Distinct polygamy concerns

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

The spirit of contention can arise with any subject, especially subjects that are difficult.  I find that usually this is brought up when people just don't want to discuss an uncomfortable subject and is often a way to shut down other people.  I find it really frustrating. While I too, think that a woman should be teaching this I appreciate that rongo is always willing and I've never seen him shy away under the guise of a subject being so called contentious.

When we did our series of firesides (Are Mormons Christian?, Book of Mormon: Fact of Fiction?, and Can Mormon Prophets Stand up to Scrutiny?), there were some stake members who were extremely upset and uncomfortable. Why are we doing this? they asked the stake presidency (it was my ward, but it was endorsed and supported by the stake). They were also worried because it had been advertised and promoted, and we ended up having around 130 non-members attend. One of those most concerned was a military chaplain. Feedback was extremely and overwhelmingly positive, although one stake member said that the minute Q&A started, he could feel the Spirit leave the room, and he felt it was contentious. It actually was very much not contentious (the anti-Mormon ministries who brought people were actually very respectful and well-behaved), but for those who were uncomfortable with it, it was the fact that people were asking questions pushing back on Church claims (some questions were asked by stake members, too). The questions, answers (given with skill, grace, and aplomb  ), and give-and-take were good, and almost everyone left energized and uplifted. It's always good when people witness good discussion and handling of difficult topics and questions.

I think some Church members mistake any deviation from our "safe" lesson format we are used to as "contentious," simply because it has the potential to dip its toes into the waters of "unsafe." I think some people mistake this feeling of discomfort and nervousness as "contention." 

[rongo]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

This is more than just a difficult subject.  This is one where lots of people have planted their flag into a certain position and are pretty much committed to it.  So yes contention can always pop up but some topics to a much greater degree than others.  Rongo is a much braver soul than I am.   I wish him well if he decides to go ahead of this. 

Keep in mind that the audience and discussion isn't going to be anything like this thread.  We here are a poor comparison to an audience in a local unit somewhere. Sometimes we lose sight of that.

If there actually was a ward where the class was composed of the 20-30 personalities who participate regularly here (including some ex-members who still somehow come to church every week  ) --- can you even imagine? 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I disagree about having a tacitly understood "avoid at all cost" order for discussion in a church setting. I think more discussion and exposure in faithful church settings (even if not as "advanced" as we all would like) would only help with people who get ambushed by things they don't know or haven't heard of online (who then usually have no faithful church setting to try to deal with it). 

Back in February we had a stake conference at a stake in Arizona, and the stake high counselor over missionary work gave an excellent talk in the leadership meeting about improving missionary work in our wards and stakes.  One of his bullet points was "being prepared for uncomfortable discussions when sharing the gospel with non-member friends".  He said that the ward leadership should "set aside time regularly to teach members how to deal with these questions", and said that we should prepare ward members to handle uncomfortable discussions.   

I was intrigued by what he was proposing and wanted to try to implement something like he was suggesting in our ward, although I wasn't sure exactly how it would play out.  But unfortunately I was preparing to move, and was released from my calling and moved shortly after that, so I never got a chance to get involved in it.  But I think the kind of thing you are doing is what a lot of people need.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

 I think more discussion and exposure in faithful church settings (even if not as "advanced" as we all would like) would only help with people who get ambushed by things they don't know or haven't heard of online (who then usually have no faithful church setting to try to deal with it). 

I call this reinforcement of our "shelves".  Some have a shelf with a firm testimony on top but little understanding bracing it.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I think some Church members mistake any deviation from our "safe" lesson format we are used to as "contentious," simply because it has the potential to dip its toes into the waters of "unsafe." I think some people mistake this feeling of discomfort and nervousness as "contention." 

So true.  Was Joseph being contentious when he refused to join a local Church and instead went into the grove?  Was the Savior carrying a spirit of contention when he disagreed with the Pharisees on doctrine?  Discomfort and disagreement are not the same as contention.  You can disagree without contention, even if uncomfortable.  Contention is about winning.  A contest.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I think this is a crucial point when addressing the lying about polygamy on the part of both men and women. B.H. Roberts (a polygamist himself who was denied his seat in the House of Representatives as Utah's first congressman over polygamy) made the point in discussing John Taylor's debate with ministers at Bolougne sur Mer (France) that when sworn to secrecy by God, situational lying inevitably comes up when God's secrecy command comes into conflict with direct questions about it. He used the example of Peter, James, and John coming down from the Mount of Transfiguration, and being asked by the other apostles what had happened up there. Whatever they said would have been a lie (they were commanded to tell no one until the resurrection). When divine commandments to secrecy collide with a desire for absolute honesty, what are people to do?

