2015 April Conference Thread

[BlueK]

Is it that simple, that cut-and-dried? Imagine total dedication to something, including love of a spouse, and then having that scaffolding pulled out from you, but your feelings (eternal or otherwise) for your spouse have not changed. You love him/her as much today as you did back when you believed that the sealing was eternal. But, they don't love you the same way because you've changed, even though your love for them is not (or perhaps, no longer) tied up in their ability to get you into celestial glory. It probably hurts. I have nothing but sympathy/empathy for couples struggling through this painful chapter of mortality.



If you think that an external motivator is the cause of people loving each other and making it work in this life, that seems like a facile example of religious persuasion and married life, one I didn't expect from you (maybe from my stake president). Though, I could be misreading what you mean here.



Imagine the frustration of sitting through a meeting where people are testifying of heteronomous morals, nay knowledge of them, all so your wife won't leave you because you've rejected 'her' faith. I'd understand a bit of anger.

I completely agree that we should be as sympathetic and understanding as we can towards those who go through an experience like this. I'm sorry for the man. I don't like seeing others suffer or go through something that hard with their family. But I'm still going to guess that the fact that he and his family have had trouble dealing with this perhaps might have something to do with how he has handled it? I mean, he knows LDS culture and probably has a pretty good idea of what creating the website and then protesting at conference would do to not make things any easier. From their point of view their husband and father has just propelled their family problems into the open for everyone to see and judge them? Seriously? I don't know, maybe his wife is a complete (fill in the blank), and completely unreasonable, but maybe she isn't.

[Katy Lied]

Wuap,

I've had this conversation before, several years ago, with most disagreeing with me. I think it is a fundamental argument that doesn't seem to have a universal answer: when you marry someone, you marry them for a set of qualities and characteristics they have that are attractive to you. At what point can they change sufficiently for you to reject them because they are not the person you married anymore? Most men would not even think of divorcing someone because she gained 20 lbs over 20 years of marriage. But some might. Some women would not even think of divorcing someone because he lost all their money and the family became poor. But some might. I can think of situations where even the most orthodox mormons would contemplate separation. What if a woman had to work through sexual abuse in her childhood, and in doing so she felt compelled to sleep with every guy who would have her? What if a man became addicted to porn? What if a man sent his wife again and again to rehab and she continued to turn back to meth, selling their assets for her habit? What if a husband fell to early onset alzheimers in his 30s, and required much more care than his family could provide? What if he were a serial cheater? I'm trying to stay away from dangerous situations, because there the compelling interest is safety.

I think everyone agrees that under certain circumstances, your spouse changes enough that he or she is no longer the person you married, or you thought you married. The only difference is where each of us stands on the parameters. I include religion in the set of circumstances that makes for a changed spouse. I think that a man's relationship with his God is so important that his rejection of that God changes him fundamentally, to the bone. Those of you who disagree believe that you are the same person, just with different Sunday habits. The irony is that when you got married in the temple, you actively sought out a spouse that had the same religious belief, who agreed with you that religion was so important. You got her to marry you, instead of her many other suitors, because you offered her something they did not have- temple marriage. You used your belief to your advantage before, and now you want your spouse to not feel that way any more, because you don't feel that way any more.

You reject the God that your family has worshipped all those years- the God you taught your children to worship, and the God that values eternal families, and now you want to stop worshipping that God, but you still want your family to treat you like an eternal father. If you dont believe in eternity, why are you hurt when your kids reject you in eternity? Of course, they should always be courteous and loving toward you in this life, but your wife truly believes that she will be condemned to not having you, the love of her life, with her in the eternities. You're kidding if you think that doesn't cut her to the quick. You picked her because you wanted a wife who would not settle for less than the CK, but now that you've changed, you want her to abandon all her beliefs in order to still remain happy and satisfied with you. Do you see the utter desolation you are putting your wife through? And you're unhappy because she treats you less lovingly, while she has to give up all of her dreams-- dreams that she has earnestly worked toward. She hasn't fallen away, she did all the right things to ensure she get to heaven. But now you won't be going with her. Because you are no longer the same man she chose years ago.

