I think I’m alone on the female side of the bloggernacle, but I have no major issues with the Church. I like going to the temple and find it stimulating (assuming I’ve had enough sleep recently) and lifting. I really need to go more often, but that’s an issue of apathy, not an issue of doctrinal conflict. I’m not bothered by anything taught there and don’t find it painful or sexist. Sure, Adam and Eve are a bit cheesy, and sometimes it gets a little warm in the room once you’ve got everything on, but that’s the worst I can come up with.
I’ve had a bishop lie to me before, and it was over an issue that was incredibly significant to me and led to a lot of emotional distress for a while, but it didn’t lead to inactivity. I really didn’t like him or trust him after that and was glad it was a student ward so I only had to deal with him for a couple semesters, but it wasn’t faith-threatening. He was an idiot, but idiots come in all religions and all situations; I can’t fault the Church or the doctrines of the Church for his personal foibles. Maybe it helps that I’m a bit of a misanthrope, so I have low expectations.
I’m single, but I don’t worry about my place in the eternities. I know I only need worry about my own choices and things will work out in the end if I (key word: I) live what I know. I guess I actually believe God is just. Women can’t be exalted without a husband, but men can’t be exalted without a wife. I fail to see a huge discrepancy. Okay, sometimes I feel that twang of loneliness, but I see that as just how life is and would be no matter my religion, so I can’t fault the Church there.
Sure, people at church are sometimes annoying (remember my misanthrope comment above), and I can’t remember the last time I went to Enrichment/Homemaking (I think I made it once in this millennium). I’m not a Molly Mormon by anyone’s standards; I work in the sciences as a writer, and my friends/coworkers and I enjoy feeding off each others’ bitterness and subversion (it’s really a lot of fun, trust me). My house is a cluttered mess with piles of books everywhere and two cats who whine loudly until you scratch their necks. Sometimes I spend Sunday School deep in my mind with an exciting daydream involving a distant planet or me ruling the world (I’ll be a benevolent dictator, really) rather than listening to the lesson.
But I love the scriptures. I have a testimony. In general, church meeting are a good fellowship experience, if not always doctrinally enlightening (that’s what personal study is for). Fellowship and friendship and a ward community are important to me (I’m not entirely misanthropic). I really like President Hinckley and the others in the Quorum of the 12 and find their messages helpful and inspiring and I enjoy the spirit that seems to emanate from them. I love my calling and I seem to be contributing good things there.
My lack of significant issues with the Church can’t be due to lack of knowledge; I’ve been involved in apologetics, and thus exposure to the difficult issues, for a number of years now (oh my… I’m getting old). I find it a lot of fun to study the doctrines of the Church, not a faith-shattering experience.
This isn’t to say I never wonder or question or find specific things confusing. What fun would the bloggernacle be if these things couldn’t be discussed? But these things are not leading me away from the Church or the gospel, probably because I have that testimony that goes above it all. Within that testimony, where I have experienced things that lead me to firmly believe this is the right church, I can study and wonder and question, comfortable in knowing that I’ll have the full explanation eventually.
Then again, maybe I’m just subtly subversive and use passive-aggressive resistance, so that helps me deal with things I don’t like, and I don’t even notice.
So there you have it. I’m okay and the Church is okay. And I think that makes me an oddity in the female side of the bloggernacle. But that’s okay.
(NOTE: I in no way mean to imply that the issues others have are not real or are insignificant. This post is just meant to be my experience and perspective. I believe you all when you write of your struggles and pain and frustrations. I’m actually grateful for you opening my mind to your different perspectives, as I hope it makes me more aware of others’ concerns and struggles in the 3-dimentional world, and thus hopefully allowing me to respond a bit more charitably than I would if I remained in ignorance.)
Thanks for the perspective, Tanya. I think it’s likewise good for those of us who do have issues with the Church to hear other experiences and angles on things. And honestly, I think that it’s really neat that your relationship with the Church is so positive.
