Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

Garments only worn in the Temple?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

His first wife knew he was a pedophile - that is why they were divorced - why his first temple marriage went south.  She wrote and told the church why she needed the sealing canceled.  It actually started when he was young, he attacked other little kids, ripped cloths off of neighborhood kids when he was still a kid, attacked friends of his siblings etc. etc. and nothing was done through his entire life.  The extent of church involvement was to "forgive him" 70 times 70, and put him into the church's addiction recovery group.

 

My sister-in-law was abused by her brother - same thing - the brother was not removed from the home, the abuse continued year after year after year, while the church pretended they had taken care of it through the un-trained "addiction recovery" programs that do nothing but enable and allow abusers to feel good about themselves. 

There are no support groups for victims.  There are only support groups that enable abuse in the church.

Did his first wife ever tell the police?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I feel fairly confident from my own study and wrestling with God on this topic that the predominant focus on purity and commandment keeping with exactness emphasis, that a large % of members and leaders in the church focus on, doesn't bear good fruit.  I believe the spirit is trying to point us in a different direction collectively, and while I'm seeing some of this change with emphasis on grace from some leaders, I don't think its shifting enough to get us out of unhealthy emphasis by other leaders.  I think God is sharing it now and will continue to share this message as long as people are open to hearing it, but I think many leaders are out of tune and not hearing the message of God on this topic.  So instead of being humble to the spirit, they are entrenched in fear messaging that produces the bad fruit we're harvesting.  

I think that a lot of leaders probably feel fairly confident in their wrestle with God on the topic as well (while feeling that others might be the ones that are not being humble to the spirit).  Ultimately we each have to find our own way, but as far as the church is concerned, it's the confidence of those whom God has put in charge that makes the difference.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, changed said:

 

His first wife knew he was a pedophile - that is why they were divorced - why his first temple marriage went south.  She wrote and told the church why she needed the sealing canceled.  It actually started when he was young, he attacked other little kids, ripped cloths off of neighborhood kids when he was still a kid, attacked friends of his siblings etc. etc. and nothing was done through his entire life.  The extent of church involvement was to "forgive him" 70 times 70, and put him into the church's addiction recovery group.

 

My sister-in-law was abused by her brother - same thing - the brother was not removed from the home, the abuse continued year after year after year, while the church pretended they had taken care of it through the un-trained "addiction recovery" programs that do nothing but enable and allow abusers to feel good about themselves. 

There are no support groups for victims.  There are only support groups that enable abuse in the church.

The church knew that he raped little kids??  (I promise I'm not trying to be dense, i'm just trying to make sure that I'm not making assumptions based on your words that aren't accurate).

I agree that support groups for victims would be a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, changed said:

 

It is strange - Mormons all freely admit that leaders are fallible - and yet - in the same breath - also commit to follow them off a cliff if asked.  With the acknowledgment that leaders are not perfect should also come the admonition and room for allowing everyone to embrace their own agency - to follow their own conscience above that of any supposed "leader".  

I turned in my TR and my g's due to these two questions:

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

 

To me, a loving God does not leave the majority of the world through the majority of time without apostles or leadership for a reason.  The 99.9999% of the population who has grown up and died without apostles and prophets in their lives were given those environments because perhaps... just perhaps... God thinks it is better to live without all of that. ... just a very few "apostles" scattered here and there to serve as an example of why more are not sent to earth... that is how I see it now.  It leaves everyone with the freedom to follow their own agency above all else, remove the middle-man, encourage everyone to go directly to their God themselves.  No book.  No middleman.  We are all given a conscience - the light of Christ - and that is the best guide for all of us.  

I think its one of the worst things about our tradition, the fealty to leaders in the hierarchy.  It is really so archaic and dangerous.  We need that tradition to end.  There should be  a respect for healthy loyal opposition in the church, there should be a loyalty to conscience and principle, not to authority figures, and there should be a wrestle over morality as it applies to individual circumstances, not a knee jerk preference for tradition and black and white thinking.  