In the instance with Peter, James, and John, they could have just said "we've been commanded not to talk about it".  So I disagree with the bolded part of your statement.

There are some times when not answering would be an answer I suppose, such as being asked if you are practicing polygamy.  An answer of "I've been commanded not to talk about it" is the same as "yes".  So perhaps being dishonest would be necessary under those circumstances (though I'm not completely convinced).  But I think that most times a divine command for secrecy does not need to collide with a desire for absolute honesty. 

We have plenty of examples of this when it comes to the dealing with people asking questions about what goes on in temples.  No one has to lie in order to keep from revealing things they've covenanted not to reveal.

 

[juliann]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But Juliann doesn't like that part of their stories, hence her appeal to authority about "modern scholarship" "discarding" it (which I'm fine with, I just don't feel obligated to do so).

 

You need to stop putting words in my mouth and drawing broad brush conclusions because I disagree with some part or some interpretation. You have not done near the study on women that I have. You have not been the one championing these women and calling for them to be included in our history. I cannot tell you how much I resent you smearing my intentions like this. 

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In the instance with Peter, James, and John, they could have just said "we've been commanded not to talk about it".  So I disagree with the bolded part of your statement.

There are some times when not answering would be an answer I suppose, such as being asked if you are practicing polygamy.  An answer of "I've been commanded not to talk about it" is the same as "yes".  So perhaps being dishonest would be necessary under those circumstances (though I'm not completely convinced).  But I think that most times a divine command for secrecy does not need to collide with a desire for absolute honesty. 

We have plenty of examples of this when it comes to the dealing with people asking questions about what goes on in temples.  No one has to lie in order to keep from revealing things they've covenanted not to reveal.

Very good point that "no comment" or "commanded not to talk about it" is a yes answer in the polygamy situation. 

[juliann]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Study the scriptures, ponder and pray.

Clarify the nature of the questions and concerns.

Research the issues.  At length.  

Evaluate the policy in question, and the possible doctrinal/revelatory bases for it.

Confer with trusted and faithful Saints who may have information and insights that could illuminate these things.  

Talk with local leaders about this.  Seek further "review" at the stake and/or area level if appropriate.

Avoid adopting an adversarial posture relative to the leaders of the Church.

Avoid betraying confidences.

Really avoid "public protest"-style antics and strategies.

At some point, if you feel you really have a case to make for requesting a policy change, follow the generalized counsel provided by then-Elder Oaks in his 1987 article, Criticism.

Here's the governing principle he lays out:

He then goes on to lay out "five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female":

I'm sort of confused about what exactly is being bandied about here.  Publicly disclosing matters of church govedrnance that were requested to be kept in confidence is, I think, reprehensible.  It is not only a betrayal of trust, but here it appears to be raised as a justification for taking on an adversarial, Kate Kelly-esque "my way or the highway" approach to affecting change in how the Church operates.  

As an attorney, I regularly use information and legal resources available to me to create "leverage," to force the other side to do, or not do, something.  Nothing wrong with this.  To the contrary, it's all party of how the adversarial system operates.  We have rules within which we as lawyers function, and those rules contemplate and allow . . . pressure.  Leverage.  Compulsion.  The system is by design adversarial.

I have an entirely different perspective as to how the Church should function.  And more to the point, how it should not function.  Kate Kelly.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Denver Snuffer.  These guys all knew exactly what they were doing.  They wanted to bring the Church to heel.  They wanted to push it, to coerce it, to bend it to their will.  They adopted inherently adversarial postures and tactics.  Nothing they did bespoke matters of faith, of scripture, of counsel, of persuasion, of seeking the Lord's will.  It was their way, full stop.  Kate Kelly trespassed on sacred ground.  Sam Young put on his stupid starvation-and-empty-chair kabuki theatre.  Bill Reel continued with his vapid online rants.  Denver Snuffer presumed to judge the entirety of the Church.