Tanya: I’ll confess my idiocy. I always just kind of assumed that you were Ben’s wife……
(hides in shame)
Tanya, thanks for this perspective. I believe one of the reasons President Hinckley has asked us to concentrate on the positive and to be up-beat is that whining and moaning and griping simply don’t help you progress. And at the end of the day, this Earthly experience is about your own choices. Why not spend our energies extolling the virtues of the Church rather than dragging it down? It will be interesting to see if this post somehow becomes controversial.
“I’m okay and the Church is okay.”
I like that. It needs to be said more often in the bloggernacle!
Thanks, Tanya.
Cousins, we are. (It’s in the bios, I think.)
But, my wife will be doing a guest post on a Mormon in alcohol-laden culinary school, for Monday-ish.
Ben: should be very interesting. Culinary school, I’ve heard, is a different sort of place.
Tanya: I also forgot to mention that I enjoyed your post. I’m glad that you’ve found such happiness and remain so tolerant of those that have had a bit more trouble getting there.
I just assumed she was gay.
No, just kidding, really. Just kidding. A joke on me, nobody else.
I’m pretty clueless who is who around here.
But good post, Tanya, really. Okay is way better than a lot of things we all could be.
No worries, D-Train. An easy mistake. As Ben said, we are merely cousins.
And Ben, I look forward to your wife’s guest post!
Good post. You’re not the only one with the same feelings at all. However, that voice is usually silenced pretty quickly in most comments to posts of that nature. Not a complaint, it’s just that that perspective doesn’t lend itself to argument very well.
I always thought that the bloggernacle was filled with people who had issues, and have come here to talk about them and try and work through them. After they have worked through their problems they either hang around to help others get through their problems, or they just stop being involved here. There are of course the intellectual types who just like talking about obscure and controversial church doctrines regardless of how they feel about them. Then again, I’ve only been around for a few months, so I could be totally off, if wouldn’t be the first time.
Thank you so much for coming out of the closet! There are times when I think maybe I’m an extreme minority as someone who believes in and generally loves the church.
“I’m okay and the church is okay.”
I like this thought a lot. I don’t hear it often enough, and I don’t say it often enough, but I believe it. You’re not alone in the women’s side of the bloggernacle.
“I’m okay and the Church is okay.”
Yes –
but what about the Lumberjacks?
Ivan, that’s an entirely different blog – http://logcabinmormons.blogspot.com 🙂
Ivan: They’re okay, too, because they sleep all night and they work all day.
Tanya, I’m totally with you. No issues. (This was not true in the past.)
You’re not alone on the female side of the bloggernacle… okay, I don’t have a bloggernacle blog but I read and comment a lot! I’m totally with you. I love the church, I love the gospel and I recognize that they aren’t always precisely the same thing. I’ve never felt that the church puts women down and I’ve never understood why people get that idea. The Church of Jesus Christ of Lattery-Day Saints has always seemed a place of comfort and support. Maybe I just grew up in a lucky ward and moved into another but all the LDS women in my experience are smart, strong ladies who are very involved in the running of things. To me, the church has always been empowering. No major problems here, either. 🙂
The only problem I have with the church is that it’s true.
Why is that a problem?
I chop down trees, I eat my lunch, I go to the lavatree(sic). On Wednesdays I discuss issues I have with theology.
I’m great, but I’ll get better and church doctrine is perfect, I just don’t understand it perfectly yet.
So glad to hear you are at peace.
I don’t think your sense of well-being and contentment with the church is all that rare among the general membership. If it were, there were would likely be far fewer Latter-day Saint women than there are.
I am curious though about how you explain (to yourself) the fact that there are a good number of women who do have serious “problems” with the church. Since you are able to remain aloof to such issues, even while witnessing a wide array of more ruffled reactions, you must have given some thought as to the reason. Why is it, do you think, that some women become so sad and or angry?
Tanya
No you aren’t alone. I don’t have any issues with the Church either. With some member perpetuated traditions sometimes, but even those aren’t a big deal.
jjohnsen,
Re. #18, It means that I probably have to do something about it.
Really? On Wednesdays I go shoppin’,
And have buttered scones for tea.
It’s nice to see all these okay people coming out of the closet (so to speak). I’m glad I’m not alone. And, um, it’s nice to see the lumberjacks.