However, that said, I was very pleased at how many orthodox members I know who really struggled with the 2015 LGBTQ exclusion policy.  I think people are genuinely good at heart, but these cultural norms we have need to evolve into more healthy practice and tradition. 

As for those temple questions, I understand what you are saying and totally respect your strong sense of integrity, how very Mormon of you. :D  I will tell you that while those questions bothered me for quite a while (I don't hold a TR today), that has lessened with time.  I feel much more comfortable in my heretical skin these days, and I may even attempt to get a TR in the future, who knows.  I definitely define all the questions very differently now, and how much about that I would elaborate to leaders that likely don't understand, I don't know.  I've had some pretty candid conversations with my old bishop, but the new one is much more doctrinaire so I haven't broached much seriously with him yet.  

Good luck navigating these things.  I know I've grown a whole lot as I've wrestled with these ideas over the last few years.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So you are saying that you are in tune with God, but those whom He has chosen to be his prophets and apostles are not. 

Sure!  It happens all the time.  Look at all the women who called for less patriarchal language in the temple ordinances as an example.  They were much more in tune with the divine than the prophet for many years and years.  

Share this post


Link to post

Sew garments....................

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that a lot of leaders probably feel fairly confident in their wrestle with God on the topic as well (while feeling that others might be the ones that are not being humble to the spirit).  Ultimately we each have to find our own way, but as far as the church is concerned, it's the confidence of those whom God has put in charge that makes the difference.

I'm sure they feel that way as well.  I like the Spencer W. Kimball wrestle with God over the priesthood ban as a good example.  It took him years to re-evaluate this issue and be open enough for the change.  It also took the Q15 and other leaders years to come around.  The one statement in Kimballs biography that I'm paraphrasing now as I don't have it in front of me, that was quite enlightening, is he essentially says that he was willing to go to the grave supporting the priesthood ban, if that is what God wants.  That was some really interesting insight on just how loyal these leaders are to the traditions that were past down.  Even without strong moral and theological justification, they were willing for years to maintain an overtly racist practice when the rest of society had made already made significant progress on racism, all because of the confidence church leaders had that God wanted it the priesthood ban maintained.  

Our history polygamy has some similarities and a strong stubbornness by leaders who believed it was God's will.  I think we need to learn from these historical events and be more open to change.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm sure they feel that way as well.  I like the Spencer W. Kimball wrestle with God over the priesthood ban as a good example.  It took him years to re-evaluate this issue and be open enough for the change.  It also took the Q15 and other leaders years to come around.  The one statement in Kimballs biography that I'm paraphrasing now as I don't have it in front of me, that was quite enlightening, is he essentially says that he was willing to go to the grave supporting the priesthood ban, if that is what God wants.  That was some really interesting insight on just how loyal these leaders are to the traditions that were past down.  Even without strong moral and theological justification, they were willing for years to maintain an overtly racist practice when the rest of society had made already made significant progress on racism, all because of the confidence church leaders had that God wanted it the priesthood ban maintained.  

Our history polygamy has some similarities and a strong stubbornness by leaders who believed it was God's will.  I think we need to learn from these historical events and be more open to change.  

 

I read that summary (in bold) as insight into how loyal the leaders were to following what they believed God wanted them to do, regardless of their own feelings or how popular or unpopular it was.  Maybe I would interpret the actual quote differently and your summary doesn't accurately describe what he said though. 

Though we hardly ever agree on anything conversations with you are always a great reminder to me of how people can hear or read the same words and come up with completely different ideas of what was actually being said.  :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The one statement in Kimballs biography that I'm paraphrasing now as I don't have it in front of me, that was quite enlightening, is he essentially says that he was willing to go to the grave supporting the priesthood ban, if that is what God wants.  That was some really interesting insight on just how loyal these leaders are to the traditions that were past down.

