smac97 Posted September 17 Posted September 17 I generally try to refrain from commenting on whether this or that Latter-day Saint ought to lose their membership in the Church. I feel that such matters are better left to the local leaders of the individual(s). I am making an exception when it comes to most or all of the Latter-day Saints participating in the The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. These folks are expressly defining and identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints, while at the same time saying and doing things that are, I think, calculated to profane sacred things, to glorify licentiousness and vulgarity, and to disparage and diminish the reputation of the Church and its members. Exhibit A: Disney's 'Secret Lives of Mormon Wives' Show Horrifies Viewers With Shocking Scenes of Its Stars Swinging and Drinking: 'It's Unhinged!' Quote If fans tuned in thinking the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives would feature demure, buttoned-up followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they will be thoroughly disappointed. RadarOnline.com can reveal the stars on the show are far from Saints. In fact, some of their behavior has fans calling the Disney show "unhinged". When the show premiered in early September, fans were immediately intrigued by the women's behavior, which included swinging, sex before marriage, drinking – and even taking drugs to spice things up in the bedroom. All of which are major no-nos in the LDS church. ... In the show's trailer, one of the wives says, "It just turned into... this whole group is swinging with each other." Another of the MomTokers added: "No one is innocent, everyone has hooked up with everyone." Despite the church's super strict rules, there are also admissions of taking drugs in the bedroom. Engemann said on the show: "Ketamine. It has been the biggest tool that I have used to strengthen my relationship. "Everyone I talked to they’re like, 'We're kind of struggling [and] things are getting a little bit dull.' Go do ketamine with your spouse." The show also shows some of the "sinners" of the group drinking and using laughing gas while getting Botox. Exhibit B: SECRET'S OUT ‘Scary levels of unhinged’ say horrified Secret Lives Of Mormon Wives viewers as it kicks off with boozing and swinging Quote SECRET Lives Of Mormon Wives viewers have been left so horrified by the new series thanks to its shocking scenes of the stars swinging and boozing. The Disney+ and Hulu series follows the lives of a group of women from Salt Lake City who are connected to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But they are far from saints themselves. Having married and given birth to their first children by 21 - with some falling pregnant by 16 - the women have formed a group called MomTok. The ladies now have a huge social media following, with millions of people fascinated by their unusual lives. But now, after letting a real camera crew in, the MomTokers have left telly viewers around the world gobsmacked. In a trailer for the show, one of the wives says: "It just turned into... this whole group is swinging with each other." Another of the MomTokers added: "No one is innocent, everyone has hooked up with everyone." Elsewhere, there has been confessions of drug taking to 'spice up' their sex lives. Exhibit C: Statement from the Church: Commentary: When Entertainment Media Distorts Faith Quote The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like other prominent global faith communities, often finds itself the focus of the attention of the entertainment industry. Some portrayals are fair and accurate, but others resort to stereotypes or gross misrepresentations that are in poor taste and have real-life consequences for people of faith. While this is not new, a number of recent productions depict lifestyles and practices blatantly inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. Others irresponsibly mischaracterize the safety and conduct of our volunteer missionaries. We understand the fascination some in the media have with the Church, but regret that portrayals often rely on sensationalism and inaccuracies that do not fairly and fully reflect the lives of our Church members or the sacred beliefs that they hold dear. Millions of Church members around the world are deeply dedicated to family, fidelity, service and the gospel of Jesus Christ. We invite all to consult reliable sources of information and listen to the voices and authentic experiences of individuals and families who find great joy and satisfaction in living these principles. The true story of our faith is best seen in the countless lives of those who strive daily to follow our Savior Jesus Christ. Exhibit D: Deseret News Opinion Piece: The ‘Secret Lives of Mormon Wives’ does not represent me Quote In 1870 — a time of general misunderstanding about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their beliefs — a group of Latter-day Saint women in Utah called a press conference and addressed newspaper reporters from across the country. “It was high time (to) rise up in the dignity of our calling and speak for ourselves,” said Eliza R. Snow, an early Latter-day Saint leader. “The world does not know us,” she said, adding that truth and justice “demand us to speak.” Then Snow added, “We are not inferior to the ladies of the world, and we do not want to appear so.” Reporters in attendance called the meeting remarkable. “In logic and in rhetoric the so-called degraded