So, I've been thinking/mulling over stuff in my head for a few weeks now regarding Church/Gospel stuff. It all started (again) when I read a nice little 27-pages long essay of sorts from friends in Germany who've decided to quit Church. They're not the first making such a decision. Instead I've had quite a few friends who've left the Church in recent years - and interestingly, most of them not for the reasons one may assume. None of these people left the Church because they directly broke some commandment and were 'unrepentend' or just didn't care about religion anymore. None of them left because they lost their testimony dabbling in anti-Mormon literature or whatever. Actually, it seems that a lot of them left (or lost their testimony) digging maybe a little too deeply into Church documents/history and the like.
Anyway, as I was reading the detailed explanation of my friends of what led to their change of mind, I could actually relate to a lot of things they mentioned. Obviously, I haven't come to the same conclusions on stuff as they have, since I haven't left the Church, and have no intentions of doing so in the future. But yet, I could see where they were coming from. And it's given me a lot to think about.
Maybe I should say at this point that whatever I'll bring up/discuss next in this post, that I love the gospel deeply, that I enjoy being a member, that I believe in the general organization of the Church, and that the biggest problem with this post will be the fact that no matter how much truth there may be to whatever I write, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of it also means that I'm judging...and that's always a dangerous thing. So there. I have no illusions about myself being just as much a sinner as the next person. But with all that said, I still want to write about stuff that just has rubbed me wrong way and that I simply don't understand.
The Gospel
I love the gospel of Christ. It's what gives my life meaning, what gives me hope when things are tough. I completely believe in the teachings of Christ, his atonement, and that anyone who makes an effort to follow him and emulate him will reap great blessings in their lives, and also become a blessing for others. But, to me the gospel, and the Church are at times two separate shoes. I don't think they ought to be, but at times they are.
The Church
That's where the fun starts. I believe that Christ established his Church. I believe in the restoration of this Church. I believe in the organization of having prophets, apostles, teachers, bishops. I believe in revelation. All the typical stuff I believe. But, there is stuff I don't believe. I don't believe in perfect human beings - and with that I include prophets. I think prophets are capable of mistakes and sin, just like everyone else. I even think they're capable of making mistakes in their leadership/role as prophets. Does that mean that I believe they teach falsehoods, on purpose? No, not really. But, I don't think everything that comes out of the mouth of a prophet (or apostle, or bishop or stake president) is inspired. I think sometimes they share opinions, feelings, cultural views. Why does this matter? Well, it shouldn't really. When we read about prophets in the scriptures, it's pretty evident that all of them at some point or another had need to repent, or simply did things wrong. Alma's baptismal prayer certainly wasn't the one Jesus wanted to be used. Maybe that's why it got corrected in 3 Nephi right away. So, stuff happens. And it doesn't worry me. Actually, I feel like I need to believe this, or else I'd probably leave the Church like a lot of my friends.
But, here comes the issue with all of this now. You cannot in the least suggest what I just suggested in Church. The Church (meaning the general membership) has developed not only a culture of its own, but has allowed in many ways for cultural views, or non-gospel related views to become akin to doctrine. When you're in Church, you're supposed to follow any leaders, and not question anything. Why? Because of some quote that says that God would never allow for us to be lead astray. Ok. There is one single quote on that. Fair enough. But, it doesn't even explain what that means, and I bet most members don't even know who said it and where that's written. Could it not mean that as long as the overall goal is achieved, detours are acceptable? I'd like to believe that everything that comes out of the mouth of a Church leader is pure truth and the will and word of God. But then, why do general conference talks get changed? A great example is Elder Packer's recent talk. The one he gave at conference, and the one that was printed are quite different. Did he not pray about what to say before hand? I'm sure he did. So, why did it get changed? Was it not the will of the Lord? I could give millions of examples for stuff like that that simply suggest that, well, mistakes maybe happen, and sometimes we have to correct the course, change things, whatever. Yet, if you dare think that way, you're close to apostasy in the eyes of most.
Ok, well who cares about what others think, right? I don't, not really. But, here is the other part to this kind of blind, unquestioning, and not even doctrinal obedience: people start pushing it on you. It's extremely weird to me (and this is where I could relate to my friends in many way) how we sit in Church, trying to be these awesome, faithful Christians, and then miss the big picture 90 percent of the time. We think we're good because we don't smoke, drink, or wear skirts down to our knees or whatever, but eat and live in ways that really hurt the rest of the world (for example). We think we're nice because we give fast offering, and help others move, but don't even really reach out with eagerness in service to the rest of the community (or should I call them "the world"). Don't get me wrong. I don't think we're bad people, and helping someone move is better than not doing anything. Giving fast offering is great. I just think we get so complacent, and self-righteous. But not only that. Then we start getting hung up on things that have no meaning, and spiritually totally irrelevant - and usually in the name of "some Church leader said so, so therefore it's true". I've heard of so many instances where new converts for example, get a talking to about wearing a cross. Well, excuse me, who cares? I believe in the crucified Christ. All Christians believe also in the resurrected Christ. Just because Pres. Grant had a personal issue with crosses, certainly doesn't make them evil or bad or inappropriate. It's certainly possible to rejoice in the atonement while still wearing a cross. After all, we don't object to other items that have farfarfar less to do with Christ (such as Christmas trees, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc.). And yet. Or how about clothing? Ear rings? Beards? I do not believe in the least that the number of earrings in my ear will be checked on judgement day. Why would that matter at all? Or wearing a denim skirt to Church (which is ok) but being looked at for dressy pants? Really? You can only be reverent in a skirt? We get lured into so many weird things that when thought about more closely, and study a bit, really don't make sense or shouldn't matter. Yet, there are people breaking off engagements of these kinds of things - because if a Church leader suggested that that's how it ought to be then that's how it HAS to be. It's true. It's the word/will of God. And I just.don't.believe.that!
At some point taking the pill was evil according to prophets. Now it's ok. At some point interracial marriages were evil. Now they're ok. At some point masturbation was what caused homosexuality. Not we don't know. Prophets have changed their views on many things over time. And, as it goes, even good ol' Jospeh Smith and his apostles weren't all agreed on everything all the time. Nope. Yet, we now think that it's all clear-cut and everything is gospel truth. I just don't get it. And it bothers me. It bothers me because, for me, it detracts often times from the things that really matter: how can I love and serve my fellow beings? How can I uplift and enlighten and bring others closer to Christ? How can I alleviate suffering? Just by teaching to comply with a certain dress code, attending a certain amount of meetings, and just fitting in a certain mold? That just isn't the gospel to me. And it's even less gospel to me when we ignore stuff that's right out of the scriptures, but get hung up on stuff that has no apparent importance at all. I think I said that already. But really...for example, the scriptures (and even 1 hymn) are very clear on how much meat we should eat: we should eat it sparingly. Yet, every summer, wards have nothing better to do than having BBQs, and just in general, I'd say meat consumption is high among members. Should we care? Well, considering that red meat has been scientifically proven to be fairly unhealthy, that cow poop is responsible for about 50% of the ozone problems we're facing, and that huge cattle farms have caused a lot of environmental problems as well as consumer problems that have deeply affected living situations of people in other countries, I think this should be very important to members. But it's not. What are the consequences though, of wearing 2 earrings in your ear. Really, what's going to happen? That some superweird up-tight person may not want to join the Church? I don't think there is anyone out in the world with such an uptight view on earrings. Or that you won't have the spirit with you because of the second pair? Really? Wouldn't the spirit more likely withdraw or at least withdraw equally when ignoring scripture (and science) that say you shouldn't overdo it on the meat? Oh, wait, it's because we need to follow the prophets. Ok, what about following God? Those things just don't make sense.
