“Every solution is a ticket to a new problem.” I’ve quoted Henry Kissinger in many a blog post. We’ve been warned to take our vitamins and buckle up because Pres. Nelson has many reforms in mind for the church. So far, most of these have been either net positive or somewhat neutral (hobby horse policy changes like not using “LDS” or “Mormon”) [1], and yet, I’ve heard the term “whiplash” used to describe how members are feeling. Surprisingly, some of the most progressive members are the ones reeling the most from the progressive changes. Why is that?
“Every change coming out recently seems like a slap in the face to everyone who was told that they had to do things a certain way because that’s how god wants things done, that they were only upset because they didn’t have enough faith. I don’t think the future members should have to suffer the same way, but I really wish the church would acknowledge the pain it’s caused and show appreciation for the people who have been actively working to get changes made instead of pretending that these are all just god changing his mind.” Comment in a discussion about the latest temple sealing change, allowing couples to marry in a civil ceremony without the previous punitive [2] one-year mandatory waiting period.
Sunk cost: “In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be incurred or changed if an action is taken.” (from Wikipedia)
It’s no wonder that church leaders would make decisions based on avoiding future costs rather than addressing the sacrifices that have already been made, the embarrassments and inconveniences suffered, the relationships harmed. Better to move forward. We can’t change the past, right? We can’t unfeel racism or sexism in temple practices. We can’t get back the hours of church meetings we’ve already attended. We can’t go back and undo the hurt feelings of converts’ families who had to wait outside of weddings. Water under the bridge. But it stings, like getting an expensive speeding ticket the day before the speed limit is raised.
Without any sort of acknowledgement or public statement of apology, those who sacrificed the most–or who feel those sacrifices most keenly–may be feeling a second type of pain: that their sacrifices were arbitrary and in vain. For some policy changes, the pain is more acute than others, particularly since some people were impacted more than others. The revised policy around gay parents was one, temple verbiage changes another, and this week’s announcement about no longer delaying temple sealings for civil married couples is another.
Once you conclude that the church’s institutional policies have caused you unnecessary pain with what feel like arbitrary man-made policies that are easily reversed, it’s not a long walk to putting all existing and future church policies on the table for reevaluation. For progressives who have long clamored for these changes either publicly or privately, this sense of vindication reduces the influence of church authority in personal decision making. That may be a good thing, perhaps long overdue, maybe inevitable for progressives in a conservative faith, or maybe it’s one of those new problems Kissinger talked about.
In considering the new policy regarding civil marriages, the majority of impacts were those felt by brides & grooms with non-LDS family members that they excluded from this important day in their lives. It was a policy that was particularly difficult for converts who married church members, resulting in several bad outcomes:
- Sealings where one spouse had dozens of relatives and friends in attendance with literally nobody in attendance, not even a suitable escort, for the convert spouse.
- Parents who had paid for the wedding being excluded from the ceremony.
- Non-members being permanently turned off the church and/or estranged from their convert children because of hurt feelings.
- Individuals who chose to marry civilly first rather than hurting their non-temple family members being shamed by tactless leaders and church members, their marriages called by some “invalid in God’s eyes,” and others assuming a lack of worthiness of bride & groom, looking for signs of pregnancy.
“On what should’ve been the happiest day of my life, my new BIL said that morning, “This isn’t a wedding, it’s a disappointment.”” Comment from church member who chose to marry civilly before a temple sealing.
“Two months after I joined the church my wife and I eloped. We had a civil marriage. We were told that God didn’t recognize our marriage as valid.” Comment from a new convert who married civilly first rather than waiting a full year to marry.
Even in situations where both spouses were from LDS families, there were people excluded besides non-members:
- Younger siblings or relatives
- Children of the bride or groom
- Gay parents or siblings
- Non-tithe paying parents
- Family members with mental disabilities
“It would be an understatement, I believe, to say that my family were unsympathetic towards me. On the contrary, they thought I should just do the right thing – do what it takes, to have a temple recommend. What it would have taken is to lie through my teeth to my bishop & stake president, and (knowing the bishop) likely to pay a year’s worth of back tithing.” Comment from man excluded from his daughter’s temple wedding.
“It’s funny how the Mormon church is redoing everything as they continue their rebranding efforts yet they make no apologies. They could have stopped the pain for families decades ago, but didn’t. And today they act like they’ve never hurt anyone…and yet they’ve been shaming, extorting, and separating families forever.” Comment from a church member feeling resentful of the lack of apology.
The lack of acknowledgement carries another pain point: personal regret at past actions for those who upheld those policies, who now see themselves as having behaved callously, chosen the institution over family, or felt smugly superior for following church counsel, souring relationships in the process.
“I regret it everyday. The exclusion and moral superiority I felt at that time, now disgusts me and makes me feel horrible. This change is fantastic, but IMO, too little to late.” Church member regretting following a now defunct policy.
“I will always feel bad that I excluded them, but mostly I’m angry … angry that I was put in that situation, and that I allowed an organization to manipulate me into hurting those that I loved the most.” Comment from a church member.
I don’t think I’m the only progressive church member to be thrilled with this long-overdue change. We should definitely breathe a sigh of relief. But that sense of relief is a reminder that we were putting up with something. And it increases my own awareness of other times I feel I’m putting up with something unpleasant because of a church policy. It raises the stakes for future behavior.