ladies of Mormondom are quite equal to the … women of the East,” wrote one reporter. As a descendant of these strong women and after reading articles published in The New Yorker and the London Times this weekend about women in my faith — based on eight women’s TikTok accounts and a Hulu series that features them — I also feel compelled to speak out. I spent almost three decades of my life writing about Latter-day Saints. I traveled to more than 40 countries meeting with members of the faith in large and small gatherings and had one-on-one conversations with hundreds and hundreds of women — both young and old. Those conversations were not about cosmetic procedures, gossip or complaints, they were about overcoming heartache, balancing career and family, the challenges of motherhood, losing loved ones and even (ironically) the destructive influence of media. The recent portrayals of the women in my faith do not come close to representing me or the millions of active, participating Latter-day Saint women I have met across the globe — including my three daughters who are all in their early 20s. I have walked with a Latter-day Saint woman across refugee camps in northern Iraq, listened as another mourned with her friends following a major tsunami in Japan, and watched another serve refugees flowing into England. I have seen women speak to thousands — including at the United Nations and the European Union Parliament — and engage in one-on-one ministries. I have never met a Latter-day Saint swinger — not one — or even a “soft swinger.” I also have no experience with, as the London Times wrote, my faith being one that “often works to keep women in their place.” ... One can argue that the Hulu series is simply entertainment, something not to be taken seriously. But to ignore every bit of reality on “Reality TV” — especially related to something as sacred as the faith of millions of people — is hurtful, unfair, unkind and mischaracterizes what it means to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have been fortified by the Latter-day Saint women I worship with. Some have chosen to stay home with children, some — like me — work, some have never married or do not have children. Each brings her unique experiences to our shared faith; we strengthen one another. We look to our temples for direction and peace. Most of us are active on social media, we laugh together, and on bad days — and we all have them — we support one another. One of the basic tenets of my faith is free agency and choice. The belief and the ability to act for oneself is the very core of our most sacred doctrine. So, with millions of Latter-day Saints across the globe, I will defend the right of women to share their voice on TikTok — or any other social media site. I will defend the right of Hulu or others to create a show featuring their narrative. I will even defend their right to share images of the Latter-day Saint temples I hold sacred to promote the lives of eight women profiting on their outrageous behavior — even though it is hurtful to me, a woman of faith. But “truth and justice” also demand I speak. The “Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” is not a representation of me or my friends or my daughters or their friends or of the women I have met across the globe. It simply is not. My invitation and plea to any media writing about these women is simple. There are millions of Latter-day Saint women who live their faith differently than these outliers being promoted online. They are smart, educated, funny and content. Find them, talk to them and tell their stories. You will be amazed. Like me and my daughters, they have been empowered by their faith. Exhibit E: Deseret News Opinion Piece: Why is it exciting to watch others betray their faith and families on Hulu? Quote Public reaction among Latter-day Saints to the latest Hulu series sensationalizing “Mormon wives” has focused on lack of representation — as it should. These featured women represent the typical Latter-day Saint woman about as well as the Kardashians represent the typical American one. But does most of the viewing public actually believe these characters represent Latter-day Saint women? We doubt it, except for maybe those who really have learned “everything” they know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from reality TV. Even secular media critics acknowledge our faith is “known for the moral code its members are expected to adhere to.” People aren’t watching this series because they believe these women embody Latter-day Saint culture and values. They’re tuning in because of a kind of sordid pleasure some find in watching others flout their stated values and faith commitments. “The series’ good-girl-gone-naughty premise is evident right from its opening credits,” writes Naomi Fry in The New Yorker, remarking on a scene where these women are dressed uniformly in matching conservative coats, “but holding saucy shushing fingers to their pouty lips.” Whatever compunction viewers might feel in ogling spouse-swapping can be soothed away as needless scruples; the real bad guy is the “patriarchal” church ridiculously portrayed as teaching women to “be housewives for the men, serving their every desire.” Cue the handmaids-in-blue-coats scene. As a side note, women in the church are encouraged to get as much education as they can. The General Relief Society President, Camille N. Johnson, is a lawyer. No one needs to explain why scandal and hypocrisy draw so much attention. A quick glance