Or a similar example could be our most recent tithing settlement. We hadn't gotten around to getting an appointment for that until the 29th of December. Then we ended up having friends visit that evening, and we chose to cancel the appointment. Well, when Henry informed the secretary about our cancellation via email, he got a call the next morning (at 7.15am) about how important it is to get this done before the year is over and blablablabla. At the end of this all, we felt guilty and like we were definitely headed for hell because we chose to cancel the appointment, thinking we could just do it later on. Well, turns out that tithing settlements don't have to be done in December. Really, they can be done any time of the year. It's just you telling your bishop that you're a full-tithe payer. That's all. The end-of-the-year stuff has no doctrinal importance or meaning at all. It's just a practical reason. That's all. As a matter of fact, our bishop called us today, and we 'settled' over the phone. No problem. Yet, we had to get harrassed and pressured as if this dead-line was a doctrinal and spiritual matter, when in truth it wasn't. I wonder how many other people feel the same way...why? Because we don't separate doctrine and practical/cultural stuff. We just assume that every little Church policy equals gospel truth. Bleh. I'm sure there are lots of people who just don't do tithing settlements because they don't know that you can do it any time, even if you weren't around in December. Stupid.
So we sit in Church, reinforcing many times ideas and concepts that may be practical, or useful, but aren't necessarily truth or doctrine or gospel. Deep and meaningful discussion of gospel truths, to me, often seem to be missing in Church. Instead I get to hear lots of tearfilled stories of stuff that are, well, personal views, cultural views, and half of the time, not gospel truths. Am I being very judgmental here? Yes. I realize I am. And I really need to work on swallowing my own pride, let people be (as ignorant as they want to be) and learn to love everyone. Yup, I realize that. I just wish that as a Church we could be more inclusive. Less concerned about fitting a certain image that has no real meaning. That we had the courage to ask more questions, to think more deeply about gospel topics, and mostly to just shed all the cultural crap. Arghhhhh - I just can't take the cultural crap anymore. It drives me nuts. And it really drives me nuts when people try to explain things that we don't have explanations for. We don't know why blacks didn't have the priesthood. Really, we don't. (I personally believe that racism simply was the name of the game at that point, and nothing got changed until a prophet inquired about it when society started changing its views on this - why not? Joseph Smith after all only seemed to receive inspiration on stuff once he'd ask. It didn't seem to just come out of nowhere. So, maybe no one ever asked until 1970 or whatever). Similarly we don't know why they started polygamy (and I don't recommend that you try to find out, because I did, and it was the most faith-shaking experience of my life - there was definitely a lot of odd stuff going on, lots of it, that we don't talk about in the Church, and it's probably better that way). There are lots of things we don't really know. And I think there are a lot of things we do simply because they never got changed/up-dated. Not because they're gospel truths...
Those are just some of my thoughts. I should mention that they aren't gospel truth either.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58379/Fostering-spiritual-growth-among-Latter-day-Saint-young-women.html
Or just to give you a tangible example...I just read this article and wanted to vomit on the comments from the sisters regarding the color of the YW booklets (they're pink, because the YW are pink...).
What's the doctrinal value here???? Women are pink? Soft? What? I know we don't have to be like the boys. I certainly don't want my girls to grow up thinking they have to be like the boys. But, I definitely don't want them to grow up thinking they have to be "pink" or fit some weird idea of femininity. I just want them to be who they are. Is that an eternal truth here? Or are some leaders up in Utah just getting carried away with some of their ideas in their effort to promote good things. (Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with the YW program, or setting goals, or having various values etc. - though I think the little sparkly stones on the stuff is stupid, along with the ugly medaillons, and the "honor-bee". Again, totally cultural. You wouldn't see a Chinese YW leader come up with something like that, I'm sure).
It's good to be aware of what you're a part of. If that means studying and understanding your church's early history, then so be it. You might not make the same decisions your friends did even after reading the same information.
Whatever conclusion you reach is great as long as you have a chance at full disclosure. That's all I will say about that. You seem to be doing what you believe is best for your family and that's what is most important. Good post. :)
I struggle with all of these things in the church too. I feel church is sooooooo boring. It is repeat repeat repeat. Makes me want to throw up. Nobody wants to talk about serious issues and everybody wants to look good so we say the right things to fit in. I have stopped participating at all because I can't say what I want to say without scrutiny from others. I have also noticed that almost every lesson is on Why our church is true not on being good, helping others, etc. etc. The majority of the time we are lifting ourselves up with pride in our church that we don't realize we aren't saying anything of worth. Oh, I could go on and on and on.
I agree with everything you have said here, except about not discussing some things like the beginnings of polygamy. When I find out historical truth in the church it makes me so mad I have been lied to that I cannot look past it. I wish someone higher up in the church would just say, "look, we aren't a perfect organization. Mistakes have been made, but we don't believe that anymore." My problem with polygamy is that we do still believe in it or else they would take it out of the D and C. So many things like that make me have a hard time with some gospel doctrine.
I love that you said that your friends left because of things they found out about the church from the church. Nobody in the church knows about this. They all assume people leave because of transgression. But I am finding more and more leave for the first reason.
Thanks for being brave enough to say these things. It made me brave enough to put a comment. I just hope not to be judged for my unconventional thinking.
Well, it always takes courage to say what you think when you know your opinion isn't mainstream.
I've been back and forth on writing about these thoughts. Part of me still wants to edit stuff or re-write things or delete it, because there are so many thoughts and so many ideas, and I don't know that I've effectively communicated all of them.
At the same time it's been on my mind so much and I needed to get it out here.
I should mention that I don't want this to turn into a Church bashing nor a member bashing. At the end of the day I realize that we all are imperfect. Me included. Everyone included. We all need to learn to love and forgive. Sometimes it's easy for me to forgive the obvious sinner, while I struggle to love and forgive those who maybe sin by being puffed up in pride or whatever. Sometimes I wonder if it's maybe me who is the prideful one, thinking I have it all figured out.