I resent the implication that women who remain believers reject their non believing spouses because now he cant get them to heaven, so they want to exchange him for someone else. I fully believe that women can get to heaven on their own. It would be crushing for my husband to reject the church not because I won't ascend to the highest heights without him, but because I will miss him so much not being in my eternal life any more. I will miss his counsel in all the decisions we make in this life because of our collective anticipation of an eternal life.

You do stuff all the time that you don't want to, because it makes your wife happy. You go to chick flicks, you eat indonesian cuisine, you take up ballroom dance, you visit Vancouver. For your kids, you ferry them to fencing class, you watch their boring soccer games. In none of those sacrifices do you agonize "Gee, I'm not really a chick flick fan, and I struggle with pretending to like indonesian food and soccer- I'm so unhappy and I'm such a hypocrite. Why do you need such high standards about religion? What's wrong with telling your wife, "I am struggling with some of these things, but dont worry- I will still come to church with you, and I will still stay active so I can bless our children, which I know is important to you." This is a man who really loves. The men who won't participate in church because they feel compelled to be true to themselves and their mighty struggle are just saying that their feelings of ambivalence are more important than the religious devotion of their wives and kids.

[wuapinmon]

KL,

I'll respond to you tonight when I get a chance to compose my thoughts in response. Right now, I've got to go watch some trampoline 'stunts' with my wife and kids.

[Y84it]

Oh - I don't have a problem with dissatisfied people expressing themselves. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is if you don't believe the church is true anymore, and it really has nothing to do with anything that 1 person or group has done, you just don't believe any of it to be true from the beginning. You don't believe the church was led by prophets in the past, and you don't believe it is led by a prophet now - then what's the point in showing up to demonstrate you don't sustain these guys?

He says he doesn't believe it anymore. So he left. To me, that's kind of like a bunch of Baptists or even the Pope showing up to say they don't sustain these guys as prophets and apostles. Of course you don't sustain them as such - you don't believe any of it, why would you believe THAT and sustain ANYONE?

That's all I'm saying.

I could see someone from the opposed group showing up because they're upset about how the Ordain Women this was handled. Or they are upset about the Delin thing. Or they feel like some other mistake has been made or something has been mishandled and they want to show their disapproval. I view it as having a concern about leadership.

But if you have a problem with the foundational claims of the church and don't believe any of it to be true - then why show up at all? It's not like you're asking them to fix or change something. It's not like you're saying someone has done something wrong, so you don't sustain them as a leader of your organization. You've already said you left the organization because you don't believe what it teaches - so what's the point?

Can you imagine if every person who has ever left the church because they didn't believe it anymore kept showing up to conference meeting after conference meeting simply to object during sustainings because they don't believe it anymore?

Neither can I. What would be the point?

You are describing my brother. 1. Comes out that he is atheist. 2.Outwardly claims that we are all sheep and need to "Wake Up" 3. Bishop tells him he is released from his calling of teaching priesthood. Brother can't understand why they would release him. 4. Bishop asks for his Temple Rec my Brother literally wants to fight the Bishop until he gets so upset he rips it up himself.


Why do you want to teach in EQ if you don't believe there is a God? Why do you want your temple rec and go to the temple? I don't love doing either of those things and I believe!

[ERCougar]

KL, I think you make some good points here, but just to push back a little--don't you think that religion falls in a wholly different category than restaurant or vacation destination choices? If your husband stops believing (assuming you're right about the celestial kingdom exclusion), he's not going to the celestial kingdom anyway, whether he goes through the motions or not? I guess it ultimately comes down to how much of a conscious choice belief is. UtahDan used to argue that it's not at all voluntary. Christ seems to say that there is some volition involved with his injunction to "Doubt not, but be believing". I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, and it probably depends on what level of belief we're discussing. Would be a good thread.

