender essentialism" as a high ideal, something equivalent to your progressive imperatives, I'm sure.

The high priests of marxism, socialism, progressivism, and every other form of statism are correct in their assessment that it is convenient to control the narrative and re-shape society in their own images. . . and even a necessity to their purposes, to make all of us human cattle "equal" in our chains, to make us manageable to their purposes.

I've been wondering what it will take to shake you from your delusions of grandeur as someone fit to instruct and inform all of us ignoramuses who just don't want to be your sheep.

Here, the shackles are the ones your traditions have put on other people. Gender essentialism tells us that the person genetically XY can be a female if they have a physical condition, like androgen sensitivity syndrome, but not if their difference between gene-typicality and gender occurs in the brain (inless the arbitrary essentialism is based on genes, but then there are other difficulties). Your ilk has decided the shape of the society they wish to impose on others, for the purposes of your own ease of classification, and decided to impose their control on whether and how people express their gender. You're the one demanding sheep here, by following of relatively rigid gender roles; I'm the one advocating for freedom and keeping society off of people's backs, in this case.