Anyway, I understand for sure where you're coming from Laura. So, no weird looks from me. :) But, I also don't know that I end up with the same conclusions as you. I don't feel lied to - not with polygamy, or anything. I don't think that even with all I've read that I have a full knowledge and grasp of what happened back then. I also think that the process of receiving revelation, and making corrections is one of focus and priority. I think not all things are always on top of the list to be taken to the Lord. And maybe they're not always on the top of things for the Lord either (especially if he really operates on a different time schedule as us). So, some corrections may be coming slowly, some never (maybe because the issue simply gets dropped by the side etc.).
Blablabla. I guess I could go on forever. I think we both feel that it would be nicer if any thoughts or questions can be thrown out at Church and be seriously discussed without getting the typical answers. Some questions cannot be answered with the sunday school answers. For those who've dug a bit deeper, or who're seeking variety or depth to discussions, that kind of stuff can be frustrating. At least that's how I feel right now.
Then again, I just chatted with Henry and realized that it's a matter of humility to find the truth in sometimes very ineptly delivered talks/lessons etc. Ok, time to eat.
I'm glad you guys commented. That way I don't feel like I'm all alone in how I feel.
I was kind of talking about something similar when I was visiting teaching this month. It seems to me that the church has recently been putting forth a lot of effort into getting back to the basics- being taught from Gospel Principals, simplifying Homemaking/Enrichment/RS meetings, etc. It seems to me like they're making a point to separate what's true from what's culture. Or maybe that's something I've been trying to do so it just seems that way to me. I will say though that if I didn't have the culture to make fun of I don't know what I'd do.
And maybe church can be a little dull. There's so much repitition because we can't figure out how to do what's already been asked. Milk before meat, you know? Except at ward parties and then just meat, meat and more meat :) It's so easy to get lost in the details, real or made up.
Sarah, I agree. I definitely think there are efforts in many ways to get the focus more on things again that matter. I remember, while I was teaching at the MTC (many moons ago), how they were just developing "Preach My Gospel". I was there with the first people to read it, give feedback on it, use it in class etc. We had a few meetings with Elder Ballard on it. Anyway, one big thing they mentioned was getting missionaries to teach by the spirit, and to not stick to lessons or a set format, but to know the gospel completely, and to be able to adapt to what the investigators need as prompted by the spirit.
I loved it. It made complete sense to me. And I was excited to teach this to the missionaries.
Well, now a good 6 years or so have passed. Today at Church we had Priesthood/RS with the mission president. He was a nice guy. He had some great ideas. I felt like he cared about missionary work. But, at the same time I felt sad as he repeatedly talked about teaching a "first lesson" or "second lesson" or how a lot of what he presented in his ideas was a mechanical approach to missionary work. It made me feel that even though there has been an effort to steer away from the mechanical to focus on the spiritual, we keep falling into that trap. But it's not just the lower membership people. He mentioned how he had changed the definition of "investigator" to figure out how to actually lead investigators to baptism etc. Apparently his approach worked and they've had a lot of success and improvement. However, he got a little talking to from SLC because of his change in definition, which somehow messed up the ability of the Church to compare this mission to others etc.
My thought was "who cares? If it works, and it helps people be converted, isn't that the most important?". I'm fairly sure the talking to wasn't coming from an apostle or the prophet. I bet it was an area seventy or someone of that nature. But it doesn't change the fact that we still seem to be falling into the traps of focusing on things of little meaning while overseeing what matters most.
But I'm sure that leading and changing an organization of millions of people, where everyone, no matter what, still has individuality, and a choice how to take things and present them/teach them to others, isn't a simple feat.
And Laura, I do think it'd be great to discuss the history of the Church in regards to polygamy. In a way I wish there was more of an open, detailed discussion on it at some point so we can get it all figured out, and out of our way. I guess my point was more that because it was so confusing and hard for me, I could see how it may just throw a lot of people, without any real benefit, and so therefore maybe it is better left by the wayside -until maybe we're more ready to grasp all the details, understand all the issues, and the like. I wasn't trying to suggest though that sweeping things under the carpet are the way to go. I like things out in the open.
You're going to be surprised by my comment...the Utah bred and raised Mormon with pioneer ancestry on both sides...but I agree with a lot of what you mean with the "cultural crap" of the church. Each ward we have been in has quirky traditions. Each time I find myself in a leadership position, I turn into the "bad guy" because I quit doing certain traditions. And often when I visit my parents and go to their ward, Rob and I will come back and just laugh with each other as we talk about the different "traditions" they use...my favorite was using a testimony shawl during RS testimony time...half of the women didn't want to touch it! For me, it interrupted the Spirit instead of inviting it.
As a missionary, I often felt held back in needing to teach the discussions instead of just teaching how Alma and Ammon and Paul taught...from the heart and from the scriptures. I love the gospel. I love the Truth. I serve in the Church because I know it's true and all of the imperfect people, including me, need help to reach the goal of Eternal Life.
Angie, I'm not surprised that you can see some of the silly cultural things that happen at Church. I'd think/hope that most people can see that, at least at times, or when it's really obvious.
But, to me this is not just about cultural weird things. I think anyone can see that a testimony shawl has no doctrinal value/need.
But what about wearing pants to Church? Would you do it? Would you be ok with Evelynn doing that? What if she wants two pairs of earrings? What about standing for the YW's theme? What about a woman choosing to work, while the husband stays at home? I could pull out more examples, but it's late...
My concern is more with stuff that a lot of people don't necessary see as cultural but as an important part of the gospel (aka gospel truth) - like the concept that we ought to wear dresses/skirts to Church because it's more modest/reverent etc.
I think that sometimes we forget that we are trying to be like God. Sometimes we get too casual in our relationships with him. ie wearing pants to church, praying in bed laying down instead of kneeling. And at times we are told to do things by prophets to see if we can be obedient. ie more than one earring in an ear. I truly believe that if you are found with more than one at judgment day you might have a few more obedience problems. You wouldn't let something like an earring keep you out of heaven or drinking coffee.
I DO believe that prophets are inspired to lead and direct the church. Pres. Monson is not only the prophet of the church, but the prophet of the world on the earth at this time.
And pink, isn't doctrine. It's a fact that girls are girls and not boys. Sometimes girls just need to be reminded that they are just that...female. Especially in these days.
I also agree with Sarah, that the church leadership is more aware than what we know about the world and what we need to know and are definitely taking us back to the basics. Love it.
Well, I guess we just disagree on this then Heidi. I mean, really, what's wrong with a dressy nice pant suit to church? What's casual about it if that's a nice, carefully picked outfit? I could point out a lot of dress that's farfarfar more casual than pants that I see in Church every Sunday.
I think being reverent is important. I think developing our relationship with God is important. I think being obedient to Heavenly Father's commandments is extremely important (I think the most important in fact), but I don't see how certain things represent God's commandments. Where does it say in the scriptures that sometimes we're asked to do meaningless things just to see if we can obey? I don't find that doctrinal. I think sometimes leaders just make suggestions or start stuff for, well, practical reasons (like tithing settlement at the end of the year).