Anon (#21), I really don’t know the answer to your question. If I knew, I would try fix it for them so they would no longer have such problems. The easy answer is to say they don’t have a testimony, which may be true, but in some cases I don’t know what more do they do to gain a testimony than they’ve done. Maybe it is a difference in personality. Maybe it is a lack of understanding or a misunderstanding of a key point that is causing the problem. For most people, it is probably a complex web of all these things and possibly more (such as abuse or sin or depression) that coalesces into issues.
What an interesting post, Tanya. What fascinates me is the way you describe being a minority on the Bloggernacle and coming out of the closet about your experience and perspectives. It’s probably inevitable that social groups tend coalesce around what they have in common, but it’s also too bad that as a particular point of view is reaffirmed, minorities can come to feel “closeted” (not necessarily to imply that’s what you’re saying here, just to observe that anyone with a minority opinion in any kind of a group might feel that way). It’s an unfortunate dynamic that can lead to reluctance to challenge any dominant point of view. I always appreciate people who can say, as tactfully and graciously as you have here, That isn’t my experience, or, There’s another way to look at this. Thank you for providing that.
all right, at the risk of breeching a major law of blog etiquette, I will post an answer here to Geoff from the “mormons and the war” section since the page seems to be too full to accept my somewhat lengthly reply. His comment begged a reply so here it is:
Geoff,
I appreciate your personal experience and have no doubt that the level of corruption you describe among the Sandinistas is reality.
The 1984 elections were not perfect from what I understand of them, but they were called fair by 400 international observers, including some from the US. 75% participation is far better than we’ve seen in recent years here. All political parties running a candidate were allowed public funding and equal media time. Polling was problematic in that a few election workers lost their lives to Contra violence on election day, making democracy a little difficult. Nonetheless, the Sandinistas won 65% of the vote! That’s quite a bit more than the
Wow, Tanya, I think that’s incredibly judgmental and unfair. I *do* have a testimony; if I didn’t I would have left a long time ago. Heaven knows I’d be more comfortable elsewhere. The testimony is what makes the questions hard!!
I don’t have sin or depression; I haven’t been abused and I’m not abusing anyone. There just *are* difficult issues around women and the church–if there weren’t, we wouldn’t have those periodic lessons about women and the priesthood to reassure us that everything’s OK. There are difficult historical questions (for instance, around women’s past performance of blessings with oil, and the strange, not apparently revelatory way in which that privilege was withdrawn, etc.) and tricky theological questions (the existence of Heavenly Mother is a revelation, but we know nothing else about her and the prophets freely say they don’t know why we don’t). The fact that some people notice these and are bothered by them may have to do with temperament, or with the capacity for tolerating ambiguity and an insistence on rigorous intellectual honesty (frankly not always on display among apologists), or with any number of factors. But it is grossly unfair and, I daresay, unrighteous, to impute sin or lack of testimony to your sisters who struggle with these issues.
“I don’t have sin”
Well, except for typing in haste and anger and saying absolutely outrageous things. Sheesh!! Of course I have sins, just not (I hope) the kind of gross ones that would make me unworthy of receiving answers. I’m not at all sure whether you have specific sins in mind, Tanya–I’d be interested to know if you think there are particular sins that make women prone to discontent. Anyway, I’m plenty sinful, just don’t see the relationship between my sins and my questions as clearly as you do, maybe.
Here’s the corollary to that question Anon: If the church is true, then certainly God is aware of any problems that would distress particular people. And apparently, he has yet to correct or clarify such problems. If these are real problems, then why does God do nothing?
Because God respects everyone’s free agency, even Church leaders’.
Ah. Well, I don’t really believe that many of the major issues are in the hands of the church leaders, but let’s assume for a moment they are. So the new question is, the Brethren are very intelligent and are very good people, why do they do nothing?
Kristine, I didn’t mean all of those things I listed were applicable in every case. Sorry for the confusion.
Tanya, it’s not ok to say they’re applicable in most cases, or ANY cases, unless you really know the particulars of a given woman’s struggle (in which case, it probably behooves you not to share it). It’s the casual assumption that these are the probable causes of discontent that troubles me.
There is a lack of proportionality in Kristine’s response.
Tanya listed several possible reasons.