backward into the history of tabloid and yellow journalism is all we need to be reminded at how profitable lurid fascination with sensational stories has always been. It’s precisely this “morbid curiosity,” Kevin Fallon says, that prompted his own interest in “the industry’s latest attempt to exploit a niche population of a community.” Yet that quickly turned into what he called “immediate disgust” — describing the “tone” of the series an “absolute mess.” “I found it forced and rehearsed,” Fry also says, “full of only mildly entertaining, semi-manufactured beefs.” Fallon described the cast’s “thirst for reality-TV fame” as “radioactive” — recounting how “equally exasperated and entranced” he became each time another character “would get so giddy about bringing up a producer-fed storyline that they’d start grinning, giggling, and blushing into the camera.” If the show itself feels forced, it’s not nearly as contrived as the media coverage surrounding it. The desperate attempts to find a feminist angle on botox-bonding seems aimed less at convincing the audience as they are about convincing the cast they aren’t being exploited as tawdry, hedonistic caricatures of suburban American excess. In a recent article, The Sunday Times attempts to reinvent the MomTokkers as feminist pioneers within Latter-day Saint culture. The author takes for granted that the church “often works to keep women in their place,” an accusation most people believe would require some kind of evidence or experience. Incredibly, the argument appears to be that “lip-syncing to pop songs in skimpy yoga clothes” is all part of a noble push to “modernize” the church and establish “gender parity.” The media spin around the show would have us believe that the “naughty good girls” trope is a sophisticated form of activism against an oppressive religion, that the vapid “hot-mom” vibe is really just business savvy girl-bossing, and that only prudes and control freaks care about personal restraint when marriage and children are on the line. In other words, being destructively self-serving is, when you think about it, actually virtuous. It’s grating enough to have the word “Mormon” splashed about in the context of sex scandals. We also have to grapple with the condescending notion that we’re not allowed to conclude the obvious: that none of this is actually about the Church, its teachings or even women’s rights. It’s about self-display and monetizing sexuality and scandal, with the church being both a useful marketing ploy (to the extent its association can draw more viewers) and a convenient bad guy (whenever its teachings present obstacles to those goals). Not everyone’s going along with the emperor’s new clothes. The New Yorker writer Naomi Fry notes that, no matter how many times the show characters toss out the word “empowering” to describe anything at all, including promoting a sex toy on social media, she couldn’t help remark on how the most “affecting moments” in the series “showcase the bleakness of this version of liberation.” Fry quotes one of the cast as bragging about how many cosmetic procedures she’s had, right before pulling down her pants to display part of her recent “mommy makeover.” In case it’s not already entirely obvious, no one is tuning in to any of this to witness empowered women, they’re tuning in to gawk contemptuously at a farce of sexualization and overindulgence. This is not liberating anyone — not women in the church and certainly not the women in the show. It’s worth asking what message this is sending to women, especially young ones, about how to obtain a sense of worth and value? What if Church teachings about chastity and modesty are important precisely because they help us develop real love for ourselves and others? Though The Times believes these “rebellious wives” are “creating a crisis” for the church, it’s more likely that church leaders’ are most concerned with those whose lives are inevitably shattered by the “liberation” of broken families and substance abuse. If you look past the “trailblazer” gloss, a depressingly familiar story emerges of broken trust, superficial commitment and children navigating a world where love is flimsy and bodies are for gratification. If the push for the church to “modernize” is really just a push for it to endorse the sexualization and objectification of women, don’t hold your breath. In the end, we suspect no one is really expecting the church will change its standards. Celebrating these women for discarding religious sexual ethics serves a more cynical purpose; it allows critics to believe that religious people — deep down — are really all just hypocritical. They don’t believe all that — not enough to really follow it. The truth is we all fall short at times. For most of us, that means looking inside for ways to learn, grow and change. The real hypocrisy is pretending wrong is actually right—that forsaking inconvenient values represents “a new generation of worshippers who reject the old guard’s approach.” There is no such spotlight for the many committed believers who quietly pursue lives of devotion and seek to realign themselves with their highest commitments, rather than public perception, when they make mistakes. But they’re the real story — the one worth getting excited about in the end. Section 32.2 of the Handbook explains the purposes for membership restrictions: Quote The three purposes of membership restrictions or withdrawal are as follows. Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal Help protect others Help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance Protect the integrity of the Church I think all three of these are strongly implicated as to the members of the Church depicted in the Hulu series. While I would hope that the second purpose (helping the individual) would be at the forefront, I suspect these folks are too deeply immersed in their riotous living, vulgarity and debauchery to care about their membership and associated covenants. Meanwhile, we can't normalize this stuff in the Church. We need to "protect others" who may think that this stuff is somehow appropriate or acceptable in the lives of Latter-day Saints. We also need to look to protecting the integrity of the Church. Some serious boundary maintenance is in order. I am reminded of this 2015 comment from Don Bradley (in which he takes a point I had made previously and expands on it) : Quote In the thread about the excommunication of the Calderwoods, Smac made a comment that I think is important enough that it merits discussion on its own, apart from the details of their case. Smac: Quote Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community. Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them. My point isn't to comment on the Calderwoods' case: I don't know enough about it; and I'd prefer to leave discussion of it to the other thread. But I think it's worth pointing out how this principle might apply to the recent cases I know more about, particularly that of Kate Kelly. While there are definitely some gray areas regarding appropriate ways to express disagreement with church policy, and while I think we need more cultural "space" for such disagreement, there are also clear boundaries. For instance, no one (in their right mind) with an LDS background could seriously think that it's okay with the church to do protest-style actions and form national pressure groups to change church policy. When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. While I personally, for several reasons, wish Kate Kelly's stake president had taken a lesser disciplinary action, such as disfellowshipping, I think it's simply unrealistic when people expect the church to allow with impunity dissent in any and every form, no matter how at odds with the church's norms and doctrine the forms of dissent may take. Confronted with clear, and particularly with extreme, violations of its norms and boundaries the church is both right and wise to take steps to reassert and reinforce those norms and boundaries. This is part of how communities remain vital. "Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them." "While there are definitely some gray areas regarding appropriate ways to express disagreement with church policy, and while I think we need more cultural 'space' for such disagreement, there are also clear boundaries." "When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community." "Confronted with clear, and particularly with extreme, violations of its norms and boundaries the church is both right and wise to take steps to reassert and reinforce those norms and boundaries. This is part of how communities remain vital." I think Don's assessment of Kate Kelly and the Calderwoods is quite appropriately applied to the Latter-day Saints in the Hulu series. Section 32.6.1 addresses when a membership council is required: Quote Sins That Require Holding a Membership Council Murder Rape Sexual assault conviction Child or youth abuse Abuse of a spouse or another adult (as outlined in 38.6.2.4) Predatory behavior (violent, sexual, or financial) Incest Child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6) Plural marriage Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position Most felony convictions None of these is applicable to the Latter-day Saints in the Hulu series. Section 32.6.2 speaks to when a membership council "may be necessary," including the following: Quote 32.6.2.2 Sexual Immorality The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman (see Exodus 20:14; Doctrine and Covenants 63:16). A membership council may be necessary for sexual immorality as described in 38.6.5. In these situations, a council is more likely to be necessary to help a member repent if he or she has violated temple covenants or if the sin was repetitive. See 32.6.1.2 for when a council is required. ... 32.6.2.4 Violations of Trust A membership council may be necessary if a member: Commits a serious sin while holding a position of authority or trust in the Church or the community. Commits a serious sin that is widely known. In these situations, a council is more likely to be necessary to help a member repent if he or she has violated temple covenants or if the sin was repetitive. ... 32.6.2.5 Some Other Acts King Benjamin taught, “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them” (Mosiah 4:29). A council may be necessary if a person: Shows a pattern of committing serious sins (see Doctrine and Covenants 82:7). Deliberately abandons family responsibilities, including nonpayment of child support and alimony. Threatens physical violence, whether in person or online (see 32.2.1). Sells illegal drugs. Commits other serious criminal acts. In these situations, a council is more likely to be necessary to help a member repent if he or she has violated temple covenants or if the sin was repetitive. A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, or encourages an abortion. Several of these seem clearly applicable. In Luke 15, the Prodigal Son "gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living." Thereafter, he fell on hard times, so much so that he was starving and envied swine for the husks they had to eat. Having fallen so low, he "came to himself" (v. 17) and began his journey back home. I hope that Latter-day Saints who immerse themselves in rebellion or apostasy or depravity repent sooner rather than later. However, when repentance is not in view, and when those under covenant are instead glorying in licentiousness and depravity, and when they are doing so in ways calculated to adversely affect other people and to diminish the moral stature and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ, then loss of membership may be a necessary response. Thanks, -Smac 1