Among the most orthodox, this doesn’t seem to be as big a concern. Putting up with things feels like evidence of one’s righteousness. I have heard many talks in which teaching the youth in particular that they can “do hard things” is deemed important.
Sacrifice is part of living a Christian life, certainly, but not all sacrifices are equal. Failing to acknowledge them at these times of overdue progressive change feels like the sacrifices are either not valued by the organization or its people or that they are now deemed as having been unnecessary, the choices and fault of the person who made them.
Some orthodox members refer to the progressive changes as the church caving to social pressure to prevent attrition. They call it a “lower law,” as if the old, more hurtful policies were somehow a “higher law.” That’s a pretty outlandish perspective from where I’m sitting, but it has always been this way: when the united order was scrapped in favor of tithing, when polygamy was disavowed, when garments were shortened from ankle and wrist length, when Coke became available on BYU campus, etc. I don’t know how you get such individuals to put down their muskets and get a clue.
- Who is the larger casualty of all the change? The orthodox who are disappointed with the church “caving” to social pressure or the progressives who feel their sacrifices were in vain?
- How have you felt as a result of the changes? Have you experienced whiplash?
- What future changes do you anticipate?
Discuss.
[1] They can pry those words out of my cold, dead lexicon.
[2] Whether you agree it was intended to be punitive or not, the difference between the policy in European countries and the US felt punitive to civil-married couples in the US.
Wheat & Tares 
Institutional repentance shouldn’t be that different from personal repentance. The problem is that this isn’t a repentance process but feels more like gaslighting.
My own father was a closet alcoholic. We think he picked up the habit during the Korean War. He converted to Mormonism a few years after marriage. He went on to be a very active member of the church and served he served in multiple bishoprics. He hid his drinking the entire time.
As I became engaged, I called him and told him that I wanted him to be able to attend my temple wedding — And I didn’t know what it would take to make that happen. He told me that it wouldn’t be a problem. It wasn’t. He was one of the two witnesses in the temple sealing. I assumed he had quit drinking and made things right through appropriate leadership interviews.
.. And then he shared a flask with one of my new husband’s catholic uncles at the LDS wedding reception that was held in a church building. I didn’t know that story for 10 years. It took that long for my in-laws family to cough up that story.
Why that story? Because there have always been people who bend the rules for their own interests. There are also others who make extra rules for themselves. In religion, when those two groups collide, there are going to be hurt feelings, feelings of betrayal and discussions about what the rules really mean.
Changing the civil marriage rule is one of those times. It is easy for people to assume all people approach an LDS temple marriage in the same way. The truth is probably far different.
In the end, our spiritual path and eternal worthiness is between God and ourselves. A church institution can be a facilitator or a gatekeeper. It’s hard to find a balance between those two roles. I feel that for too long, the LDS culture has leaned hard towards gatekeeping. My hope is that they are transitioning to more of a facilitator role.
I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who belongs to a non-denominational Christian church and he said, “you know what Mormonism’s problem is? It doesn’t understand what a double-edged sword governing by ‘revelation’ is.” I think that’s about right. I can understand the frustration on both sides of this issue and I can particularly empathize with those orthodox members who see progressive members unhappy about the changes in policy and say “hey, things got changed like you wanted. What are you complaining about?” Of course, they’re “complaining” about exactly what you point out, that a lot of the policies/practices before they were changed were held up as “the will of God”. That’s all well and good, but I think the less orthodox members are the ones who usually pay the highest social/membership costs for speaking out about the unfairness or contradictory nature of a church policy. As such, they are likely to have feelings about such changes that have to do with the kind of treatment they’ve received at the hands of more orthodox folks. Brian G’s point about gaslighting is relevant in that context, I think.
Also, to return to my friend’s comment, the church really has put itself in a kind of no-win situation, especially when it uses the rhetoric of revelation around such changes. I have not heard such rhetoric around the recent civil marriage policy change, but often, even obviously insidious policies like the POX have that kind of rhetoric attached to them. If you’re going to couch things in that kind of revelatory language, you’re going to run the risk of alienating people who see the clear prejudice in such policies. So you can walk around saying “God wills it” about a lot of things, but using the whole “divinely authorized” argument is bound to backfire in cases such as the POX, the 1978 priesthood announcement, etc. Although it may sound silly or hyperbolic to ask “Did God stop being a racist in 1978?”, such questions must naturally arise out of any situation where God’s will was invoked and then the policy/doctrine/whatever was changed.
It’s for that reason that I think the progressive folks will be more impacted. Orthodox people generally are more likely to stick with a conservative institution than more progressive folks are. As for what future changes I anticipate, I couldn’t begin to guess. Although the Ordain Women movement has perhaps lost some steam, I don’t think the church’s gender issues are going to disappear anytime soon. I wonder if I’ll see women given the priesthood in my lifetime. Other than that, I don’t really think about the future much. As a progressive, middle way Mormon, I’m far less concerned with policies that I didn’t really agree with in the first place being changed and much more concerned with learning how to treat people with kindness.
Great post. The thing that bothers me the most is how some orthodox members dismiss these changes as simple house-cleaning and not as a correction of a past mistake. When it was announced that sister missionaries could wear pants, I heard orthodox members saying that it was good because it was hard for them to ride bikes or because they would get lots of bug bites. No acknowledgement of wear-pants-day to church and its likely effects.
