A better way to talk to/about those who have left the church?

[Chum]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One oddity is that I have heard the same sentiment from ostensibly straight people engaged in “humorous” wife bashing.

This is baffling to me. The last brother I would ever expect it from, really wanted to tell me a domestic violence joke.  I kept trying to derail him but he finally got it out.

At this point I set down my end of the desk we were moving and offered: "My earliest memories of mom was her in traction from the broken vertebrae, thanks to dad's handiwork with a bakelite phone." Which is true.

Brother looked like I gutpunched him. Not my intent but hopefully it got him re-thinking that bit of his humor.

[Chum]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

One oddity is that I have heard the same sentiment from ostensibly straight people engaged in “humorous” wife bashing.

At business functions, I would introduce my spouse as my trophy wife. 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Chum said:

At business functions, I would introduce my spouse as my trophy wife. 

And she was okay with that?

Quote

The term is often used in a derogatory or disparaging way, implying that the wife in question has little personal merit besides her physical attractiveness, requires substantial expense for maintaining her appearance, is often unintelligent or unsophisticated, does very little of substance beyond remaining attractive, ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_wife

Edited April 27, 2025 by Calm

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And she was okay with that?

Sure.  Trophy wives are typically young and attractive and all the other things the guy could only score because of his wealth.

In tropes, other wives will use it as a slur, to infer the trophy wife has nothing beyond looks because they're jealous and catty. Because tropes.

I was signaling how very young, attractive, etc that I knew my wife was.  After 15 or 20 years of marriage, I had figured out the obvious.

The funny part was the inference that I had wealth. Or any means at all.

Edited April 27, 2025 by Chum

[MrShorty]

On 4/25/2025 at 10:53 PM, california boy said:

 Because there is absolutely no way I want to live eternally with a woman.  That seems like a far worse punishment than not being in the Celestial Kingdom.

As Elder Holland said (in a standard temple open house video) "I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me," He said something similar back in an interview with NPR. Perhaps it's a bit of a tangent to the main topic of the thread, but I find this a bit pertinent to my own experience because my wife and kids have all left the church. I have long observed that Elder Holland didn't say "without [a] wife and children" as if any spouse would do, but "[my] wife and children." I think one reason why this topic is important to me is that it has implications for eternity. I think I have shared here before that I have this "caricature" in my head, visiting with St. Peter at the pearly gates. St. Peter greets me and says, "Hello, MrShorty. Let me look you up in the Book of Life. I see. It appears that everything is in order. As you know, everyone who passes through these gates must have a spouse, and that seems the only thing you lack. I have three options for you. One, if you don't really care who you spend eternity with (unlike Elder Holland), there's a speed dating venue over there where you can find someone. Two, if you believe in progression between kingdoms or other universalist type thing, you can go over there and wait for you spouse to bubble up through the kingdoms. Three, if you will be happiest there, you can choose for me to send you down to the lower kingdoms where you can live eternally "with" (but not married) your spouse and kids." The problem with the first option is that people become interchangeable or fungible. The problem with the second option is that many of us are uncomfortable with that level of universalism (I find it very interesting how the early saints had trouble with "The Vision" because it was seen as too universalist). The third option destroys the "hierarchy" of the kingdoms of glory, because ultimately the "best" choice is whichever kingdom makes one happiest.

We've already said many times that it's difficult to figure out how to balance a confident sense of what is true against what is just arrogance against the observation that not everyone has the same testimony of truth as we do. Maybe part of the problem is getting focused on some unknowable, metaphysical future rather than simply focusing on the here and now and how to be our best selves today.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As Elder Holland said (in a standard temple open house video) "I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me," He said something similar back in an interview with NPR. Perhaps it's a bit of a tangent to the main topic of the thread, but I find this a bit pertinent to my own experience because my wife and kids have all left the church. I have long observed that Elder Holland didn't say "without [a] wife and children" as if any spouse would do, but "[my] wife and children." I think one reason why this topic is important to me is that it has implications for eternity. I think I have shared here before that I have this "caricature" in my head, visiting with St. Peter at the pearly gates. St. Peter greets me and says, "Hello, MrShorty. Let me look you up in the Book of Life. I see. It appears that everything is in order. As you know, everyone who passes through these gates must have a spouse, and that seems the only thing you lack. I have three options for you. One, if you don't really care who you spend eternity with (unlike Elder Holland), there's a speed dating venue over there where you can find someone. Two, if you believe in progression between kingdoms or other universalist type thing, you can go over there and wait for you spouse to bubble up through the kingdoms. Three, if you will be happiest there, you can choose for me to send you down to the lower kingdoms where you can live eternally "with" (but not married) your spouse and kids." The problem with the first option is that people become interchangeable or fungible. The problem with the second option is that many of us are uncomfortable with that level of universalism (I find it very interesting how the early saints had trouble with "The Vision" because it was seen as too universalist). The third option destroys the "hierarchy" of the kingdoms of glory, because ultimately the "best" choice is whichever kingdom makes one happiest.

We've already said many times that it's difficult to figure out how to balance a confident sense of what is true against what is just arrogance against the observation that not everyone has the same testimony of truth as we do. Maybe part of the problem is getting focused on some unknowable, metaphysical future rather than simply focusing on the here and now and how to be our best selves today.

The biggest problem I had with President Nelson's talk "Think Celestial" was "So, my dear brothers and sisters, how and where and with whom do you want to live forever? You get to choose."

Nope, you just shared with us how people don't get to choose those they love if they don't live celestially too. The different kingdom's are the church's doctrine and people can believe what they do, but don't tell me people get to choose their loved ones after telling me only those who live Celestially will be together forever.

 

[Chum]

On 4/27/2025 at 7:14 PM, MrShorty said:

As Elder Holland said (in a standard temple open house video) "I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me,"

I absolutely believe this, without reservation.   I also believe Brother Holland has a spouse he can be happy with for eternity. 

As much I loved my spouse and was proud of her and often woke up in the morning and thought Yeah. Smokin Hot (because that is a thing that we husbands do)

She was also relentlessly, profoundly abusive. To everyone.  With love allowed by great distance I objectively offer that wherever she is, it is unlikely to feel like heaven.

[Chum]

Just now, Chum said:

On 4/27/2025 at 7:14 PM, MrShorty said:

As Elder Holland said (in a standard temple open house video) "I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me,"

I absolutely believe this, without reservation.   I also believe Brother Holland has a spouse he can be happy with for eternity. 

A while back, I had introduced the notion of sealed families to my (recently reunited) sister.  I did it poorly, it turned out because I didn't think it thru ahead of time. 

She was (reasonably) horrified by the idea of an eternity with our father.  I was suddenly trying to unwind what I just explained, with more explanations about how choices could still prevent an eternal family.  But the moment was what it was.

In the end I offered to reserve his temple work in perpetuity and that seemed to restore some peace.

[Chum]

So.  My nightmare relationships and Brother Holland's best possible eternity are both examples of how it goes. 

It's a risk.  And for my part, I do not regret trying. At all (tho one of my kids sometimes does).

If I hadn't taken the opportunity, I'd have lifelong regret.  It's not the shiniest blessing but it's enough.

Edited April 29, 2025 by Chum