I dunno.  Maybe I am totally misreading this, which to me is coming across as a sort of "The cat's out of the bag about exceptions to the sealing policy, so let's shout about it until the Brethren cave, and also insinuate that they are sexist, while we are at it" approach, straight out of Kate Kelly's playbook.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is not one woman here now who has championed the "Kate Kelly" approach. Quite the opposite and there are multiple threads on this board you can search if your memory fails you. I have repeatedly said she blew up her own organization with her behavior. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here but it is very disappointing to see you descend into baseless accusations and claims. 

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

 I don't know anyone who expects or looks for it to be lived again on earth (the hereafter is a different story, and again, there is a range of views on this). 

The hereafter is supposed to be the big carrot, enticing me to live righteously on this earth and make the right decisions. The celestial kingdom has never looked particularly pleasing to me, but the men tell me this is where I’m supposed to work towards. I don’t trust that there’s a man on the planet not even my husband who can truly appreciate the conundrum this puts me in.

[manol]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Lying to cover it up (whether commanded/endorsed by God, or not) is a front-and-center concern with this, regardless of where one is at on the issue, and it may be a central concern for some. 

I agree.

If Joseph did indeed lie (or equivocate or otherwise give intentionally misleading responses) about polygamy, one of the conclusions a person might draw is that Joseph set the example and therefore it is okay, and even right, to lie or equivocate or mislead under some circumstances.  (I'm under the impression this was the late-19th-century interpretation of many in the Church, but I could be wrong.)  What are your thoughts around that aspect?

Edited July 9, 2022 by manol

[juliann]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

There is such a range of reactions and strong feelings on this and some other issues, and all  Church members are at different places on the spectrum with it (though many haven't really given it much thought or been exposed to it much, actually). 

In 2009, after the FAIR conference in Frankfurt, we also had a fireside in Strasbourg, France (just across the Rhine). My wife and I spent the night in Offenburg, and were going to be picked up by a member of the Strasbourg stake presidency Sunday after church. We were early to church, and the only one there was a woman in her twenties. She was from Freiburg, but sometimes came on her own to help with the Offenburg branch (not a calling, purely voluntary). One of my teachers in the MTC was from Freiburg, so I asked her if she knew the family. That was her sister, and her family! After her mission, with no prospects for temple marriage materializing, she spent a few years in Australia, hoping to find someone to marry in the temple. Then, she finished her degree and was working for their version of Child Protective Services. She was very sharp and glowed with the Spirit (her family was very strong, and all sons and daughters served missions as a matter of course after their father had joined the Church from being talked to by missionaries at the train station). There weren't any other English speakers there that day, and it was nice for my wife to have her with her at church (the branch president had been at the FAIR conference, and he asked me if I would give my presentation for a combined priesthood/RS Society third hour). 

Afterwards, my wife said that if we still practiced polygamy, she would have no problem with her being a wife as well. She felt so bad for her. 

 

Rongo, I so appreciate your effort to do this and I believe that you are probably the only one in your ward who can do it responsibly. So I hope you will take what I am trying to explain in the spirit it is intended. You will have single women in RS. Think of the underlying message in pitying single women and implying being married to anyone at all, in any configuration, is preferable to what they are now. One of the things the church is trying to do, but not succeeding well, is to treat single women as valuable disciples just as they are. They are not living Plan B. This is their Plan A and they can contribute as much to others and the church as any married woman and live just as full and meaningful a life as anyone else. 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, manol said:

I agree.

If Joseph did indeed lie (or equivocate or otherwise give intentionally misleading responses) about polygamy, one of the conclusions a person might draw is that Joseph set the example and therefore it is okay, and even right, to lie or equivocate or mislead under some circumstances.  (I'm under the impression this was the late-19th-century interpretation of many in the Church, but I could be wrong.)  What are your thoughts around that aspect?

I think you are probably right about the 19th century impressions.  And I don't judge them for that.

But this topic always reminds me of Corrie ten Boom and her experiences that she shared as a Christian trying to save Jews in Holland during WWII in her book The Hiding Place.  She talks about being raised in a home where lying was never ok under any circumstances, and how her sister raised her kids the same way.  This sister had a Jewish woman working for her passing as a gentile, and one day the SS raided their home and flatly asked her if the woman who was her maid was a Jew.  This sister (I cannot remember her name off the top of my head) said 'yes' with no hesitation.  Both the sister and the maid were arrested and the sister ended up with Corrie in a concentration camp.

When Corrie found out what had occurred she was put out by it, being upset that her sister didn't lie to save the young woman's life.  The sister basically said that she knew that God would not let any harm come to that woman because the sister told the truth.  It was not long after that they found out that this woman had escaped and made it to a safe area.