Anyway, I respect your opinion, though I don't quite agree. :)
Oh - and we also did tithing settlement in Jan. I'm pretty sure it just matters that you declare. But it is also helpful for us to be there and doing it at once with the rest of the ward so it makes less work for the clerk and such. i would assume.
Well, I know Elder Packer's talk was different, because I listened to it very carefully when he spoke, and was kind of shocked at some of the stuff he said. I remembered it clearly, and Henry did too, and lots of other people who were not too happy about what he said, did as well. Then in the printed version, it got changed (and stuff he said was taken out). Mike should start taking notes and listen more carefully during conference, or I'll guarantee he'll burn. :)
So, it got changed. And that's not untypical actually. Talks get edited and changed quite a bit.
Anyway, I should maybe clarify some more things as well. I do think being obedient is important - I think though that being obedient to God and his commandments is what is important, not being obedient to meaningless, non-doctrinal opinions or cultural practices. Those are not things that will turn me into a Christ-like person. At the same time, I think being humble, and supporting others, is a key-factor in becoming christ-like. So yes, I do think we should support our leaders. However, to me supporting a leader, or accepting everything they say as gospel-truth are two different things.
If we go back to earrings and pants, then I think it's interesting to note that a) the Church does NOT have a policy on wearing slacks to Church. According to everything I've read and heard, it's totally fine for a woman to choose to wear pants to Church (or even the temple). Yet, somehow we think you're less religious or something if you do wear pants. Now, I don't think this is something the prophet has done - that's just the members, to me.
With the earrings we've been encouraged (that's the official wording) to only wear one pair of MODEST earrings. Ok, so what's modest? Little studs? Big dangly ones? Does color matter? And is "encouragement" equal to "commandment"? I took out my second pair of earrings because I believe in humility. However, I just don't think that the number of earrings has an actual bearing on my salvation.
And with all that said, we're not even addressing the cultural aspects of such a comment. When Pres. Hinckley gave his talk in which he "encouraged" us to not get tattoos and pierce our bodies, except for one pair of modest earrings for women, he was talking a lot about this in the context of our body being a temple and how a lot of that kind of style is not very attractive and reflecting the sacredness of our bodies. Ok. I agree. Our body is a temple. So, how come there are all these members feeling good about their one pair of earrings, but eating chocolate, fat, meat - whatever, like it's healthy, or who don't exercise or don't take care of their body? Also, while one pair of earrings may seem attractive and reflective of how we view our body in our Western culture, this may not be the case for other cultures at all, just as a lot of our Western attire that seems appropriate for Church, may simply not be appropriate in other cultures.
And that's what I'm getting at. I think there ARE cultural influences, even in what a prophet sometimes presents. I don't think there is any culture in teaching that our bodies are temples, that we need to treat them with respect, and care, etc. But, I do think that there are cultural differences in how that's expressed.
I do agree that what past prophets have said shouldn't be as relevant, but then again, shouldn't it? I mean, for example, we all assume that a prophet cannot lead us astray based on what one prophet said 120 years ago. Can I disregard that or not? When do I need to hang on to what a prophet has taught in the past, and when can I shrug my shoulder and say that's not relevant to me? I mean, our daughters will never have Pres. Hinckley as their 'living prophet'. Can they just disregard his talk on earrings then? Or are we bound because of "For the Strength of the Youth"? And is that even equal to a commandment. Wait, I already said that...but really, are suggestions and encouragements equal to commandments? Am I transgressing and disobeying when I say "No thanks" to a suggestion? And do those things constitute serious enough issues to validate judging others, and harrassing others who don't comply with some sort of dress code?
I could go on and on. Having lived in other countries, all I can say that a lot of stuff coming out of SLC is very colored by culture. That doesn't necessarily shake my faith, because we're all influenced by culture. But, I think it should caution us to simply think that everything from up high is nothing but truth. If we go back to the YW and pink stuff I linked to...my sister told me that in Switzerland culturally boys used to be dressed in pink and girls in blue. So, what is pink really communicating to the Swiss girls then? That they should be like boys? Can you see the cultural limitation of Sis. Dalton's suggestion that pink suggests "feminine" to the girls. It does. In the US, and most of Europe. But in some countries it may not. And if Sis. Dalton would have been from there, she probably wouldn't have made that suggestion.
And so it goes.
I think my bottom line is that a lot of things that we consider "commandments" are not actual commandments. We may not do ourselves a favor at times disregarding those suggestions/encouragements or guidelines coming from leaders, but they won't necessarily keep me from being temple worthy. And as long as I'm temple worthy, am I not worthy of salvation?
Oh, also when do we draw the line between choosing to follow leaders, and knowing that they're wrong and not following. What if your bishop won't give you a calling, or a temple recommend because you voted for a democrat? What if a bishop won't let you go on a mission because he knows you're watching a TV show he deems inappropriate? What if you're supposed to pay $500 for a whole new wardrobe for your daughter who's at the MTC, because the Elders couldn't handle her pretty looks, and someone responsible at the MTC therefore decided she needed a whole new wardrobe (even though everything she bought was bought at the typical Utah missionary clothing stores, and totally modest by any general standard). This actually happened.
Where is the line? Is it ok to say "No thanks, you didn't even ask me if I had that money, I'm not paying!". Or, is it ok to take the issue of not being allowed to serve a mission based on a TV show (this also happened, and the show in question was The Simpsons)to the stake president? When is it right to just shut up and follow, and when are you justified in questioning your leader?
I find that the line isn't very clear, and it doesn't become more clear by just saying we need to follow our leaders. I think we need to support them. But, I think support and following are also not always the same. Sometimes, I think supporting someone can be expressed in clarifying situations/issues, and being helpful in correcting what ought to be corrected - without holding a grudge, or getting mad, or making a scene. Sometimes, I think, it really can include letting someone do their thing, without necessarily complying.
For example, if a sister is teaching a lesson in RS for the first time, and she's really nervous, and not necessarily doing the greatest job, and maybe even teaching some things that aren't quite correct, I don't have to necessarily jump up and correct her. I can just support her in learning how to teach, and making mistakes, but I also don't have to take what she says and do it, just because...
Good job voicing your doubts and frustration Franzi! Yay for open dialogue!
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but for those of you who are interested in the changes that were made to Elder Packers talk, here's a transcript:
http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=299
Also, for a good open look at Mormon issues, check out http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/
if you don't already.
It is exciting to me how many good resources there are online for an open, honest exploration of Mormonism without having to step over the the anti side.
Well, but that's my question, Kari. How do you determine what is cultural? Is evolution really a matter of culture (or opinion?) or is it "truth"? How do you decide that?