The bolded seems to be the key phrase.  If God had wanted President Kimball to do something he would do it.  When God told him to open up the priesthood to all worthy males he did it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, changed said:

 

Abuse is much worse when it is done by the hands of those who are supposedly "called by God".  Being raped by a stranger, vs. being being raped - and videotaped - and the video posted online - by someone in the bishopric wearing garments who was supposed to be a protector.  ... then watching everyone in the congregation raise their hands to support this rapist pedophile in their leadership position...  and covenant to support their leaders as part of the TR interview?  Years and years and years - child after child after child - all videotaped... he is in jail now for the rest of his life without parole, but it was not the church who put him there.  The church supported him.  When his first temple marriage went south, the church condemned his first wife rather than him.  He was sealed to a second unsuspecting victim - did the church warn her? stop the wedding?  No - they sealed another victim to him, and gave him leadership callings.  The church knew - knew what ended his first marriage, he went to church addiction recovery groups - the church knew, and enabled him, and gave him more than a temple recommend and garments to wear, they put him in leadership positions, with children, within the bishopric.  

 

In another situation - after our bishop issues a TR to another person who should NOT have had a TR (the TR was revoked after I confronted them both)  - the bishop is not a judge, does not discipline - is not led by the spirit - but instead enables abuse to continue and sanctifies it - calls it holy.  This is worse than abuse.  

 

The temple, and everything surrounding the temple, is not a holy place to me.  It is a building filled with lies, pedophiles, adultery, covenants of polygamy and abuse.

Thank you for helping me understand better. I'm sorry you had to go through all of that.  I wish I could have been there for you. ❤

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, changed said:

 

Abuse is much worse when it is done by the hands of those who are supposedly "called by God".  Being raped by a stranger, vs. being being raped - and videotaped - and the video posted online - by someone in the bishopric wearing garments who was supposed to be a protector.  ... then watching everyone in the congregation raise their hands to support this rapist pedophile in their leadership position...  and covenant to support their leaders as part of the TR interview?  Years and years and years - child after child after child - all videotaped... he is in jail now for the rest of his life without parole, but it was not the church who put him there.  The church supported him.  When his first temple marriage went south, the church condemned his first wife rather than him.  He was sealed to a second unsuspecting victim - did the church warn her? stop the wedding?  No - they sealed another victim to him, and gave him leadership callings.  The church knew - knew what ended his first marriage, he went to church addiction recovery groups - the church knew, and enabled him, and gave him more than a temple recommend and garments to wear, they put him in leadership positions, with children, within the bishopric.  

 

In another situation - after our bishop issues a TR to another person who should NOT have had a TR (the TR was revoked after I confronted them both)  - the bishop is not a judge, does not discipline - is not led by the spirit - but instead enables abuse to continue and sanctifies it - calls it holy.  This is worse than abuse.  

 

The temple, and everything surrounding the temple, is not a holy place to me.  It is a building filled with lies, pedophiles, adultery, covenants of polygamy and abuse.

I'm sorry this happened to you.  But I just want to point out that the church doesn't send pedophiles to the addiction recovery groups.  You are sent to addiction recovery groups to deal with addictions, not crimes.  And child pornography addiction would be considered a crime as well.  So, if he was just sent to an addiction recovery group, then the church only knew that he was addicted to pornography, alcohol, gambling, etc.  He was lying to everyone around him.  I'm glad that someone finally told on him and that he went to jail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I read that summary (in bold) as insight into how loyal the leaders were to following what they believed God wanted them to do, regardless of their own feelings or how popular or unpopular it was.  Maybe I would interpret the actual quote differently and your summary doesn't accurately describe what he said though. 

Though we hardly ever agree on anything conversations with you are always a great reminder to me of how people can hear or read the same words and come up with completely different ideas of what was actually being said.  :) 

I interpret the circumstances around what Kimball said as the leaders being loyal to the tradition first and foremost, because they are assuming the precedent was God's will, and they had a sense of certainty about that assumption.  They were only willing to even question the precedent after all of the pressure of societal circumstances and circumstances the members were facing and the feedback leaders were getting.  In other words, it took a whole lot to get them to even question whether their assumptions and the precedent might have not been God's will in the first place.  That is a dangerous loyalty in my opinion and shows how its really hard to enact significant change in this organizational model.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The bolded seems to be the key phrase.  If God had wanted President Kimball to do something he would do it.  When God told him to open up the priesthood to all worthy males he did it. 