I'm not saying that there is never a reason to lie.  But I don't think that we appreciate or realize the power and miracles that God gives us access to when we are strictly obedient to God's commandments either.  I think that sometimes our fear leads us to believe that lying (or some other sin) is the only option.  

[provoman]

@rongo

I am hopefully you will make it clear with every question/answer that there ate learned responses and not authoritative answers.

Perhaps even the talk from President Oaks about thinks we do not know.

Also, Doctrine and Covenants 132:

”66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.”

 

I would also stress what I believe Dan Peterson has posted before, something along the lines of “reviewing all the evidences, I choose”.

There are certainly to be people in the room that wont accept and explanation; which is why I hope you will frequently acknowledge there are learned responses or that what you say is how you personally have come to terms with whatever question. And let the audience know that what works for you may not work for them.

[juliann]

Back to the stories that only pop up decades after the event, there are others and the church has not fallen apart by openly recognizing problematic accounts (as in calling the sword story "unauthenticated.") 

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-10-no-2-2009/sweetwater-revisited-sour-notes-ways-learning?fbclid=IwAR2tVH_DnnqVM91HONAKgN7_faFXpV9_nqiPjDAUineugOamBatcUKA8Nfc

The students reactions to learning that the Sweetwater rescue account is problematic is what is happening here. This article gives a good account of how the story of the three rescuers grew, even to Pres. Hinckley using it, is instructive as to how these things happen. 

Quote

To illustrate, consider the thought process of a student who wrote about what he would say to someone who “felt the Spirit more with the less accurate version.” He began by acknowledging that he was one of those people stirred by the excerpt from Solomon Kimball’s article, which he remembered from a Church Educational System video. Having examined Orton’s evidence, the student observed that the 1914 version “seemed to focus in on a few and was really a ‘Hollywood’ version of the truth.” Upon initial reflection, he wondered if being moved by that account meant that he “really felt the Spirit as much as I just felt good.” Probing further, he considered what the Holy Ghost could teach a discerning learner: “The Spirit is trying to tell us that something significant happened here, and we can really learn from what happened. The Spirit, if listened to, might also be helping us hunger after the truth of the story.” Reflecting on his own emotional response to an incomplete account, he warned against a tendency “to feel so caught up in the magic that we forget to listen to the Spirit fully.”[24] In history and life, that kind of discernment can help us grow as learners and teachers of truth.

Also, the seagull and crickets story re-evaluated (when is the last time anyone saw it used in official sources?) It used to be one of the most told stories that I remember growing up. Utah even has a California gull as its state bird because of this:    https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq_volume38_1970_number3/s/107089

I especially want to note that no one is calling anyone a liar over such things. It happens and it happens to good, honest people who believe the stories for whatever reason. I doubt there are many who have not told something as fact that we later found out had huge holes in it. I have told things that happened to me decades ago only to go look at my diary to see that I had misremembered an important aspect, including who else was involved. It is particularly telling when my siblings get together and relate their understanding of things that happened to us all. We need to stop holding our ancestors to standards we can't meet...and always, always check for contemporary accounts over decades later rememberances.

 

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

The hereafter is supposed to be the big carrot, enticing me to live righteously on this earth and make the right decisions. The celestial kingdom has never looked particularly pleasing to me, but the men tell me this is where I’m supposed to work towards. I don’t trust that there’s a man on the planet not even my husband who can truly appreciate the conundrum this puts me in.

We know very little of the details of any of the kingdoms.  I do think it is reasonable to conclude their God forced nobody to be born in mortality. We all chose to come based on a much higher knowledge of all issues.  The celestial kingdom may not appeal to you in your current state but if you could meet your premortal self, you would be told that you do want it.  That is why you decided to be born in this world.  

[manol]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

The hereafter is supposed to be the big carrot, enticing me to live righteously on this earth and make the right decisions. The celestial kingdom has never looked particularly pleasing to me, but the men tell me this is where I’m supposed to work towards. I don’t trust that there’s a man on the planet not even my husband who can truly appreciate the conundrum this puts me in.

I cannot imagine a heaven that is a hell of any sort for any of its inhabitants.   However I do not think we have a complete picture yet; clearly there was more information on the subject which was not included in Section 132, as the last verse of that section indicates:

1 hour ago, provoman said:

@rongo

Also, Doctrine and Covenants 132:

”66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.”