What makes one pair of earrings modest? In some cultures any earrings may be completely immodest, or other clothing that is considered totally appropriate in our Western/Church culture. I think the notion that one pair of earrings is modest is a cultural perception of the West, just like our idea that a skirt down to the knee is modest. It certainly wouldn't be modest for Churches in Greece. And I doubt it'd fly in the Arabic world. I'd like you to show me how it's not a Western concept of style/dress, but a concept that applies across the borders to any culture.
As for talks being approved before they are given - yes. That's the case as far as I know, which makes it weird that they still get changed after they're given. Why would they do that, if the talk seemed ok/appropriate/true/whatever? Hmmmm...you tell me. All I know is they get changed. It most certainly happened with Elder Packer's talk.
Anyway, I see your points Kari, but I don't think you're making a good case in regards to my questions...like, what makes "For the Strength of the Youth" binding? What do you mean with binding? They can't get a temple recommend if they don't comply with every detail in there? That's certainly not the case, and I have yet to meet a youth that fits the pamphlet to the 't'.
I agree that we're all on different levels in our growth, understanding, obedience, etc. But for that very reason I think it's ridiculous to sit down and think we're being righteous and good by wearing one pair of earrings, when at the same time we're wearing flashy dresses, or flashy shoes, or tons of jewelry, or not living up in other ways to the actual concept of modesty and/or keeping our bodies sacred.
Why would someone break off an engagement over ear rings, when that guy probably wasn't treating his own body all the time the way he should. Because two pairs are really THAT immodest? Or because he decided that the girl isn't being obedient, but he is, even though he eats a burger each day or something...
Lastly, how do you decide when something a Church leaders goes against basics of the Church when we can't agree on what the basics are? I liked Elder Pullman's talk from, dunno, 20 years ago that talks about the gospel and the Church. Gospel doctrine doesn't change. It's the same - always. Programs, procedures etc. that can help us implement gospel principles into our lives, however (according to him) can change, and do change. Considering that dress standards constantly change within the Church, I have to assume that it's not a gospel principle but just a vehicle to help me. That's nice. I can use that help, or I can try and get there without the help. As long as I get to where I need to be, then how is it wrong to not use the "help"?
When Christ said, " What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put assunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt 19:6-8)
It seems that the Lord loves us so much that sometimes he chooses to suffer (allow us, even if it pains him)to live, shall we say a lesser law, rather than just damn us and be done with it, when we aren't ready to live a higher (truer) law - then he keeps giving us later opportunities to return to the higher truths. (These suffering periods have to be at least as a much a reflection of the people of that time as the poor prophet saddled with the task of leading them).
Anyway getting hung up on something a dead prophet said that doesn't seem to match up with what the living prophet or more recent prophet has said (regardless of which dispensation he said it in) is silly for anyone who claims to believe in continuing revelation (especially considering what Jesus taught us in Matt 19).
A quick thought on why we don't need to trouble ourselves too much with polygamy:
Jacob 2:
27Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
It seems pretty clear that polygamy is the exception, not the rule. It is an abomination when the Lord himself has not specifically called for the exception! The abomination part is pretty easy to understand and we are in a time when the Lord makes no exception. No more discussion is really needed.
And since you asked (Where does it say in the scriptures that sometimes we're asked to do meaningless things just to see if we can obey?...)Fran, the Lord gives us an idea about how important it is to obey when Saul tried to justify disobedience in not slaughtering some really nice live stock because he was going to make some great burnt sacrifices (it didn't make sense to him to waste good animals in meaningless slaughter just because the the Lord, through his prophet, said to) "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 1 Samuel 15:22 Doing good is not enough, or is not a justification for disobedience, even if the thing we are asked to do seems pointless.
I will continue to follow even without perfect understanding, because I have faith and hope that I will yet understand. I'm not really an advocate of blind (unquestioning) obedience though. I think we should strive for something more like what Nephi did when Lehi shared his visions (the revelation he had received.) Nephi asked the Lord to show it to him also. Nephi also gave us some insight on how to support our priesthood leaders, when maybe they are being more human than prophet-like (think about what Nephi does after preparing a new bow so his family doesn't starve to death...)
If you would like a female example of supporting a priesthood leader in a way that helps him correct his (hu)man mistakes/misunderstanding so that he can preform his duty as a man of God read about Hannah and Eli in 1 Samuel 1.
AHHHHHhhhhh...I give up. I wasn't really expecting anyone to understand or share my views. And it really doesn't matter. I got it out of my system. I'll keep living the gospel the way I think I should, and if there are people who think I'll go to hell because I'm not convinced that, for example, the number of ear rings in my ear (or someone else's rather) have an actual eternal connection to the principle of modesty, so be it. To each their own.
Aliza, you make a few good points, but I could argue those as well. If we don't practice polygamy right now, how come a man can remarry in the temple, and have the spouse sealed to him (while a woman can only be sealed to one single person in this life...). What kind of principle is that? To me that's still polygamy allowed within temples, though admittedly, a man has to wait until his current spouse is dead before he can add more women to the list...
I also agree, after thinking about it, that the Lord doesn't always explain himself. And that's fine. I don't think we always need to understand everything or that everything always makes sense. Tithing, in my opinion, on a merely mathematical level, makes no sense at all. Still I believe it's a true principal and blessings come from obeying it. However, I don't think that the idea of "sometimes we are just asked to obey" can explain away or cover a lot of weird things that go on at times - especially at the lower levels of leadership. It simply cannot apply to everything. In my opinion.
And I don't find your reasoning for ignoring "old revelation (old prophets)" vs. paying attention to living prophets if we believe in continuing revelation explanation that simple. Almost everyone I know picks and chooses stuff they hang on to from old prophets, and seems to believe that they are "eternal truths" or something. I think that only changes when a living prophet has specifically declared the opposite of something as true, that people let go of certain ideas. But a lot of stuff just falls under the table as we go on. Isn't that though the very indicator that some things maybe aren't "eternal" truths, and just temporary or possibly, gasp, opinions? Could it not be that the opposition to birth control was well, kind of an opinion. And that it got dropped as time moved on because it just isn't how things need to work/ought to work? Or because as time went on, and revelation was sought out on the issue, the mistaken view became apparent, and things changed????? I guess you could also argue we're just living a lesser law right now.
By the way, I still "follow", too. I just don't think my following needs to include a deep-held belief that things that were (again an example) immodest 100 years ago, are now modest, and probably won't be the rule anymore in 20 years are eternal principles. I'd rather concern myself with learning and teaching my kids what true modesty is (which according to many living prophets is dressing/acting/living in such ways that we honor God, and don't dress/act/live in ways that are concerned with drawing attention to ourselves and/or our bodies - to me that goes far deeper and covers far more than 1 pair of ear rings, skirt down to knee, covered shoulders crap that will change depending on what decade/century we're in or where the heck you live. Actually, I think it's so much deeper and complex that if we look at modesty that way, a lot of what I see at Church or in my own life, though in accordance with the rules would hardly qualify as 'modest').