Dario_M Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) I have a deja vu. 😵💫 Was there not allready a topic about this subject? Edited September 17 by Dario_M
Popular Post Duncan Posted September 17 Popular Post Posted September 17 Add Ammon Bundy to the list of how is he still a member in good standing? 8
MustardSeed Posted September 17 Posted September 17 1 hour ago, smac97 said: generally try to refrain from commenting on whether this or that Latter-day Saint ought to lose their membership in the Church. I feel that such matters are better left to the local leaders of the individual(s). I am making an exception when it comes to most or all of the Latter-day Saints participating in the The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. I’m not a fan of the process of excommunication but I will say I was curious and regret the ten minutes worth of fried brain cells that were wasted before I rolled my eyes and turned on a sitcom (which is not my favorite btw) - People already think we are weird. This just complicates things- lots of people saying (anecdotally) 1. What? No coffee allowed but Botox poison and energy drinks are ignored? (Ok fair. On the surface we are very confusing regarding how we treat our bodies) And 2. The judgemental attitude these women experience is familiar to former members. ( I can’t get on board with this 100% as a Mormon issue, because it has less to do with Mormonism specifically than it does with closed groups that require rules to be followed to reap rewards. Just the other day I heard someone griping about being banned from getting a Costco hotdog because the hadn’t paid their dues. Well, yeah. But I do concede that not everyone feels great going to church.) 1
blackstrap Posted September 17 Posted September 17 Good luck getting any of them to attend a council. If they do, expect a ton of cameras trying to record all and sundry . 1
The Nehor Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) Oh yeah, the swingers. “We are so bad and evil and sinful. Look at us! So depraved! We swap spouses and then run home and think about how naughty we are.” Amateurs. ”We drink and use drugs” Weaklings. If you can’t take your partner into a different and exciting headspace without dulling their mind with substances then what are you even doing with your life? In my days of sin and vice I frequented bdsm kink clubs. It was obvious when a bunch of swingers walked in. Weirdo voyeurs. They acted shocked but they were also the most likely to get thrown out as consent violators. Both the men and the women. Somehow both bad at pushing the edge and bad at basic respect for bodily autonomy. I went to a swinger’s club a few times. Hated it. Felt like I was choking to death on all the heteronormativity. My then gf and I only found one couple we were kind of interested in but I was into him and she was into her and so that wasn’t going to work. BORING! Note: The above may be biased because I really don’t like swingers. Then again I am talking about regular swingers. Swingers that volunteer to be on reality TV must be……..very…..special and I am sure I would dislike them much much more. Imagine going to hell for that. Kind of sad really. If you are going to sell your soul at least get something good. Also everyone has hooked up with everyone? So you have no standards whatsoever? Yuck! Edited September 17 by The Nehor 4
Popular Post The Nehor Posted September 17 Popular Post Posted September 17 (edited) As a side note it is interesting that on paper these women aren’t doing much that is worse than what, say, Tim Ballard is doing yet I am going to guess there will be more disgust for these women even though they probably weren’t predators at least in trying to lure in those who would be unwilling by pretending their swinging was for a good cause. Nope, no possibility of misogyny here. Edited September 17 by The Nehor 7
MustardSeed Posted September 17 Posted September 17 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: As a side note it is interesting that on paper these women aren’t doing much that is worse than what, say, Tim Ballard is doing yet I am going to guess there will be more disgust for these women even though they probably weren’t predators trying to lure in the unwilling by pretending their swinging was for a good cause. Nope, no possibility of misogyny here. I’m an equal opportunity participant of judgement. 4
The Nehor Posted September 17 Posted September 17 1 minute ago, MustardSeed said: I’m an equal opportunity participant of judgement. 😉