Kristine reacted in “haste and anger” to some items in the list as though those items were the whole list. I perceive that people often have a few problems that become overly large in their vision. Think of all the people that can’t admit that Bill Clinton did anything good or those people that think George Bush is a bad president and thus caused Hurricane Katrina.
I don’t know why some women have problems with the church. I know their feelings are real. I hope they are able to find answers that work.
Kristine,
What does your list of probable causes of discontent include?
Kristine, Anon asked me why I thought some women have problems with the church. I responded that I didn’t know but listed a few possiblilities. I’m failing to see a problem here. If you think my possibilities are off the mark, please feel free to share what possibilities you perceive.
Perhaps some simply have different spiritual gifts than others.
Tanya, let me try your explanatory model on a different issue and see how it sits: I have no problems with questions about evolution. I don’t know why anyone should have an issue with it. The church’s position (or lack thereof) works fine for me. Anybody who does really spend time wondering about these things must a) lack a testimony, b) be hiding some secret sin, c) be a victim of abuse, d) not have studied or understood properly or e) be mentally ill.
Your list doesn’t really leave much room for honest differences of opinion or a different (but not inferior) response to difficult issues in church history or doctrine. You seem to assume that most people who haven’t been able to resolve things as neatly as you have are doing something wrong–that all right-thinking people, knowing what you know, would respond as you have. I don’t think this is either accurate or kind.
What about this instead: there are some questions to which we do not have complete answers in the gospel. Some of those questions cause some people spiritual or emotional distress. Other people examine the same issues and are able to find explanations or resolutions that are satisfying to them. Life is puzzling sometimes. People are different. People who are different from me don’t necessarily have anything wrong with them.
Tanya,
Well said, well done, and not heard nearly often enough in the ‘nacle. Thank you!
Kristine, somehow I think we are talking about two totally different things. My comments were under the assumption I believe that the church is true and contains the restored gospel and is led by prophets (i.e., a testimony that those things are true) and have no problems with any of that, but that some people have enough of a concern or concerns that lead them to question those assumptions (i.e., they do not have a testimony that those things are true, for whatever reasons, but possibly including ones that I listed).
If I understand you correctly, however, are saying that people can have testimonies and believe all those basics are true, but still don’t quite understand some issues. If that is what you are saying, then we have no conflicts because I agree. As I said in the original post, “This isn’t to say I never wonder or question or find specific things confusing. … But these things are not leading me away from the Church or the gospel, probably because I have that testimony that goes above it all. Within that testimony, where I have experienced things that lead me to firmly believe this is the right church, I can study and wonder and question, comfortable in knowing that I’ll have the full explanation eventually.”
In other words, I think we are talking about two different groups of people.
Seth R. (#38), I’ve thought of that before as a possibility. If that is the case, where does our responsibility lie for understanding and testimony, and where is it a matter of simply not having that capability in us?
The D&C clearly says to some it is given to have a testimony and to others it is given to believe on their words (meaning those to whom a testimony is given). I’ve heard so many people complain about their specific trial, no ones trials/weaknesses/situation/circumstances are like mine. The truth is that out of the 6 billion people living on this planet there is probably at least a million others going through exactly what you are going through or more.
For some reason some people are born short, some without sight, some without hearing, some without a testimony, some without hope, and the list goes on. I’m confidant that when we get back to the other side, sooner or later, that we will know exactly why we went through the trials we did and probably chose those very trials.
As for issues, it seems that for some reason most members are given enough evidence to believe and enough evidence to doubt to discover what their personal bent is. Do you see the beauty of the gospel or the faults of the prophets who God chose to share these truths through.
I haven’t read through the comments yet, but I’m right there with you. I don’t have a problem with the Church or whatnot either; there’s some cultural pet peeves, but culture and doctrine are not the same, anyway. Minor peeves at that.
Although I have a hard time going to church, due to illnesses etc. And I feel that if I can tell it’s a high-anxiety Sunday, that what’s the point of going if I’m panicking throughout each and every meeting (lately, when I DO go, it’s just Sacrament, as I don’t have enough oomph to get me through the whole thing).