 And the fact that there is more to be revealed leaves the door open for the possibility of something like Calm's theory:

On 7/7/2022 at 7:44 PM, Calm said:

To me, Joseph was trying to create a celestial family that linked everyone through sealings...

On 7/7/2022 at 8:42 PM, Calm said:

A celestial web is how I have described what Joseph was trying to create.  It was Rough Stone Rolling that first gave me the impression and then later observing how he attempted to institute pluses marriage with wives, and then daughters and sisters when his friends freaked about sharing sealings with wives. The Law of Adoption makes sense under that family web as well, though the fighting over who would be son and who would be father shows that many (most) ended up interpreting it as glory building, not surprising with all the sermons on that subject.

And obviously I think Calm's theory (or something like it) is more than just a possibility. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not saying that there is never a reason to lie.  But I don't think that we appreciate or realize the power and miracles that God gives us access to when we are strictly obedient to God's commandments either.  I think that sometimes our fear leads us to believe that lying (or some other sin) is the only option.  

But we also have the example in the scriptures of the women and children being thrown into the fire and God allowing them to suffer what must have been enormous pain in order for his judgment of the wicked to be just in reaction to Alma’s missionary work and condemning of the wicked. Is it really appropriate to believe that someone will be saved and no one else will have to suffer tragedy if you stand faithful in all ways, including being honest?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/14?lang=eng

Edited July 9, 2022 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

33 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

We know very little of the details of any of the kingdoms.  I do think it is reasonable to conclude their God forced nobody to be born in mortality. We all chose to come based on a much higher knowledge of all issues.  The celestial kingdom may not appeal to you in your current state but if you could meet your premortal self, you would be told that you do want it.  That is why you decided to be born in this world.  

 

25 minutes ago, manol said:

I cannot imagine a heaven that is a hell of any sort for any of its inhabitants.   However I do not think we have a complete picture yet; clearly there was more information on the subject which was not included in Section 132, as the last verse of that section indicates:

Respectfully, what would be comforting for me as a woman (if you are interested ) would be for men to say, "That makes sense to me.  It's legit that you feel threatened."

Nothing else even comes close to comfort.  Trust me I don't think about polygamy much these days.  Que sera sera.  But one thing I won't  listen to is "Don't worry.  You're gonna like it."  Or anything like unto it.  I believe differently, I know me, and if Rongo doesn't validate as much as he educates I couldn't support.  

Edited July 9, 2022 by MustardSeed

[manol]

50 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Respectfully, what would be comforting for me as a woman (if you are interested ) would be for men to say, "That makes sense to me.  It's legit that you feel threatened."

Nothing else even comes close to comfort.  Trust me I don't think about polygamy much these days.  Que sera sera.  But one thing I won't  listen to is "Don't worry.  You're gonna like it."  Or anything like unto it.  I believe differently, I know me, and if Rongo doesn't validate as much as he educates I couldn't support.  

Obviously it wasn't clear that I agreed with you, so let me try again.

I agree with you.

It is totally legitimate that the concept of "men get to have multiple wives, and women have to share their husbands with many other women, in the Celestial Kingdom" is threatening to you. 

I just happen to think that concept is mistaken (and totally inconsistent with a God who is good and fair and who loves his daughters).  But if you believe that concept of the Celestial Kingdom, and correct me if I'm wrong but apparently you do, then of course it is threatening - devastating even - to you. 

In my opinion, if something FEELS like darkness to you, don't accept it just because it's presented as part of the package deal. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by manol

[MustardSeed]

47 minutes ago, manol said:

Obviously it wasn't clear that I agreed with you, so let me try again.

I agree with you.

It is totally legitimate that the concept of "men get to have multiple wives, and women have to share their husbands with many other women, in the Celestial Kingdom" is threatening to you. 

I just happen to think that concept is mistaken (and totally inconsistent with a God who is good and fair and who loves his daughters).  But if you believe that concept of the Celestial Kingdom, and correct me if I'm wrong but apparently you do, then of course it is threatening - devastating even - to you. 

In my opinion, if something FEELS like darkness to you, don't accept it just because it's presented as part of the package deal. 