smac97 Posted September 17 Author Posted September 17 (edited) On 9/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, blackstrap said: Good luck getting any of them to attend a council. If they do, expect a ton of cameras trying to record all and sundry . We've seen people try to gin up a bit of Sturm und Drang regarding a membership council. Kate Kelly. John Dehlin. Jeremy Runnells. Denver Snuffer. Natasha Helfer. It doesn't seem to work out very well. Membership councils are quiet affairs on public property, and don't lend themselves to sensationalism. Thanks, -Smac Edited September 18 by smac97 3
Popular Post juliann Posted September 17 Popular Post Posted September 17 I watched a few episodes because the show was on where I was visiting. They said it was old episodes. Actually, I didn't find it that shocking (no swinging.) I thought they were fairly decent in talking about Mormon stuff, one of them is painted as more "devout." The others made it clear what they were doing/did wasn't acceptable in Mormonism. So in a distorted way, it almost seemed as it makes us less weird if these weirdos are claiming to be Mormon. If that makes sense. What a bunch of dopes. They have nice hair, though except for the bad extensions lady. The worst problem is the show is just awful. How many girls nights out can a group of people have? I would hope people realize by now that all these phony "reality" shows are highly controlled so there is enough conflict, etc. 6
Peacefully Posted September 17 Posted September 17 I watched part of one episode. Not even good enough to be a guilty pleasure. Next. 2
smac97 Posted September 17 Author Posted September 17 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: As a side note it is interesting that on paper these women aren’t doing much that is worse than what, say, Tim Ballard is doing Tim Ballard has denied the allegations made against him. In contrast, the people in the Hulu series (who are, I should note, both women and men) are openly broadcasting their licentious behavior. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: yet I am going to guess there will be more disgust for these women Dunno about that. Plenty of people here seem pretty disgusted by the allegations against him, but are waiting to see if they are borne out. Meanwhile, we don't need to wait to see if the licentious behavior of the Secret Lives cast are borne out. Again, they are openly bragging about what they are doing. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: even though they probably weren’t predators at least in trying to lure in those who would be unwilling by pretending their swinging was for a good cause. Tu quoque doesn't really work here. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Nope, no possibility of misogyny here. Objections to the lurid crap being peddled by Secret Lives is borne of hatred of women? What if women (such as the authors of the Des News opinion pieces) are interposing these objections? Are you going to accuse them of "misogyny"? Thanks, -Smac 3
Stargazer Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) On 9/17/2024 at 6:54 PM, smac97 said: I generally try to refrain from commenting on whether this or that Latter-day Saint ought to lose their membership in the Church. I feel that such matters are better left to the local leaders of the individual(s). I am making an exception when it comes to most or all of the Latter-day Saints participating in the The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. These folks are expressly defining and identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints, while at the same time saying and doing things that are, I think, calculated to profane sacred things, to glorify licentiousness and vulgarity, and to disparage and diminish the reputation of the Church and its members. Exhibit A: Disney's 'Secret Lives of Mormon Wives' Show Horrifies Viewers With Shocking Scenes of Its Stars Swinging and Drinking: 'It's Unhinged!' Exhibit B: SECRET'S OUT ‘Scary levels of unhinged’ say horrified Secret Lives Of Mormon Wives viewers as it kicks off with boozing and swinging Exhibit C: Statement from the Church: Commentary: When Entertainment Media Distorts Faith Exhibit D: Deseret News Opinion Piece: The ‘Secret Lives of Mormon Wives’ does not represent me Exhibit E: Deseret News Opinion Piece: Why is it exciting to watch others betray their faith and families on Hulu? Section 32.2 of the Handbook explains the purposes for membership restrictions: I think all three of these are strongly implicated as to the members of the Church depicted in the Hulu series. While I would hope that the second purpose (helping the individual) would be at the forefront, I suspect these folks are too deeply immersed in their riotous living, vulgarity and debauchery to care about their membership and associated covenants. Meanwhile, we can't normalize this stuff in the Church. We need to "protect others" who may think that this stuff is somehow appropriate or acceptable in the lives of Latter-day Saints. We also need to look to protecting the integrity of the Church. Some serious boundary maintenance is in order. I am reminded of this 2015 comment from Don Bradley (in which he takes a point I had made previously and expands on it) : "Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them." "While there are definitely some gray areas regarding appropriate ways to express disagreement with church policy, and while I think we need more cultural 'space' for such disagreement, there are also clear boundaries." "When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community." "Confronted with clear, and particularly with extreme, violations of its norms and boundaries the church is both right and wise to take steps