When missionaries were allowed to Skype with family every week, it was always sort of that way, the church was accommodating new technology. Never even a mention of how the previous policy was damaging to missionaries struggling with depression and other mental health issues.
And last night I talk with my parents-in-law about the new change and their response, “well, it was that way in other countries” and it probably won’t change much. Both statements are true, but these are not the reactions that you would probably be hearing from progressives and ex-Mormons, who would likely say, “it’s about time” which suggests that there was a problem before. Orthodox folks’ reactions tend to be such that they avoid admitting that the church was ever wrong or mistaken. It can be maddening.
It must have been terrible back in the day when they started baptism for gentiles or decided not everyone had to be circumcised.
With the New Testament as this year’s study course I’ve been trying to compare their changes to ours and how they reacted to how we react now.
Still thinking (so I probably won’t have a blog post about it tomorrow).
With respect to the POX, there were a lot of highly”orthodox” members that were very uncomfortable with the policy. I don’t think it ever really gained the full buy in of the majority of members. So perhaps the membership in general is a little bit more progressive than we often give it credit for.
I think a problem in this sort of analysis is that it assumes things are all correct or all wrong. Whereas in any policy (not just speaking of our Church) there will be positive effects and negative effects. How good a policy is tends to be a matter of tradeoffs and aims. Further over time those tradeoffs change.
Your story is anticipated by Jesus (presumably) recorded in Matthew 20:1-17 or so. It is about hiring laborers in the vineyard, not hourly, but “a penny a day”. But some people worked all day for that penny, and some only an hour and got the same penny; and those who had labored all day long were angry about it, how it is unfair that they should have worked all day long for a penny but others only worked an hour.
So what of it? It speaks to jealousy or envy; the complainer realizes that she could have also waited until the 11th hour, or deny the 11th hour servant a wage at all, or make it a smaller fraction.
In the bible story, Jesus essentially says that as the master of the vineyard, he can do anything he wants, and so can you, so shut up and be happy, you made your choice.
The religious interpretation I put on it is that whatever the church is RIGHT NOW, is what you choose to join, ignore, leave; whatever. If it is something else tomorrow, you still have the same choices: Join, ignore, leave, whatever! Why do you feel angry that what was once forbidden is now allowed?
Why would ANYONE labor in a vineyard all day long for a penny, knowing that you can wait until the 11th hour and still earn a penny?
Because that option might not exist. You might wait to the 11th hour and discover that the master of the vineyard is not hiring anyone, and you should have been one of the early workers.
I suppose there’s no escaping complaints of this sort, so far as I know, no one has ever figured out how to make everyone happy all the time; I’m not even sure that drugs accomplish it.
The church is the vineyard, the vineyard is the church. Jesus is the master of this vineyard but he has appointed stewards over the vineyard, and it is the stewards that hire, fire, and pay the penny.
If you want the more sure deal, join early, work long, don’t worry about what other people are doing; the 11th hour converts that arrive just before Jesus and by some luck obtain the same exaltation that you do for your lifetime of faithful service.
But what about the prodigal son? He wasted his inheritance, and was allowed back, but he was not given another inheritance! His siblings still had their inheritances. What that means in religion is that the person that repents at the 11th hour will be admitted to heaven, but you, having a lifetime of faithful service, will be enriched by your experiences, your families and friends.
If the temple is diluted, some will rejoice, but some will be concerned that with the lessening of difficulty will also be a lessening of its worth and blessings that accompany in part because of the difficulty.
Suppose college becomes “free” but you paid $100k for your PhD. The next person comes along and doesn’t pay a dime for that same PhD. But is it the same?, no, and it cannot be; for you have worked hard for yours, and the hidden benefit IS the hard work!
Free salvation is “free” and worth every penny, which is to say, some people, many probably, have no idea nor care of the value of that gift. Exaltation is NOT free, it must be earned, and those who earn it will have benefited from the work itself and not from the end result (which as we have already seen is an eternity of more work).
Matthew 20:
1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. 2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.
5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.
6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? 7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.
8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. 9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. 10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
A little humility or introspection would go a long way for me. Even a simple statement along the lines of “we’re going to do better as a church at being Christlike going forward” – while incomplete, would help. The best bishops or stake presidents I’ve had were humble men who listened to others, accepted feedback, and acknowledged mistakes. We don’t disrespect local leaders who apologize, not sure why we would with general church leaders, except that they frequently employ the word revelation.
I’ve told my kids and my wife that I will no longer outsource decisions to general or local church leaders. Not that I ever completely ceded decision making to them, but I allowed them to influence me. I suspect many others feel similarly, especially younger generations who tend to see nonsense pretty quickly.
Brother Sky asks “Did God stop being a racist in 1978?”
Yes. Prior to that I see a progression starting with Adam and Eve; the most racist, ableist, speciesist moment possible. Jump forward in time now you have Abraham and a covenant. Ignore all other humans on Earth.
Jump forward a bit, now you have Jacob. He is chosen, Esau is not. It isn’t racist in terms of pro-Semitic, for Esau is Semitic but that’s not good enough!
Jesus, the Only Begotten Son, necessarily is one race at least on his mother’s side, and thus, excluded every other race on earth. I wonder who God intended to offend by that?
Jump forward some years. Joseph Smith. Why was it Joseph Smith and not Nelson Mandela? I don’t know; not my decision to make.