Thank you !  I appreciate that so much.  My bad I didn't read carefully.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But we also have the example in the scriptures of the women and children being thrown into the fire and God allowing them to suffer what must have been enormous pain in order for his judgment of the wicked to be just in reaction to Alma’s missionary work and condemning of the wicked. Is it really appropriate to believe that someone will be saved and no one else will have to suffer tragedy if you stand faithful in all ways, including being honest?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/14?lang=eng

The sister died in the concentration camp, so I don’t think she believed that nothing bad could happen due to obedience. She was willing to suffer whatever consequence came her way. Her belief seemed centered on the Jewish woman not being punished for her (the sister’s) choice.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The sister died in the concentration camp, so I don’t think she believed that nothing bad could happen due to obedience. She was willing to suffer whatever consequence came her way. Her belief seemed centered on the Jewish woman not being punished for her (the sister’s) choice.

 

And that is what would trouble me most…at least in my idealized ‘I hope I am that person who could stick to it if it was just me’ self picture…it is not my own suffering (which pain I hope would not have me giving in) I think about, but what suffering I might cause others when sticking to my principles…Alma and Amulek likely caused the severity of the response that included tossing women and children into the fire pit along with the scriptures they possessed.  The believing men were cast out and their families destroyed instead of them, my guess is it was seen as a fate worse than death knowing their ones are suffering such a horrible death and also likely a challenge to Alma and Amulek to stop it if their God was so powerful. 
 

I have always wondered how Amulek and Alma and other believers felt later on after it was over about how God withheld his hand when women and children were being slaughtered in horrible ways, but then wiped out the mockers who were beating A&A when Alma cried out for relief. It is one of the first things I am going to be asking in the afterlife to explain.  (And one of those scripture stories that make it look like women are plot devices/rewards and punishments in God’s view, that God uses women to fulfill men’s fate, in this case both the wicked and Alma and Amulek’s.)

It is much harder for me to reason that my self esteem of being the person who would die for Light and Truth is worth protecting at the cost of another’s pain. And if my standing strong wasn’t going to have any real impact on anyone else, wasn’t going to change the world, why would God need me to be a protector of Truth that ultimately doesn’t need my protection instead of being first a protector of the weak and innocent?  What a cruel test of my commitment if that is the purpose. I cannot reconcile it with other verses describing God’s relationship with even the least of his children. 

Thankfully, I have never been placed in such a difficult situation. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Calm

[rongo]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Back in February we had a stake conference at a stake in Arizona, and the stake high counselor over missionary work gave an excellent talk in the leadership meeting about improving missionary work in our wards and stakes.  One of his bullet points was "being prepared for uncomfortable discussions when sharing the gospel with non-member friends".  He said that the ward leadership should "set aside time regularly to teach members how to deal with these questions", and said that we should prepare ward members to handle uncomfortable discussions.   

I was intrigued by what he was proposing and wanted to try to implement something like he was suggesting in our ward, although I wasn't sure exactly how it would play out.  But unfortunately I was preparing to move, and was released from my calling and moved shortly after that, so I never got a chance to get involved in it.  But I think the kind of thing you are doing is what a lot of people need.

Keep plugging away in your new stake! Area leader roulette is a big factor --- some leaders are very supportive, while others are very risk-averse. And others yet are blasé and completely uninterested (and therefore a "no"). It all depends. Good luck!

[rongo]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So true.  Was Joseph being contentious when he refused to join a local Church and instead went into the grove?  Was the Savior carrying a spirit of contention when he disagreed with the Pharisees on doctrine?  Discomfort and disagreement are not the same as contention.  You can disagree without contention, even if uncomfortable.  Contention is about winning.  A contest.

Yes! Many members are used to "Mormon nice" --- no disagreement, and apparent agreement all-around. We even see some of that in this thread --- disagreement makes some very uncomfortable. 

Honestly, people who thought past "ask anything" and controversial topics activities were "contentious" were mostly uncomfortable that people were free to depart from the tightly-correlated party line in asking questions, or in discussing topics and issues that were beyond "the standard three-hour block." Or that non-members were openly invited and attracted, and able to ask questions or even "take shots" at the Church (they were actually very respectful, but we did get many expected "old chestnut" questions, too). 

[rongo]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

The hereafter is supposed to be the big carrot, enticing me to live righteously on this earth and make the right decisions. The celestial kingdom has never looked particularly pleasing to me, but the men tell me this is where I’m supposed to work towards. I don’t trust that there’s a man on the planet not even my husband who can truly appreciate the conundrum this puts me in.

All you can do in your boat, I would say, is to develop a close communication relationship with God (through the Holy Ghost). You probably already are. You seem to be navigating this as well as possible, in your case, from how it seems to me.