Anyway, I'm getting tired of this, because we're discussing ear rings, and the things I bring up - when all these things are, are examples. I don't feel like we're getting at my core issue, which is that mistakes happen, in leadership, and that sometimes we're presented with programs and procedures and ideas that are just...cultural/temporary/and/or personal opinion. And that's fine, maybe even helpful, but hardly gospel truth. The gospel is eternal. It doesn't change. And that's according to all my scripture knowledge, and pretty much every prophet I know. And as a member of the Church, I'd rather learn, live and focus on eternal principles and not stuff that is temporary/opinion/cultural or simply stupid (like my girls being "pink" - BARF!!!!). But that's just me. And it'll probably be mostly me, particularly here in the US. Oh well.
Anyway, nonetheless, thanks to everyone for daring to share your thoughts and opinions on this. I know it's not always easy to voice those, especially when there is already clear disagreements and we're friends. So, I appreciate it!!! I hope I didn't offend anyone with my apostate notions.
I just wanted to leave a last comment that the quote about the prophet never leading astray was originally from Wilford Woodfruff, but was quoted again in a talk given by Pres. Benson, which was quoted twice in the last conference. It's actually a really great talk- it also talks about how a living prophet is more important than a dead one (however, we still study what past prophets have said, so it must be important too), and that the prophet doesn't have to say it's scripture for it to actually be scripture. The D&C also says that if it comes out of the prophets mouth it's like God himself was saying it. I really believe that if we follow the prophet, he won't lead us astray, and the things he says are from God. Even when it comes to the two earrings thing. And really, is it a bad thing to only where one pair of earrings?
However, I don't think that everything our stake or ward leaders say or do is inspired. I think that they have opinions that they think are good ideas, and because we sustained them, and we believe he is called of God, we follow that counsel. (Unless it's something like, we don't have to pay tithing during a recession, or that we are staring polygamy again).
As far as our leaders not talking about denim skirts (which I'm pretty sure they have, at least the flip flop thing), it's not really our job to decide about what we want to hear. And if someone is going to think badly of me for wearing pants to church, that's their problem, not mine. I guess I've decided I don't really care what other people think. If I feel okay with it (and I don't think it's a problem), they I say just do it. That's where Elder Oaks' talk about the two lines of communication that we have with God comes in. He says we have two lines- one the priesthood line, the words of the prophet, and one the line of personal revelation. He says that both lines are necessary for our salvation. I think that if you ask God about the words of the prophet, He will tell you they are what we need to do.
Anyway, your blog has started a lot of conversation in our house this week. (:
I'm late joining the game as usual but just a few things to add.
When the earrings statement came out we had recently been to India where it is almost universal for women to have their noses pierced (I considered getting mine pierced while over there, actually) It is not a sign of rebelliousness in any way shape or form, the way that that image can be here in America, in fact it is a very ancient tradition. Do all members of the church in India need to stop wearing nose rings?
When I was about 14 I went to a carnival with a friend and we each got a second piercing in one ear. I actually didn't feel good about it afterwards and took it out a few days later and let it close up.
As I've thought about it, it seems that if the issue is body mutilation than shouldn't one piercing be just as wrong as 2 or more and the brethren should be encouraging us all to go back to clip-ons? Since that doesn't seem to be the principle, it has to be simply cultural. My interpretation is that they don't want us dressing for shock value and to draw attention to ourselves and multiple piercings is one way that is commonly done here. In India, a nose ring is commonplace and traditional so I think it is just fine. I do think this is a case of people taking the comments of the prophet at face value rather than internalizing the principle he was trying to teach. As is common with many gospel principles, it is easier to follow the letter of the law than the spirit of the law and as a church we tend to get hung up on those things that are easy to identify: It is easy to say I don't drink coffee, I only have one set of earrings, I go to church every week and therefore I am "good" rather than identifying those who have charity, those who are living the spirit of the word of wisdom by making healthy diet choices, and those who are humble because the most important qualities cannot be measured so easily.
As far as polygamy, I think many members of the church don't realize that it still is a principle of the gospel, just not one that we are required to practice right now, and yes that can be a quite unsettling idea. I wonder if your friend that quoted from Jacob realizes that those verses were still in the Book of Mormon when Joseph Smith and the early saints instituted polygamy? My understanding is that polygamy was reinstated after Joseph inquiring about the ancient patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, etc. who were pillars of the ancient church and yet practiced polygamy. They were some of our greatest prophets so obviously we are missing something huge in our understanding of that principle.
I studied it quite seriously for awhile and the answer I received was that once you understand a gospel principle you are required to live it and since at this time it is not desirable or required that I would not be able to fully understand it and should let it be.
Also, I was taught in an anthropology class that historically, and across many cultures that polygamy was the preferred marriage organization when possible and typically reserved for the elite. The fact that it is such an ancient human tradition to me means that there is something more to it and that it isn't just some crazy idea that Joseph Smith had.
That said, does the idea still make me uncomfortable? Absolutely.
I could go on but I'm totally with you on most everything--Music is something that hasn't been mentioned but even our idea about what sacred music should sound like in the church comes from a completely western/European classical music tradition. There is some very inspiring classical Indian music and African tribal music but you aren't typically going to hear any of that in sacrament meeting. Why? It's purely cultural and until we know what the "celestial" culture is like I think we all need to be a bit more conscious about how our culture influences our perceptions especially as far as what is "appropriate" for church and spend more time worrying about humility, love, and service rather than what people wear, etc.
Ok, I just lost everything I wrote, and I don't have time to repeat it. So, here is the really short version.
Reni, I don't quite share your conclusions on polygamy, but whatever...
I'm glad you posted your stuff on the earrings/nose rings/India/music stuff. That demonstrates pretty well the point I'm trying to make with the whole earring stuff.
So, therefore, to answer you Kari, no it's NOT bad to just wear one pair of earrings. But, I think it's bad to assume someone is immodest just because they're wearing two. I wore 2 pairs in the MTC, and no one even noticed my "immodesty". I took out the second pair because I felt that it's good to be humble and comply even if it makes no difference. The point to me is to integrate the principal and not the vehicle that gets us to implement a principal. To me that talk from Pres. Hinckley was about modesty and honoring our bodies. Modesty is about glorifying Heavenly Father and not acting/dressing in ways that draw attention to ourselves. As Reni demonstrated piercings oftentimes are about drawing attention to ourselves, and so in our cultural setting that can be very immodest. But, what if you live somewhere where one pair of earrings for women would be something highly seductive or rebellious? Do you think they'd still be modest wearing that one pair we're fine with over here? I don't think so. And that's why I call it a cultural element. Modesty is not cultural. But how it's expressed can be. And that's why I get annoyed when we get hung up on the earrings (or the length of skirts, or whatever) when it's not about that as much as the actual principle of modesty.