You nailed it with this statement,
“Without any sort of acknowledgement or public statement of apology, those who sacrificed the most–or who feel those sacrifices most keenly–may be feeling a second type of pain: that their sacrifices were arbitrary and in vain.”
Yes, and yes! Please leave the “conservative” or “progressive” labels out of it. When you do something unreasonable or un-Christlike because you have faith that your obedience in words of Prophets is worth the sacrifice, and find out that those you hurt, those you alienated, the financial costs, the family costs, were all in vain, it’s traumatic. I hate the fact that I had family members travel great distance to sit outside the temple because they weren’t “worthy”. I resent the Church MORE after these changes because as an active member (still am) I hold out some hope that those things I’ve done in the name of the Church, were from God. Things like this confirm is not. A change accompanied with an apology would be all I need to get over it.
I am reminded of women in my parent’s generation who endured having more children than they really wanted or could manage, or who lived in a constant state of anxiety for fear of becoming pregnant, or who endured unnecessary strains in their marriages because they chose abstinence rather than having more children – all because they were taught that birth control was sinful. Fast-forward 25 years and now sex is much more than just for making tabernacles for God’s spirit children. No judgment, no stigma associated with women and birth control now, but also no acknowledgement of the sacrifices that had been made because of the past teachings.
Gregg I think that begs the question of whether something is unChristlike and what we mean by that. Particularly in this case I think some people are uncomfortable with apologies because they don’t think they were being unChristlike but rather being Christlike by listening to God.
To draw analogy to the “racism” issue above, during his mortal ministry Christ wouldn’t teach gentiles. There are a couple of stories of dealing with a few but by and large it wasn’t until later that they started converting gentiles. (Perhaps affected by Jews not being in a period of really doing a lot of conversions either at the time) Even with the revelation to Peter about preaching to gentiles we know historically there were conflicts between Peter and Paul over this issue.
So the question then becomes – was Jesus being unChristlike? Even with Peter things are tricky due to his balancing a lot of issues related to prior laws regarding gentiles in the Law of Moses.
Fundamentally the conflict is over whether this really was a revelation or not. Even those somewhat uncomfortable with the policy may feel like they are uncertain on that question. Those who feel like they deserve apologies typically feel like it was an entirely flawed man made policy.
Clark: It is tempting to draw parallels between Christ refusing to teach gentiles and the church refusing to allow blacks to enter the temple or refusing to allow LDS couples to marry in a civil ceremony before being sealed (without a penalty period). When you look at the feelings raised by these actions, though, I’m not sure they are the same. Smug superiority and elitism are akin to racism. Was Jesus being smug about not teaching gentiles? Maybe, but it’s hard to get that from the text. And yet, when people said black people were less valiant, that they would NEVER have those blessings, let’s be honest, in the 1970s in post-civil-rights United States, that was racism.
Angela that gets at the distinction between what individual members do and what the Church does. Christ certainly was not shy about criticizing the main Jewish groups for hypocrisy or feeling superior due to being children of Abraham. The good Samaritan plays that up by noting the divide between those seen as unclean and apostate and those in the covenant. However if we play to that, then doesn’t that highlight the problem? Jesus never condemns the restrictions against Samaritans or gentiles. So I think you’re rather making my point.
I feel an epistle coming on; trying to stamp it down or at least make it succinct.
Clark writes “Those who feel like they deserve apologies typically feel like it was an entirely flawed man made policy.”
Deserve?
We deserve nothing! I search my mind for words. I do not understand this concept that one human feels she deserves something from another human, often for mere circumstance.
Who, in all the history of Judeo-Christian religion, deserves more apology than Job?
He eventually learned to not be offended by circumstances beyond his control, and to give thanks to God no matter what.
This piece was a fantastic read for me personally. I’ve been confused as to why I, a progressive member, is more worked up about these recent changes which I favor than are more orthodox members who should in reality be bothered by change. I wonder why I’m not happier about the changes. And it goes right back to institutional trust, or the lack thereof. The reason I’m not as happy as I could be is because these changes are making me wonder how much I can trust the current institution to get it right when it is obvious that the former institution got so much wrong.
I guess one could argue that the Church can never win with people like me: Don’t change, and I’m critical. Do change, and I lose trust. I acknowledge that weakness in my approach and I’m really trying to be understanding. But as others have said, a bit of apology or acknowledgement from the powers that be that they had it wrong would go a long way. People like me value transparency and authenticity above almost everything else. And that is what is lacking. The Church is making positive changes. But it is not becoming, as far as I can see, more transparent or authentic.
@Michael 2, it is my belief that nearly everyone deserves better than Job, including Job.
Michael 2, you know that Job wasn’t a real person, don’t you? Maybe for your unusual argument it doesn’t matter.
I’ve felt the whiplash, and I’m probably more orthodox than most around here.
One of the biggest changes I’ve noticed is the attitudes towards career-oriented women. When I was a teen and young adult, the brethren really emphasized that a woman’s place is in the home and that they shouldn’t be out-sourcing their child rearing (to day-care). It was a big topic even at BYU where so many of the women weren’t just attending to earn their Mrs. degree, but wanted to be gainfully employed, or at the very least, employable. Nowadays, you just don’t hear the brethren speak like that very much, if ever.