But back to the question at hand: I think cardiac's philosophy of not disrupting tangible things for unprovable nebulous ones is wisest, which ultimately means a give and take on both sides. I think it's just as problematic for a spouse to insist on complete devotion to the church as it is for the other to refuse to participate at all.

[Solon]

KL, I think you make some good points here, but just to push back a little--don't you think that religion falls in a wholly different category than restaurant or vacation destination choices? If your husband stops believing (assuming you're right about the celestial kingdom exclusion), he's not going to the celestial kingdom anyway, whether he goes through the motions or not? I guess it ultimately comes down to how much of a conscious choice belief is. UtahDan used to argue that it's not at all voluntary. Christ seems to say that there is some volition involved with his injunction to "Doubt not, but be believing". I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, and it probably depends on what level of belief we're discussing. Would be a good thread.

Didn't Nietzsche write something about, if you stare at the void long enough the void will stare back?

Decoupling from a lifetime of sanctuary and salvation is terrifying. None of us can really comprehend the ramifications of eternal damnation. The idea of suffering forever isn't that scary. However, all of us can comprehend the here-and-now consequences of lost faith - the spouse who feels baited-and-switched or the loss of the congregational social safety net.

The void is terrifying.

[ERCougar]

I think suffering forever sounds scarier than the loss of a congregations social safety net.

Maybe that's the problem...spouses are talking past each other.

[Pelado]

I think suffering forever sounds scarier than the loss of a congregations social safety net.

Maybe that's the problem...spouses are talking past each other.

While the prospect of eternal suffering might sound scary, it is surely tempered by the low probability that a loving god would inflict such suffering on his/her/its creation.

[Northwestcoug]

While the prospect of eternal suffering might sound scary, it is surely tempered by the low probability that a loving god would inflict such suffering on his/her/its creation.

I would sure love to believe in a Mormon God like that. But unfortunately, I've been taught for years that eternal separation from my family will surely happen if I don't endure to the very end.

[Pelado]

I would sure love to believe in a Mormon God like that. But unfortunately, I've been taught for years that eternal separation from my family will surely happen if I don't endure to the very end.

But what's the probability that your family would want to be with you in the eternities even if you did endure to the end?

[ERCougar]

I would sure love to believe in a Mormon God like that. But unfortunately, I've been taught for years that eternal separation from my family will surely happen if I don't endure to the very end.

I don't think members are particularly outspoken about that (obviously there are exceptions). I've heard increasingly the sentiment that "the sealing power is strong", ie that a good spouse will drag a less good one into the CK. Probably not doctrinal, but really how do we determine that anyway?

Back to Buddha...all of this talk is distracting nonsense. The only way to live the best life is to live entirely in the present.

[Northwestcoug]

But what's the probability that your family would want to be with you in the eternities even if you did endure to the end?

I'd....rather not answer that

I don't think members are particularly outspoken about that (obviously there are exceptions). I've heard increasingly the sentiment that "the sealing power is strong", ie that a good spouse will drag a less good one into the CK. Probably not doctrinal, but really how do we determine that anyway?

Back to Buddha...all of this talk is distracting nonsense. The only way to live the best life is to live entirely in the present.

Sure, I think the reality is that every family has at least one wayward member, which causes them to radically modify canonized doctrine to keep a belief in a loving God intact. I get that. I would hope that these people don't get dragged down by the official condemnation that is still part of official doctrine.

[wuapinmon]

First, thanks for taking the time to type out your feelings. Second, I'm going to assume that the 2nd-person isn't me, necessarily. Third, my tone should be read as friendly. Here goes.