If I’m going to be locked in a rigid, horribly obsessive, frantic, extremely repetive round of thoughts and worries, for a good portion of, most, or all of Sacrament, well it kinda drains any oomph I had to go anyway.
Urk, that sounds like an excuse. Anyway. I’m trying.
But, I don’t have a problem with much of anything. I hang out at FMH alot, though, because I have met some wonderfully “sweet spirits” . . . okay, okay, I’m just TEASING, y’all can put away the Howitzer now . . . teehee! Some wonderfully kind and thoughtful women, even if I am coming from a different perspective. Very supportive women, and for me that is a miracle, because support from other women, or anyone at all, has been pretty nil in my life. And they treat me like an equal, which I am not used to. As do most others on the ‘naccle, and I’m still surprised by that.
For awhile I wondered if I’d slowly start to develop their point of view, but I have found that while I have seen some growing of thoughts and feelings that are along similar lines to some things, the substance of what I believe about the Church, and how I sustain it and am not troubled by much, remains intact.
Um, anyway. I guess I’d better read all the comments! This stuff may have been said over and over already.
#38 and #42 & #43 – Just what I was thinking.
I enjoy interacting with people from all different perspectives, although face-to-face I might have a panic attack if I think that, from their different perspective, they are judging mine as naive, stupid, wrong, bad, etc.
I know I’m not perfect or anywhere near so at not judging others, but for alot of things, since I have so many terrors and imaginings of being judged, I actually think that helps me accept others’ rights to and acting on their own particular ways and views and philosophies and values, etc. Accepting their differences as THEIRS, and such. Although I do get so fearful that people are thinking I am bad for having my own different feelings and views. Hey cool, I just kind of pulled together some thoughts that I hadn’t before (will be good fodder for this week’s therapy session!).
Erm. Sorry for such a rambly post. Sometimes I think with my keyboard. Er, I hope you know what I mean by that.
Nice post.
Tanya, I’m with you. Thanks for posting this!
The belief that this is the only true church on the earth, seems to me to leave no choice but to find fault with any person who has significant problems with what the church teaches or the way it is run. I mean who would question a church which has the fulness of truth. The level of harm done to families and justified abuse to individuals based on this belief has been enough to lead me to believe there isn’t such thing as one true organization. Everyone is different and the fact that Tanya and many others of you have found joy and fulfilment in the church is a beautiful thing. I think it would be wonderful if we in the church could let go of insisting there is only one right way of being and give others love and respect as they freely choose what it is they want to believe and embrace.
**My comments are not directed to you, Tanya, as I have not found you to be consciously disrespectful. You did acknowledge that there could possibly be other factors. And I am genuinely very happy for you that you have found such peace and fulfilment in the church. I have a testimony that peace and fulfilment is what God wants for all of his children.
Ok, here is some more controversy.
Ally, the church teaches that there are many ways to live that exist, but there is only one way to exaltation. My understanding is that most everyone who lived on the earth will receive salvation, which is freedom from death and hell, only those who are valiant in the “tesitmony of Jesus Christ” will be exalted.
This doesn’t mean God doesn’t love all his children, only that he knows some won’t be happy in the Celestial Kingdom and some wouldn’t even be happy in the Terrestial Kingdom.
I hear people say those in the lower kingdoms will be sad for eternity that they weren’t more valiant and I have to disagree. People might think on occasion what might have been, but I have to believe they will be happy. Thats not to say you shouldn’t strive for righteousness and moving outside your comfort zone.
I’m gonna be very happy down there.
Thanks. I did let issues pull me under for a while, but they were about people and not about the church as it is. There *has* been a lot of buzz around the ‘nacle around women’s issues–discontent with leaders, issues with men and the priesthood, etc. I was beginning to wonder, a little, what I might have gotten myself into. Thank-you for your voice of contentment. Allow me to add mine to it. I don’t have any problem with the church or its doctrine, myself. I am happy with my life as a LDS woman, and am content to let the men steward the priesthood. In other words, It’s all good.
Kristine,
I think you’re being too hard on Tanya.
Her comment 25 is pretty clear. She says:
Maybe it is a difference in personality. Maybe it is a lack of understanding or a misunderstanding of a key point that is causing the problem. For most people, it is probably a complex web of all these things and possibly more (such as abuse or sin or depression) that coalesces into issues.