It was very pertinent to me at the time. I was convinced I wanted a stay-at-home mother for my children. But I also wanted an accomplished and intelligent wife. When I found the woman I was pretty sure I wanted to marry, it wasn’t entirely clear whether she wanted to be a full-time mom or not, and when we had the conversation, it was with great trepidation on both our parts. If our perspectives hadn’t aligned, that would have been a deal-breaker. So here we are, 30 years later, and I can’t help thinking how differently our lives might have been if we hadn’t followed that direction. Would we both have been happier if she’d had some sort of career? I don’t know, but we certainly wouldn’t have had so many kids. And there’s not one of them I could imagine doing without. I think we both feel pretty good about the path we chose.
But, looking at my daughters today (all RMs so far), only one seems likely to take the path her mother took. I’ve already got one working on her PhD and the other trying to get into Med school, and I’m thrilled by all their choices. They’re all going to make the world a better place.
I’m grateful for the direction my wife and I received, and I’m grateful for the opportunities my daughters have. Kind of confusing, actually.
I’ll add that for most of the recent changes, I think Clark hit the nail on the head when he said:
“I think a problem in this sort of analysis is that it assumes things are all correct or all wrong. Whereas in any policy (not just speaking of our Church) there will be positive effects and negative effects. How good a policy is tends to be a matter of tradeoffs and aims. Further over time those tradeoffs change.”
It is indeed a trade-off between the negative effects of a policy and the positive effects. When the brunt of the negative effects were borne by the members (separation of families on wedding days) the church was fine with that. When the negative effects suddenly become borne by the church (members leaving the church in droves), the church finally makes a change.
The church does not care about the experience of the members, or it would’ve changed this long ago. It is concerned only with its own survival.
The fastest way to change any policy or even doctrine is for the members to stop living it. The Word of Wisdom will be revoked the minute 50% of the strongest members decide they are simply going to stop living it.
The church only has power to the extent the members allow it to have power over them.
There have been several blog posts over the last several years with laundry lists of things that the church should or could change, and we seem to be going down there list. I half expected a rousing Hallelujah when the PoX ended, but I totally understand why it hurts so much. The only change the seems to be universally and ambiguously celebrated is two hour church. (Although I’m not a fan of the way the second hour is handled).
Feelings are complicated. I once told a leader, not thinking that he would actually act on it, that I wanted out of a leadership position. I still felt a sense of loss and disappointment when I was released just a week or two later.
Many exmormons express frustration at family who try to get them back to church. Others (far fewer, I think) who are left alone feel unloved, thinking that if their family really cared about then they would try harder to bring them back to the faith.
The new marriage policy is an improvement, but it brings with it a new set of problems. People with weddings already planned are not universally planning civil wedding ceremonies. There is a story on exmormon Reddit of a father who is still going to miss his daughter’s wedding because she has decided it is still important to be wed and sealed simultaneously. Others will do the same.
I have heard a few “orthodox” members express concern about changing too fast. But the orthodox members have a great support system – they will be ok. The “progmos”, for lack of a better term, seem to be having a tougher time. They are already in the fringes of the culture. Every policy change is a two edged sword, improving on the one hand, while bringing back memories about a hurtful past on the other. Progmos would probably feel a little better if the church as a whole would make some kind of concession or apology, or at least an acknowledgement of pain caused, but that is not likely to happen.
I kind of agree with John, too, if not his cynicism. His point goes back to the higher/lower law perspective in the OP. His point that the church would dump the WoW if the members quit living it is probably right. After all, when Moses came down from the mount and realized the children of Israel weren’t going to live what he’d brought them, he broke the tablets, turned around, and eventually came back with something else.
Dang, I didn’t mean to down vote Martin’s last comment. I was actually thinking along the same lines. We ought to be a little careful what we ask for, we might get it. And then spend a couple of millennia wandering around before we get what we need.
For me, watching these changes unroll has felt like this.
You and a co-worker give the boss advice about a project that is about to crash. The boss won’t meet with you. The boss ignores, chides, denies, glosses over our concerns. The project begins tanking. You continue, the boss continues. Your noisier co-worker tries another impassioned plea and is fired in front of you in a horrible scene. You were a little more cautious, so you escape with a docked salary and no chance of a bonus- ever. It’s now the bottom of the fourth quarter and we’re performing 90% under budget and have lost 10x more in unrealized potential.
The boss swoopes in and makes the change you’ve been advocating for all along. The boss takes full credit for it being his idea. The board and many other employees begin clapping for the boss and he gets a promotion and a bonus for the brilliant idea. You go bang your head into the wall- repeatedly. Then have lunch with your fired friend, crying, commiserating.
Not only have you lost trust in the boss, you are now confirmed that he isn’t just ignorant, he is a jerk. Additionally, you question your value, effectiveness, and impact in the organization. You realize you are in an unhealthy environment with a broken communication system and no appreciation or value on employee input. You question your peers who seem to be happy and ever so much more successsful than you by going along as sycophants. And you look for another wall for banging your head. Then shake your fists futilely at the universe while hot tears stream down your face.
It feels like that.
I nominate Martin’s post for the Best Post of the Year award.