I would argue that God never wanted the ban in the first place, and that multiple leaders over the course of over 100 years were deaf to God's will.  Kimball was also willing to maintain the practice, however, after he humbled himself to the possibility that God might not support the racist ban, then, and only then, did Kimball get the revelation for the change.  

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm sorry this happened to you.  But I just want to point out that the church doesn't send pedophiles to the addiction recovery groups.  You are sent to addiction recovery groups to deal with addictions, not crimes.  And child pornography addiction would be considered a crime as well.  So, if he was just sent to an addiction recovery group, then the church only knew that he was addicted to pornography, alcohol, gambling, etc.  He was lying to everyone around him.  I'm glad that someone finally told on him and that he went to jail.

You seem to think that all leaders in "the church" would do the exact same thing in these situations. In my experience there is quite a bit of variability in how leaders treat various issues.

My wife and I had the calling of Addiction Recover Leaders in the not too distant past. We had people who were assigned by priesthood leaders to attend because they got a DUI (a crime) not necessarily because they were alcoholics. I also had 2 separate bishops assign gay members to the attend the group so they could overcome their addictions to Same sex attraction. I kid you not. So acting like there is some kind of uniformity in how leaders do these things and suggesting that the shared story is inaccurate because "the church" doesn't do that, doesn't convince me in the slightest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to think that all leaders in "the church" would do the exact same thing in these situations. In my experience there is quite a bit of variability in how leaders treat various issues.

My wife and I had the calling of Addiction Recover Leaders in the not too distant past. We had people who were assigned by priesthood leaders to attend because they got a DUI (a crime) not necessarily because they were alcoholics. I also had 2 separate bishops assign gay members to the attend the group so they could overcome their addictions to Same sex attraction. I kid you not. So acting like there is some kind of uniformity in how leaders do these things and suggesting that the shared story is inaccurate because "the church" doesn't do that, doesn't convince me in the slightest.

In both of those situations that you mentioned, the person was not sent because of a confessed crime that wasn't dealt with by authorities.  If you had someone come into your addiction recovery program that said that he committed pedophilia and hadn't told the authorities and the bishop said he should just go to the addiction recovery program, I would expect you to call the cops.  I would also expect other participants to call the cops.  People do talk about crimes at the addiction recovery programs, but always about crimes that they were convicted of and had to pay restitution for.  I've never heard of someone confessing a crime and in addiction recovery groups and not having any cops called.  You don't go to the addiction recovery program to cover up a crime.  If you are a criminal with an addiction, then you are going to an addiction recovery program while you are in jail or after you have done your time.  I agree that there is variability in who goes to the recovery program, but a confessed pedophile that hasn't gone to the police would not be sent to the addiction recovery program.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, webbles said:

In both of those situations that you mentioned, the person was not sent because of a confessed crime that wasn't dealt with by authorities.  If you had someone come into your addiction recovery program that said that he committed pedophilia and hadn't told the authorities and the bishop said he should just go to the addiction recovery program, I would expect you to call the cops.  I would also expect other participants to call the cops.  People do talk about crimes at the addiction recovery programs, but always about crimes that they were convicted of and had to pay restitution for.  I've never heard of someone confessing a crime and in addiction recovery groups and not having any cops called.  You don't go to the addiction recovery program to cover up a crime.  If you are a criminal with an addiction, then you are going to an addiction recovery program while you are in jail or after you have done your time.  I agree that there is variability in who goes to the recovery program, but a confessed pedophile that hasn't gone to the police would not be sent to the addiction recovery program.

I don't think you understand how ARP meetings work.

Many people attended and I had absolutely no clue why they were there because they didn't share.

I don't know enough about this particular story to know if a leader really sent this person to an ARP group meeting or not, but it IS possible. And IF the leader send the guy to an ARP meeting it is highly likely that the only 2 people who knew about it were the Bishop, the perp, and probably the stake pres.

IOW- your assertion that something didn't happen because "the church" doesn't do that, isn't a valid argument. Some leaders may very well do that and you have no way of knowing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The bolded seems to be the key phrase.  If God had wanted President Kimball to do something he would do it.  When God told him to open up the priesthood to all worthy males he did it. 