I'm sure if our youth had a better grasp of what modesty actually is, and why it matters, we wouldn't have to talk about earrings, skirts, swim wear, or similar crap.
Anyway, lastly, let me repeat: I believe in prophets being called of God, and that they teach his will. I don't think so either that they always have to declare everything as "this is the official word of God now". But that also doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they say IS the word of God. It means to me that we ought to listen with the Spirit, and as we do we'll know when we're being taught the will of God, and when the prophet is just speaking. And while I also don't think prophets will lead us astray, I don't understand why that concept of "not leading astray" cannot include mistakes. Where does it say that leading someone cannot include mistakes and still reach the original destination?
How do I get to my conclusions? Guess what - by studying and praying. I HAVE prayed about what I hear and learn, and those are my answers. No one is perfect, mistakes happen/happened, but we're on the right path. So am I wrong now? Did I listen to the devil?
Fran,
I am starting to think the gospel and life is such a personal thing. We cannot and will not all come to the same conclusion. Our church is funny however because for it to be "the only" truth we do have to all come to the same conclusion. I think that is something I don't and will never again agree with. I have my own mind and I will interpret things the way that is right for my family. That is why I too think that not everything that comes from the prophets mouth is from the Lord, much of it is cultural things. Since I am in this american culture it makes sense to me, but I totally get your point. I follow the prophet on probably everything, but I will say that when Elder Packer gave his talk at the last conference I turned to my husband in disgust and said "that is not what I believe." I am sure many think I am a bad person for going against what a prophet said, but in my prayers and meditations on that subject I have come to a different conclusion than the prophet. Once President Hinckley was asked by a reporter, "At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church...Is it possible that the rules could change in the future..? Hinckley's answer " He could change them yes...But there's no agitation for that. We don't find it."
Our church does change. It is what makes it so unique. I feel that the way we treat gays (and women for that matter) and the way our church has treated gays will change in time, but we seem to be years behind in the change area (example giving blacks full rights in the gospel.)
Wow! I am really stirring the pot here.
I had one last cultural idea I wanted to bounce off of you. When I was young my father lost his job. We lost a home (yes we were rich and had a summer home and a winter home.) My mother had to go to work. She worked more than my father from that day on. She raised five kids that way on a small teaching salary. She felt so much scrutiny at church for this. She wasn't a stay at home mom. She wasn't like everyone else. My father did the laundry and the dishes. My mother worked hard, but many of the women at church ostracized her for her family life. To me that is so cultural. We are taught that women are to be in the home. I certainly think that is the right thing for my family, but I also know when my kids are all in school I need to work. My mind needs it. For me it will be an outlet that I haven't had since I started raising kids. I think times have changed since my mom was a working mother so I feel I won't be treated as badly as her.
I think some of your issues you are discussing here have more to do with culture and the way members judge each other. Certainly God will not send you to hell because of an earing or a pant suit. I don't think he will send someone there for drinking coffee, eating meat, or drinking alcohol too. I think he looks on the heart and sees if it is good. He looks at our charity and sees if we were doing all that we could to help others and do what we felt was right. I am certainly not a conventional Mormon. I am changing in my views of gospel issues everyday. I know some people look down on me for my unconventional thinking. I have even had someone suggest I give up my temple recommended for my views on gays. She didn't understand when she said that, that it wasn't for her to judge me and my worthiness. It is important to try not to look at others and what they are doing. We need to do what is right for us.
Yes, Laura - a lot of what I brought up (or maybe all of it?) is cultural to me. That's really my point though that we have culture creeping into Church, mostly through average members, but also sometimes from the top leadership (like Sis. Dalton's concept of pink for the YW because it's feminine...well, it is - in our culture).
I think I'm with you that at the end of the day it matters who we've become, what's in our hearts. Heavenly Father knows all our circumstances, how we were raised, what we are/were capable of understanding, how correctly/incorrectly we were taught etc. He'll know what to do - in that I have 100 percent faith. I think the greatest danger of all things maybe is when we start judging, which made my post kind of dangerous and questionable because it's almost impossible to discuss such issues without being judgmental myself. And I think I am judgmental in many ways. If I had more charity, I would look past some of the cultural issues, or lame lessons with sob stories that aren't relevant. I'd rejoice in finding/hearing truth whenever I do. Instead I get annoyed. Not christ-like.
Henry keeps asking me why all this matters, when I know what I believe/think. I told him it doesn't until someone gets hurt because of it.
But, I think in the end no matter what, there will be problems. I think there is finite truth out there. I think there is right and wrong. And I really don't think that we always know that completely - any of us. It's impossible to understand and know all things pertaining to God, eternity, salvation etc. I think it's a lot grander than most of us can fathom. At the same time, I have a feeling that it may be a lot simpler than we make it.
I don't even know what I'm trying to say. God's first two commandments are to love him, and then to love our fellow being. I think if we lose focus of those things over minor things/temporary things or anything really, we're losing focus of what actually matters. I feel that the whole gospel, everything from visiting teaching to word of wisdom to no crosses or whatever ultimately ought to serve one singular purpose - bringing us closer to Christ, helping us to become more like him. If they don't than they become pointless.
But that's just another opinion. And Laura, I don't think that we actually all need to come to the same conclusion in Church. I think that's just another weird belief that I don't know is correct. The apostles and prophets back in the olden days (Joseph Smith) debated on all kinds of spiritual things and had different views/ideas/opinions. And I think that's fine, until we know from God, for sure, what is or isn't going on. And I guess nothing is for sure (as in past belief) until you've seen God, and had a little chat with him. Maybe. I know there are people who'll disagree with this. Hahaha...oh well.
And I thought I was agreeing with you Fran - but I guess it didn't come across that way. With my example from Matthew, I'd hope to illustrate that there is some precedent for the Lord suffering the operation of his church to be tempered by current culture and we should not get so hung up on what has been done before that we wont accept the Lord's redirection when it is given. Isn't one of the great blessings of continuing revelation that the Lord can correct us, so that we don't get so far off track that we are beyond salvation?
Christ was the only completely perfect person in this lifetime, so imperfections in (even) leaders are to be expected (and are a poor excuse to justify renouncing covenants we have made with the Lord, not the imperfect people who happen to be temporally leading his church, and thereby deprive ourselves of salvation. My personal salvation is more important to me than being right and forcing a temporary, temporal leader to eat Crow).
Admittedly my example drawn from Matthew was an oversimplification of things.
Fran, if my examples about things I do, came across as an accusation that you do things wrong, let me appologize, I don't feel that way and that wasn't my intent. When I was your roommate, I was very jealous of the missionaries who got to have you as an MTC teacher. I am grateful that you pose questions that make those who are listening workout their faith, rather then just coast along.