Martin I think one reason why the Church threw in the towel in stay at home mothers was due to the pretty significant sociological and economical changes. It’s extremely difficult for those in the bottom half of the economic bell curve to have a reasonably sized family (say 3 kids) with a stay at home mom. Some can do it, but typically the husband has a good paying job with health insurance. So many things have changed that its simply very difficult not to have both parents working and difficult to have large families for a slew of reasons. It’s simply becoming something that only the upper quintile of the economic population can do. Church policy has to reflect that reality.
One might wish for the Church politically to agitate for changes enabling its traditional family views – say better health insurance, family leave policies and so forth the way its gone after gambling and pornography. That gets a bit complex, although it also seems that Utah, while very conservative, is also unusual compared to most conservative states in how it views such things.
The point is that all these decisions are tied to the contingencies of American political evolution. Would the Church have enacted those policies had SCOTUS not ruled the way they did? Would they have not reversed it had societal views not changed so rapidly? People who are dismissing these are I think neglecting how they are socially situated.
Roger Hansen comments/asks “Michael 2, you know that Job wasn’t a real person, don’t you? Maybe for your unusual argument it doesn’t matter.”
No/yes/yes.
You are right that it does not matter whether any person is “real” for these stories shape the religion. You join, leave or ignore it based solely on those stories and your feelings. It doesn’t even matter if *I* am real; for it is possible that I am not.
Matthew 6, all of it, but in particular:
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
No mention is made whether any particular trespass is actually a trespass because that too does not matter. Actions by themselves are not trespass; it becomes so when you become offended. Walked on my yard? If I am offended, it was trespass. If I don’t care, then it isn’t.
Concepts such as forgiveness and turning the other cheek remove the power of others to trespass. Oh, they might still come on your yard, they might still command and revoke church policies that aren’t exactly to your liking, but you don’t care because your eyes are on God and not the approval of your neighbors (and blog commenters).
” I don’t know how you get such individuals to put down their muskets and get a clue.”
Examine your own path to this very thing. When did you become wise and how did you achieve it? Who compelled you to it and how was it done?
You can pull a rope or string, but pushing one is not very productive. BE the thing you wish everyone to be, knowing that some people will follow your example but most probably won’t. Of them there’s not much to do that does not involve force and its attending violence.
Rockwell writes: “@Michael 2, it is my belief that nearly everyone deserves better than Job, including Job.”
I do not understand deserve. That is the root of my difficulty with my brother and with the “left wing”. This concept of deserve. It appears to be of vital importance to a great many people, Millenials rather conspicuously. It seems to be like earning something but without the work part; a demand for some benefit just because I exist. But such benefits almost always come from some other human, or God himself. Why would anyone give you free college? Nothing is free (search Google for TANSTAAFL).
In the realm of religion, “deserve” defeats “grace”. If you deserve eternal life, then it is not grace that gives it to you! It isn’t even earned exaltation which is a type of contract.
I expect that you may have the same difficulty trying to explain a thing that to you seems obvious, intuitive, who could fail to understand it?
Thank you for your votes. Zero up to nine down tells me that I’ve found the topic with the strongest disagreement. This idea is circumscribed by deserve and by forgiveness. For me, I don’t deserve and I do forgive (or at least, am supposed to). Others are slow to forgive and quick to deserve.
A whopping 43 downvotes (a record I think) for quoting the parable of the vineyard. Its message is about the grace of the master, he pays according to his pleasure (his grace) , and not because any laborer earned it even though they did. It is a parable of jealousy or envy rather than gratitude for having earned a penny despite that some worked a lot harder for it.
How many downvoters have themselves argued for the Grace of God, that we are saved by grace? If that is so, and we are to become perfect like God, how then should we not extend that same grace to others? Were we all filled with grace there would be no need for a thumbs-down option; it would never be used. You are on your path, I am on mine. Best wishes to you on your path and I mean it sincerely. One reason I read these blogs is that I am interested in the paths people choose. Some are doubtless better than the one I chose, some are worse.
@michael 2, the is no we
Sigh. *There
I wonder if by the same token, conservative-mos* would be upset about finally getting changes they want.
*”Mo” is short for MOTCOJCOLDS of course.
Michael 2 said, “One reason I read these blogs is that I am interested in the paths people choose.”
It’s with mentioning that this is also one of the reasons I’m interested as well.
Michael 2
The reason I downvoted you is because you always want to divert the conversation down one of your deconstructionist detours. (There is no “we.”…….I do not understand “deserve”………it is possible that I am not real…………not because they earned it even though they did……)
I recognize this kind of language for what it is…..an attempt to send the conversation spinning off into some vortex where nothing means anything and everything just might be nothing. That might be fun for a first year grad student. But eventually, even for a grad student, words have to mean something, because they need to finish their dissertation.
I enjoy a lot of the thoughts and ideas brought to the table by Michael 2. I also come here to read about the paths others choose. I also like discussions on the underling thoughts of people and why they think the way they think. Why “progressive” Mormons are angry and upset when things in the Church change to their liking, but the more “orthodox” members are not?
“Why do you feel angry that what was once forbidden is now allowed” is not a squirrel but one of the fundamental ideas behind the post, as I read it. And many people discussed that.
The concept of lessening the difficulty of something, generally lessens the worth of something is also a concept of the post, but more geared to the more “orthodox’ members that the “progressive” members.
And of course the “Nothing is free” (TANSTAAFL) concept appears to be a big differing distinction between “left” leaning people and “right” leaning people on this blog.
John, thank you for the explanation.