That's really the problem with a lot of issues.  Everyone becomes convinced what they want IS what God wants.  God would never disagree right?

Kate Kelly was convinced that God wants women ordained to the priesthood because that's what she wants.

There are those convinced that D&C 132 being dropped, garments becoming optional or going away, same sex marriage in the Church are ALL actually what God will eventually want because that's what they want.  And members believe that every change is God's will because they like it.  When an unpopular change is made people leave because "God wouldn't do that."

I don't know anyone who thinks God disagrees with their POV (kind of like politics where everyone seems to think their view is held by the majority).

I have the greatest respect for those who will go against what they want when God says to, who are willing to be uncomfortable, unhappy, or shaken by following God over what they think.  Obedience is still the first law of heaven.  Sacrifice of ALL things is still necessary for exaltation.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, changed said:

 

White garments, "holy" temples, people saying they are worthy and pure and clean - rather than facing our imperfections, being open and honest about where improvements can be made.  

Sorry - abuse is the capstone of where the "pretend to be worthy, pure, clean, and protected" while staying silent - and even pressing charges against - anyone who wants to stand up, shout out, and take care of problem areas... 

Jesus threw people out of the temple -perhaps the biggest thing that made him angry, and makes me angry too - people in the temple who should not be there.  Pretending everything is white and clean and perfect when it is not.  

So, another background check every time you are interviewed for a recommend?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm sure they feel that way as well.  I like the Spencer W. Kimball wrestle with God over the priesthood ban as a good example.  It took him years to re-evaluate this issue and be open enough for the change.  It also took the Q15 and other leaders years to come around.  The one statement in Kimballs biography that I'm paraphrasing now as I don't have it in front of me, that was quite enlightening, is he essentially says that he was willing to go to the grave supporting the priesthood ban, if that is what God wants.  That was some really interesting insight on just how loyal these leaders are to the traditions that were past down.  Even without strong moral and theological justification, they were willing for years to maintain an overtly racist practice when the rest of society had made already made significant progress on racism, all because of the confidence church leaders had that God wanted it the priesthood ban maintained.  

Our history polygamy has some similarities and a strong stubbornness by leaders who believed it was God's will.  I think we need to learn from these historical events and be more open to change.  

 

So, someone seeking to know the will of God being willing to accept either answer is not as good as someone deciding that they know the will of God anyways and is not willing to be sure? I prefer President Kimball’s approach myself.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Rain said:

Considering there is a video that is made specifically for those who have not been to the temple and are likely not members that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Temple clothing

I think it is just the traditional way of creating sacred space which often doesn’t have much to do with logic or consistency. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The bolded seems to be the key phrase.  If God had wanted President Kimball to do something he would do it.  When God told him to open up the priesthood to all worthy males he did it. 

I believe it started out as racism, and finally a president of the church got it stopped. And the opening up of a temple in Brazil with many black members sealed the deal. I don't believe God had any hand in starting it up but maybe in ending it. https://www.lds.org/church/news/how-a-1978-revelation-and-a-temple-changed-everything-in-brazil?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So, another background check every time you are interviewed for a recommend?

Background checks for leadership positions.

For the temple - stop pretending it is for perfect people - open the temple up to everyone, get rid of the temple interviews, get rid of social pressure to lie about and hide sins - let people "take it to the temple" for everything.  

A place of quiet peaceful meditation, a place to make personal (not scripted) covenants, a place of beauty and rest - where everyone can come as they are, and leave with higher aspirations of what they can become - no secrets - nothing hidden - no one excluded.  That is what I think the temple should be.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Did his first wife ever tell the police?

 

She moved to a different state, and he moved out of the country for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, changed said:

 

She moved to a different state, and he moved out of the country for a bit.

I know I am only hearing a bit of the story, but it appears that you believe the Church was to do something but she didn't do what actually needed to be done. The Church has no police department, it has no jails, it has no legal ability to do anything except dis-fellowship or ex-communicate and even if either of those are done, they can only tell those parties that need to know (Bishop, Stake President).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...