I know in the grand scheme of things, my opinion is not relevant to your salvation, but personally I don't think it is important that you obey the admonition of President Hinckley to limit your earring wearing to one pair at a time, not because you think there is anything holy about keeping it to one pair, but because you are being humble - I think you are obeying the spirit of the law, which is more powerful than obeying the letter (and incidentally when we obey the spirit we are also obeying the letter). Personally I was really glad when President Hinckley announced that the Church had no position on whether or not a woman could wear one pair of modest earrings, because my former YW leader and her girls quit harassing me about having my ears pierced, so I have some empathy for women who got harassed for having had multiple holes in a single ear (especially if they were humble enough to take the second pair out when the Prophet asked them to).
Fran I hope you will forgive me for continuing a discussion if you wish it to be closed already, as I would like to respond to Reni's apparent question to me and I don't have any forum other than your blog to do so. I don't see any conflict between the verse in Jacob and the practice of polygamy by either Abraham or those called to do so in the early days of the latter-day Church. The reason the Lord gives in verse 30 :" For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I will command my people", was applicable in both of those instances. (Do I limit the Lord in his reasons? Of course not, however the reason he gives in this passage is sufficient, so I don't ask for more.) That the Lord had given his people the instruction in verse 30 in the context I quoted in verses 27-30, allows me to accept without problem that the Lord could/can call for it at times, and then as he did through the Manifesto given through Wilford Woodruff call for periods without it.
Everyone can keep discussing if you want to. I have no problems with that. I think I was just tired of writing and explaining. I know - shocking. If anyone still wants to comment or say something, that's fine. Just don't be offended if I, Fran, don't reply anymore. I may if I feel like it, or have nothing better to do. :)
And Aliza, I guess I did misunderstand you, but it was the middle of the night. So there. No need to apologize!
I just read this story, and thought it'd be another good example to make my point:
Years ago, when my brothers and I were boys, our mother had radical cancer surgery. She came very close to death. Much of the tissue in her neck and shoulder had to be removed, and for a long time it was very painful for her to use her right arm.
One morning about a year after the surgery, my father took Mother to an appliance store and asked the manager to show her how to use a machine he had for ironing clothes. The machine was called an Ironrite. It was operated from a chair by pressing pedals with one’s knees to lower a padded roller against a heated metal surface and turn the roller, feeding in shirts, pants, dresses, and other articles. You can see that this would make ironing (of which there was a great deal in our family of five boys) much easier, especially for a woman with limited use of her arm. Mother was shocked when Dad told the manager they would buy the machine and then paid cash for it. Despite my father’s good income as a veterinarian, Mother’s surgery and medications had left them in a difficult financial situation.
On the way home, my mother was upset: “How can we afford it? Where did the money come from? How will we get along now?” Finally Dad told her that he had gone without lunches for nearly a year to save enough money. “Now when you iron,” he said, “you won’t have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops.” She didn’t know he knew about that. I was not aware of my father’s sacrifice and act of love for my mother at the time, but now that I know, I say to myself, “There is a man.”
That story was given by Elder Christofferson 4 years ago. I think it's a great example of how cultural (or in my opinion in this story generational) perceptions can be used and then be confused with truth and doctrine.
I mean, here is a mom who's in such pain that she cries when she irons. What does the husband do? He goes without food to buy her a nice machine to keep doing her ironing. With how many of you wives would that fly today? How many of your husbands would actually stand by, and not help with the ironing, but instead save up money to buy you a machine so you can keep doing your "duty". I doubt any of us would be cool with that, or thoroughly impressed by our "man" to make such a sacrifice. That would have impressed 50 years ago when it truly was strictly the wife's duty to iron.
So, what was Elder Christofferson trying to teach us? That women ought to do the ironing no matter what, that it's their duty - even if it hurts, and that a good wife will do it. And that a true man will cut out some food so he can buy his wife a machine to do her duty of ironing?
Hopefully not. I'd rather think that his point was that a man loved his wife, and tried to sacrifice to help her. I think the hubby should have started ironing, but I realize that 50 years ago or whatever, that wasn't the norm in society. But, I certainly won't sit down now and conclude that there is some eternal truth to this story such as that women ought to do the ironing. Nope. I won't think that, even though he's an apostle.
I'll instead pity his mom, pity his dad for not realizing that it could have been better for all of them even without buying the machine, and just laugh at the silliness of the olden days...and then look at the rest of the talk, and try to discover what actual truths are being taught.
Actually, I just wanted to share this story. I just saw someone mention it on Feminist Mormon Housewives, and couldn't help but post it somewhere as well. It really is kind of a ridiculous story when I think about it, but it's ok - because no one is perfect, and I don't think general authorities will always pick the most appropriate examples to demonstrate their points.
I have lots I want to say, but I am just going to say that this was a very well-written post, and I wish more people were like you.
You have my utmost respect.
Fran, I just wanted to say how great I think it is that you can feel comfortable making posts that you make. I love that you are not afraid to put your thoughts (and facts as well!) out there, even when you know they are going to be picked apart.
It is my opinion that the Church conforms to society a lot more than we realize. The taking of more than one wife only stopped because the laws of MAN said that it was illegal and the Church didnt want to challenge that. African Americans werent allowed to be members of the Church until the heat of racism was put upon the Church in a harsh way.
I could go on and on with the list of things that I think the Church "conforms" to based around society.
I also dont think that it should matter what you wear to Church as long as you are respectable in your appearance. I have noticed the extremely LOW, LOW cut shirts of more than one female (both those that are "mature" and those that are YM) on Sunday :)
I plan at some point to get my nose pierced. I have been planning it for years and my plan as not changed. I checked with the Church to make sure that it would not prevent me from going to the temple etc and was told that I would just need to remove it before I entered. So I doubt it would send me staight to hell :)
I dont have the formality of Church down yet. I guess I still think of it as a laid back process for me. I do feel that Church itself is a bit to "stuffy". There are many times that I dont go to Church because I just dont feel like dressing my best. If I could show up in jeans and T without getting weird looks I would be more likely to come.
I love the Church and I love the closeness of the members, but I do feel that it gets a little off course at times. I feel that the Church too tends to follow trends with society. The getting back to basics is a good example.
BJ, I don't even see why you'd have to take out a nose ring for the temple. Really, it's not like you're being asked about nose-rings or anything in the interview. If you have a temple recommend, people should let you enter the temple no matter how you look when you arrive there. I guess, someone could decide that your nose ring would be in opposition to the prophet's council, and therefore make you temple unworthy. But, I think that'd be BS, simply because it's not a commandment. Period. It just isn't.
Anyway, I had a nose ring as a teenager. I also had pink hair and dread locks. I guess it's a miracle I turned out ok, considering my rebellious looks. Actually, it's maybe that very thing that convinces me of the meaninglessness of getting hung up on clothing. I looked wild - and never did anything - even when surrounded by people smoking pot and getting drunk. I've heard enough stories though of girls looking the part (all prim and proper)...and that's it. At the end of the day, what matters is what's going on in your heart.
Post a Comment