Rockwell, my use of “we” (in the instance in question) refers to all persons subject to the commandment to be perfect, even as our father in heaven is perfect.
Excellent post.
I certainly understand why people are annoyed at the lack of any acknowledgment of the harm done in cases such as this. Personally, I don’t stress too much over the lack of such an acknowledgment. I think the reason may be that I’m pretty skeptical about claims of revelation to begin with. So when RMN called the PoX a “revelation,” I didn’t believe that claim for even a nanosecond; it was obviously and blatantly rhetorical, an attempt to prop up what had turned out to be (to the obvious surprise of the PTB) a deeply unpopular stance.
The very first blog post I ever wrote (14 years ago!) was advocating for this one-year wait policy to be repealed, so my overarching emotion is one of relief that they finally pulled the trigger on something that very obviously needed to happen. It’s true that when I got married none of our parents and only one sibling between the two of us were able to attend the temple wedding. But that was 39 years ago, and at this late date for me it was what it was. I am just rejoicing that our young people today will no longer have to go through that.
https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/02/temple-marriage-policy/
I always though they should have reversed the policy; can’t be sealed until at least a year after marriage.
It would have removed the issue of non-members not at wedding and would make the choose to be sealed in temple more of a choose.
Although Michael 2 represents a unpopular and minority voice here, I have a stinkin’ hunch he represents a huge portion of core Mormons. And while we are down-voting him- we need to take seriously what he says. Because we are the minority. If we want to accomplish anything within the church we have to consider the core members.
John makes the insightful comment : “…an attempt to send the conversation spinning off into some vortex where nothing means anything and everything just might be nothing.”” Is this the tactic of this huge portion of core Mormons? Or is Michael an irrelevant crank, (more like me)? If this is the go-to tactic then things are worse than thought. My orthodox brother has some of these tendencies..
If Michael 2 is typical of core members , we minority members will get nowhere using the tactics that work to get through graduate school. We have to come up with something better. Remembering he is our brother, not the enemy, as are all the members of the church of various stripes.
***
As to the original first question-Who is the larger casualty of all the change?
I think the orthodox suffer the larger pain because there are more of them and they are more rigid (steadfast and immovable). Most of the progressives have left and could care less. Those who stay have been exercising in the mental gymnastics needed to survive for along time.
“Take your vitamins” seems appropriate. Since the changes are mostly superficial. They have yet to take on the big dog issues. We will need to be told to take our oxycodone and fentanyl instead, when that happens, if it ever does. President Nelson was a heart surgeon. Is he up to do a heart transplant of the Mormon faith? Because we are in worsening congestive heart failure at this point. Or is he contend with massage and petticure?
I
I’ve missed you, Mike!
I can also understand the frustration and pain for those who were impacted for so many years and tried to work through it in faith, only to have their faith tested again without apologies.
However, good change is better than no change.
There will never be moments our faith is NOT going to be tested by the mortal church organization…led by revelation or not. It is part of the design of this life.
I think there is careful consideration for how changes impact all groups, and is why the church changes so slowly. And will ways be criticized for changing so slowly.
These rules were arbitrary, even if there was some good reason to someone at some point. They were just adopted by votes, and we shouldn’t be surprised they need updating. I’m glad they have been corrected. It is progress, even if not perfect nor perfectly handled.
Faith is required, as the first principle. Repentance is 2nd for lacking or mis-applying the first.
Something tells me God could care less about most of these rules…and is more interested in what all of us do with them. Even if that means allowing prophets to make their best call and run with it.
Apart from the 2 hour block, none of these changes are even acknowledged in my ward. Do the other members even know?
I agree with Geoff-Aus in saying do any members even know about these things? My In laws who live in Missouri know nothing about any of this, or ANYTHING that goes on in LDS land. (never hear of the POX, Joseph Bishop, Ordain Women, etc) They are very TBM. I am waiting for them to lift the restriction on coffee and tea. My MIL would have a heart attack!
@geof-aus here in the Mormon corridor I think most members know about these changes, especially the temple wording and the civil marriages. (In fact, when I’m at work I wish people would talk about it less).
It would be interesting to know if people in the international church are equally aware or not.
There was a recent, rather lengthy list of changes made posted to Reddit. It was longer than I realized. These are not necessarily all progressive changes.
Wow I didn’t intend for all that text to be shown directly in my comment. I thought it would just show link.
This policy impacted on my family in a very negative way including the very recent marriage of my granddaughter who’s mothers family did not attend after being ‘isolated ‘ from the marriage of their daughter. Many years earlier.
I wrote to one of the 70’s outlining a terrible incident with my sons marriage which almost cost the life of his wife as she was so distressed she aggravated her eczema which infected her skin all over her body and became life threatening.
I pointed out to the 70 that it was neither a universal nor doctrinal based policy but was contrary to family unity and destructive to family relations. This was 3 years ago.
I asked a sister who works in the Temple as assistant in the office and she said Elder Packer thought that ‘they’ were worried if couples did not go to the Temple straight away they might never go. This is wrong at so many levels.
A policy that should never have been in place…..I saw this as another cultural stupidity from the central Stake of Zion
The Other Mike wonders if I represent core Mormonism.
“If Michael 2 is typical of core members , we minority members will get nowhere using the tactics that work to get through graduate school.”