to reassert and reinforce those norms and boundaries. This is part of how communities remain vital." I think Don's assessment of Kate Kelly and the Calderwoods is quite appropriately applied to the Latter-day Saints in the Hulu series. Section 32.6.1 addresses when a membership council is required: None of these is applicable to the Latter-day Saints in the Hulu series. Section 32.6.2 speaks to when a membership council "may be necessary," including the following: Several of these seem clearly applicable. In Luke 15, the Prodigal Son "gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living." Thereafter, he fell on hard times, so much so that he was starving and envied swine for the husks they had to eat. Having fallen so low, he "came to himself" (v. 17) and began his journey back home. I hope that Latter-day Saints who immerse themselves in rebellion or apostasy or depravity repent sooner rather than later. However, when repentance is not in view, and when those under covenant are instead glorying in licentiousness and depravity, and when they are doing so in ways calculated to adversely affect other people and to diminish the moral stature and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ, then loss of membership may be a necessary response. Thanks, -Smac Once upon a time in my youth I lived near Disneyland in Anaheim. Once a year, or perhaps less often, there was a Mormon Night at Disneyland, when tickets were only available through church leaders in the local area. I don't remember the details, whether tickets were free, whether non-LDS were admitted free or at the regular price, but Walt Disney was still alive then, and had a soft spot for the LDS members. Mainly because his wife was LDS. And Walt would be spinning in his grave regarding Disney Inc nowadays. Edited to add: as webbles pointed out, Disney's wife Lillian is not known to have been LDS. Her Wikipedia bio indicates she was born in Idaho, but nothing regarding religion is mentioned. Edited September 22 by Stargazer 2
let’s roll Posted September 17 Posted September 17 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I generally try to refrain from commenting on whether this or that Latter-day Saint ought to lose their membership in the Church. I feel that such matters are better left to the local leaders of the individual(s). I admit I didn’t read much of your OP beyond your preface to it set out above. I think your initial inclination was a wise one. I have no inclination, or plan, to watch the show or read any reports or reactions to the show. I trust that any leaders who feel the need to do so will seek divine guidance in counseling with members in their units. 1
webbles Posted September 17 Posted September 17 19 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Once upon a time in my youth I lived near Disneyland in Anaheim. Once a year, or perhaps less often, there was a Mormon Night at Disneyland, when tickets were only available through church leaders in the local area. I don't remember the details, whether tickets were free, whether non-LDS were admitted free or at the regular price, but Walt Disney was still alive then, and had a soft spot for the LDS members. Mainly because his wife was LDS. And Walt would be spinning in his grave regarding Disney Inc nowadays. I don't think Lillian Disney was LDS. She's from Idaho but I can't find any reference to her being a member. 1
Calm Posted September 17 Posted September 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, juliann said: I watched a few episodes because the show was on where I was visiting. They said it was old episodes. Actually, I didn't find it that shocking (no swinging.) I thought they were fairly decent in talking about Mormon stuff, one of them is painted as more "devout." The others made it clear what they were doing/did wasn't acceptable in Mormonism. So in a distorted way, it almost seemed as it makes us less weird if these weirdos are claiming to be Mormon. If that makes sense. What a bunch of dopes. They have nice hair, though except for the bad extensions lady. The worst problem is the show is just awful. How many girls nights out can a group of people have? I would hope people realize by now that all these phony "reality" shows are highly controlled so there is enough conflict, etc. Secret Lives just started this September, one season released all at once on Hulu. There is a Real Housewives of Salt Lake City show that has been going for 4 years, this is the last season starting tomorrow according to wiki. Added: Or it started the 5th…wiki apparently can’t make up its mind. Older women= Real Housewives; Younger ones=Secret Lives I wonder if that is what was on? If not, if it was Secret Lives, that is hilarious they told you it was old episodes. Or maybe I am just getting carried away creating a story in my mind for why they said that, lol. Wouldn’t be the first time. The mind is cheap entertainment and higher production values than most reality television. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Housewives_of_Salt_Lake_City Quote It is broadcast on Bravo. The Salt Lake City series is the tenth installment of The Real Housewives franchise, and it follows the personal and professional lives of women who live in or near Salt Lake City, Utah. It has aired four seasons in total; with the first season having premiered on November 11, 2020, and the most recent season, fourth season, premiered on September 5, 2023 No swinging as far as I know. **** I watched one episode and found them pretty boring, they were very open in that episode about not being Mormon at all or not living the typical LDS lifestyle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Lives_of_Mormon_Wives Quote In 2022, Utah influencer Taylor Frankie Paul went viral for revealing that she and her husband had been "soft-swinging" with other Mormoncouples.[1][2] The series begins months later as Paul and her group of influencer friends, dubbed "MomTok", deal with the fallout of the scandal ****One of them did end up in prison for money laundering and fraud targeting the elderly. Not nice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jen_Shah Edited September 17 by Calm