She says that there are many potential reasons. It can be a difference in personality. That option does not involve any sin, misunderstanding, or mental issue. Tanya clearly states her belief that that option alone could explain different outcomes.
She further states that she thinks that for most people, the key factors are different personalities combined with a misunderstanding. That is perhaps not the most flattering statement in the world, but it is certainly less problematic than you’re making it to be. As I’m reading Tanya’s statement as she makes it, some limited subset of people have issues because of sin or depression, but the default rule is that different abilities to be at peace with the church stem mostly from personality and misunderstanding.
I’m very much in sympathy to your sentiment that church members are too quick to blame theological difficulties on sin. That’s an attitude that is all too prevalent, which receives a lot of air time in meetings sometimes, and which deserves to be denounced. However, I don’t believe that Tanya has endorsed such a view herself.
(And if she has endorsed such a view, it’s clearly because she is hiding some deep dark sin and dealing with major mental problems. 😛 ).
Heli,
I agree with everything you said in #48. But do we in the church really believe those things? If so, why do we tell people their choices will destroy their families and make them miserable for eternity?
Also, I personally think there are many people who still desire exaltation with God, but don’t find the LDS path the way to get there. In fact some people feel that participation in the church is a hinderance in their progression.
Annegb, lol. I’m afraid I’ll be right there with you, since (to borrow Heli’s terms) I’m fighting an ongoing and losing battle to reconcile all of my attempts at righteousness to my (very telestial) comfort zone. So I hope to hang out with you and gather some reflected cheer.
Kristine, I know it is all earth shattering and all when you and I agree. Of course, we are different. We each view life from our vantage point. When I stated that I agreed with Tanya, it was simply that I agreed with the fact that my questions were answered along the way. Not that I never had any.
I respect you pretty much more than any other woman inthe bloggernacle. I strive to understand what you deal with internally. Don’t take this condescendingly, please. You know as well as I that it is the lack of understanding of each other that make these things difficult. Never would I think to categorize anothers’ questioning or torment over doctrines by suggesting some of the above items. I’ve witnessed how those broad brush approaches demoralize and stop any forward movement.
I may not struggle with the doctrines. But if we were to ever meet to have lunch you would hear that I am very tenuous with local leadership. And that statement we all hear and know so well, “if you sustain the prophet, you sustain the locals leaders or you don’t have a testimony” all too well. So for what it’s worth Kristine, I stand with you in your complicated testimony, because I know it’s yours and it is prized highly by you.
48.
“I hear people say those in the lower kingdoms will be sad for eternity that they weren’t more valiant and I have to disagree. People might think on occasion what might have been, but I have to believe they will be happy. Thats not to say you shouldn’t strive for righteousness and moving outside your comfort zone.”
A quick answer: I believe that the people in the lower kingdoms will be less/not happy because they still will have the issues that resulted in them being in those kingdoms.
1. We are that we might have joy
2. Love is the greatest source of joy; God’s love is the most joyous to the soul because it is the greatest love.
3. Christ’s two basic commandments are to love God and others. The 10 commandments are a schoolmaster teaching how to do that. As we grow in love and oneness, we grow in joy.
4. People in the Telestial Kingdom basically are those who continue to sin in their hearts / be selfish instead of loving. They accept Christ’s salvation from death and hell, but continue in their hearts to value selfish, divisive acts over loving ones. They do “seeketh their own”.
5. Those people won’t have the joy/happiness that comes from loving one another / becoming one with each other as Jesus prayed we would while he worked out the at-one-ment in Gethsemane. They and the Terrestial types will will suffer eternally the absence of full one-ness with our Father & Mother that Celestial people will en-Joy.
Hi everyone, i am new to this post but i want to mention some things about temples. i read alot of history and journals about the early saints of the LDS church. the one thing i find very wonderfull is that the wonderous visions and encountings of angels and even God and Christ being seen in those early temples. the lord has dwelt in his temples then and the saints have seen these wonderfull events. do these events happen in todays temples and can someone say they know that God dwells in them and if he does i would assume that many people attending the temples would mention it as a knowing testimony of christ and god.