The biggest single difference (IMO) is whether a person is left brain dominant or right brain dominant. T/F on the Myers-Briggs Personality Type indicator. Rationals, engineers of any kind, tend to be left brain dominant and avoid emotions, fear emotions, distrust emotions. These things exist but are uncontrolled and uncontrollable and thus poor guides for life choices. This kind also invented the MBTI in the first place trying to understand other kinds.
But for right -brain persons, emotions (love, compassion, empathy) is the very reason for existing. Without such things, what is the purpose of life? Clearly there is no purpose if you aren’t going to have love, happiness, compassion or in religious terms: Faith, hope and charity. But even that kind must pay the rent, fix the plumbing, and so on.
Crossing that bridge is amazingly difficult. The Asperger’s Geek can *learn* empathy, but since it isn’t natural, it also isn’t quick, and he will never actually feel what you are feeling. Think the Star Trek “Spock”. You, conversely, will never experience a rational brain working out a logical problem. It cannot be experienced; it is exhausting to even try.
It would seem utterly hopeless except for one miraculous power: God (or any of his appointed invisible and visible messengers).
Michael 2 –
You have some big misconceptions on how brains function and what right-brain/left-brain are. You are explaining some popular old views that neuro science left behind decades ago. All decision making (100%) is emotional. That’s just how the brain functions. A good place to get started in understanding where *we are currently (or at least 5-6 years ago) is Haidt’s The Righteous Mind. He covers how the brain makes decisions in detail and presents all kinds of research and theories on traditional vs progressive thinking, which he relates more to value systems than whether one is scientific vs creative. Fascinating stuff.
*Since there is no colloquial ‘we’ for you in language, I will clarifying this as the vague, rough-edged, common understanding of modern neuroscientists put into the language of an average American (or non-American. Haidt might be Canadian; I can’t remember).
Michael 2:
I have Asperger’s, and that is, for lack of a better term, bullcrap. There may be some inherent difficulties, but those difficulties don’t preclude anyone on the spectrum from feeling real emotions or experiencing empathy.
ReTx writes “You have some big misconceptions on how brains function and what right-brain/left-brain are.”
Fortunately I have you to correct me 😉
“All decision making (100%) is emotional. That’s just how the brain functions.”
Yours, perhaps, but not mine; depending of course on how one defines “emotional” (or decision).
By that I make distinction between emotions such as love and hate, from drives such as hunger and fear which emanate from the limbic system and thus override both rationality and emotion.
“A good place to get started in understanding where we are currently (or at least 5-6 years ago) is Haidt’s The Righteous Mind.”
If by Haidt you mean Jonathan Haidt; I love that he’s trying to understand the human mind but he has a big gaping blind spot, like a colorblind person who arrogates to himself to explain color. Such person can do scientific studies and even become an expert, but he has not, and cannot experience color.
“which he relates more to value systems than whether one is scientific vs creative.”
I agree that he is “onto something” but I suspect he has put the cart before the horse. Value systems, in my opinion, are a result not a cause (although there’s a feedback mechanism that once a person enters one realm or the other, forces exist to keep you in that fold). My sister, brother and I all raised by the same parents and instilled with the same value systems are VERY different.
My brother and I both completed military careers. I took an oath to defend this nation from enemies foreign and domestic; that is how I view my role. His view of military is that it is “the action arm of the State Department”. We are only two years apart. Whatever differences were once small have become large over time because of that feedback. Progressives become more progressive and conservatives become more conservative; since any compromise or trying to see the other side is seen as treason by all.
You are using the term ‘value’ systems differently than Haidt does.
That decisions are made based on emotional reactions first and logic second (to substantiate the emotional reactions) is biological process/function related to the physical functioning of the brain. Anecdotal evidence when it comes to biological functions are useless. If you want to argue with me on this, start citing research.
I followed the link to Jonathan Haidt. One of the commenters on his page posted a remarkable quote from Adam Smith: It seems to describe me: “All such people are held in contempt and derision, frequently in detestation, by the furious zealots of both parties”
Bring on the zealots!
J.H. admits to never having voted for a Republican. What makes him interesting is that he explores his own bias and the foundations of why other people have very different systems of moral value.
As to arguing with you; to what purpose? You believe what you want to believe and I believe what I want to believe. After all, you assert that you have already made your decision emotionally and as such no amount of “research” or citations is going to change a decision you have already made.
But I am not that way. Believe it or not as you please.
Wikipedia quotes this: “Because members of two political camps are to a degree blind to one or more of the moral foundations of the others, they may perceive morally-driven words or behavior as having another basis—at best self-interested, at worst evil, and thus demonize one another” [https:]//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
That is what I have been writing. Perhaps you will believe it now. He does not here say whether this blindness is due to a bicameral brain or some other cause (perhaps in his book he does) but it hardly matters as to effect.
Shall a blind person seek to remedy blindness, or learn to live with it? Good arguments exist for each approach.
Dylan Hansen writes: “I have Asperger’s, and that is, for lack of a better term, bullcrap.”
Wikipedia to the rescue:
“The cognitive ability of children with AS often allows them to articulate social norms in a laboratory context, where they may be able to show a theoretical understanding of other people’s emotions; however, they typically have difficulty acting on this knowledge in fluid, real-life situations” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
Pretty much what I wrote.
“There may be some inherent difficulties”
Aspies’ difficulties are under-appreciated strengths.