sunstoned Posted September 18 Posted September 18 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: Once upon a time in my youth I lived near Disneyland in Anaheim. Once a year, or perhaps less often, there was a Mormon Night at Disneyland, when tickets were only available through church leaders in the local area. I don't remember the details, whether tickets were free, whether non-LDS were admitted free or at the regular price, but Walt Disney was still alive then, and had a soft spot for the LDS members. Mainly because his wife was LDS. And Walt would be spinning in his grave regarding Disney Inc nowadays. I used to love Mormon Night at Disneyland. I seem to remember a band and dancing in the evening. 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted September 18 Popular Post Posted September 18 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Tim Ballard has denied the allegations made against him. In contrast, the people in the Hulu series (who are, I should note, both women and men) are openly broadcasting their licentious behavior. Tim Ballard’s denials are pretty irrelevant once you read his text messages. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Dunno about that. Plenty of people here seem pretty disgusted by the allegations against him, but are waiting to see if they are borne out. I don’t trust the courts to figure it out. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Meanwhile, we don't need to wait to see if the licentious behavior of the Secret Lives cast are borne out. Again, they are openly bragging about what they are doing. So they at least practice an admittedly limited kind of honesty. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Tu quoque doesn't really work here. No one used it. 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Objections to the lurid crap being peddled by Secret Lives is borne of hatred of women? No, I just pointed out that when women peddle it that somehow is much more disgusting. That does come from misogyny 7 hours ago, smac97 said: What if women (such as the authors of the Des News opinion pieces) are interposing these objections? Are you going to accuse them of "misogyny"? No, you missed the point entirely. I do find weird the implied belief that women are incapable of misogyny. 6
Calm Posted September 18 Posted September 18 11 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Tim Ballard’s denials are pretty irrelevant once you read his text messages. Has he explained them at all? Claimed they were fake or he was hacked?
The Nehor Posted September 18 Posted September 18 6 hours ago, Stargazer said: Once upon a time in my youth I lived near Disneyland in Anaheim. Once a year, or perhaps less often, there was a Mormon Night at Disneyland, when tickets were only available through church leaders in the local area. I don't remember the details, whether tickets were free, whether non-LDS were admitted free or at the regular price, but Walt Disney was still alive then, and had a soft spot for the LDS members. Mainly because his wife was LDS. And Walt would be spinning in his grave regarding Disney Inc nowadays. Lillian being LDS is a myth. There was a Mormon night at Disneyland. There was also a Mormon night at Magic Mountain and a Mormon Night at Dodger stadium. I moved before I was old enough to go. The one I knew of was mostly for Seminary and Institute students and required church dress which is……yuck. There was also Mormon Family Fun Party where if you were Mormon you could get $6 tickets if I remember the stories right. These events happened in the 70s and 80s and Walt Disney was dead when the events started so it wasn’t due to any soft spot he had. Walt Disney was born in 1901. He would be spinning in his grave about just about everything going on now.
Calm Posted September 18 Posted September 18 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said: do find weird the implied belief that women are incapable of misogyny. Self hatred is a fine old tradition among oppressed peoples unfortunately. Safer to blame oneself (as weak, stupid, ugly, whatever) than to blame the power holders. Those attitudes can get embedded into culture and persist even when the law becomes better balanced. 1
The Nehor Posted September 18 Posted September 18 17 minutes ago, Calm said: Has he explained them at all? Claimed they were fake or he was hacked? Not that I know of. Here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24388542-exhibit-d-messages-between-jj-and-tim-ballard I love how he claims to never view porn but sends her pics of sex positions and porn. Also Ballard claims he is demisexual……uh-huh, sure buddy. Are you sure you want to go in for those WOKE labels? Angel comms and downloads. Yep, the revelations are pouring in! What a creep. 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now