Wuap,
I've had this conversation before, several years ago, with most disagreeing with me. I think it is a fundamental argument that doesn't seem to have a universal answer: when you marry someone, you marry them for a set of qualities and characteristics they have that are attractive to you. At what point can they change sufficiently for you to reject them because they are not the person you married anymore? Most men would not even think of divorcing someone because she gained 20 lbs over 20 years of marriage. But some might. Some women would not even think of divorcing someone because he lost all their money and the family became poor. But some might. I can think of situations where even the most orthodox mormons would contemplate separation. What if a woman had to work through sexual abuse in her childhood, and in doing so she felt compelled to sleep with every guy who would have her? What if a man became addicted to porn? What if a man sent his wife again and again to rehab and she continued to turn back to meth, selling their assets for her habit? What if a husband fell to early onset alzheimers in his 30s, and required much more care than his family could provide? What if he were a serial cheater? I'm trying to stay away from dangerous situations, because there the compelling interest is safety.

Minus the porn and the Alzheimer's, I think most would agree that the other issues would be deal breakers in any marriage.

I think everyone agrees that under certain circumstances, your spouse changes enough that he or she is no longer the person you married, or you thought you married. The only difference is where each of us stands on the parameters. I include religion in the set of circumstances that makes for a changed spouse. I think that a man's relationship with his God is so important that his rejection of that God changes him fundamentally, to the bone. Those of you who disagree believe that you are the same person, just with different Sunday habits. The irony is that when you got married in the temple, you actively sought out a spouse that had the same religious belief, who agreed with you that religion was so important. You got her to marry you, instead of her many other suitors, because you offered her something they did not have- temple marriage. You used your belief to your advantage before, and now you want your spouse to not feel that way any more, because you don't feel that way any more.

I'm reluctant to apply an economic model to marriage because the reasons why people marry are complex. Humans and their motivations are integers not decimal places; we are individuals (To rob Steven Wright, "Just like everyone else."). Ergo, using something to one's advantage in a competition to wed a mate seems too animalistic when compared with human love. Consider Schopenhauer's maxim that man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills. We can love someone who might be bad for us (e.g. Diego Rivera y Frida Kahlo). We can love someone who is perfect for us (PAC y Mrs. PAC). We can't really control love and desire, which the point I want to make. Love, as you've explained it, seems almost utilitarian to me. I think that a utilitarian take on Mormon Eternal love should read something like Joshua Greene's ideas about utilitarian impartiality, or the universal essence of morality that's distilled in the Golden Rule. Happiness in a relationship is what matters, and everyone's happiness counts the same. That doesn't mean that everyone gets to be equally happy, but it does mean that no one's happiness is inherently more valuable than anyone else's. What in the hell does this have to do with LDS marriage you ask? If someone changes their faith, but remains the same person and loves their spouse and does nothing to hurt them beyond the loss of faith, why does the spouse who remains faithful value their own happiness more than the one they pledged eternal love to (and still believes in that pledge?). I'd argue that it's a selfishness, born of honest and pure intentions, to force someone you love to live and act in a way that they do not believe, to donate time and talents to an organization that they do not believe acts in their best interest, and to instill its doctrines in their children if they do not believe them (avoiding the hypocrisy trap). The Golden Rule is a pretty powerful idea, one the Savior hit upon in the 2 Great Commandments. Everyone needs a hope, a guess, a faith about what will bring them the greatest long-term happiness. I think marriage should give priority to those things that will bring about the greatest long-term happiness for both parties. In my case, if I were to ever leave the Church, I'd still live the Socratic Good Life. My behavior would not change. The Church gave me an external reason to want to be a better man. Now that I've become a better man (save the lechery), I want to be good for goodness sake, and not because I worry about rewards or rancor, principalities or punishments, celestial glory or eternal darkness. Being good fills me with the feeling that I'm doing what's right because I can, not because I have to, and that feeling is powerful.

You reject the God that your family has worshipped all those years- the God you taught your children to worship, and the God that values eternal families, and now you want to stop worshipping that God, but you still want your family to treat you like an eternal father. If you dont believe in eternity, why are you hurt when your kids reject you in eternity? Of course, they should always be courteous and loving toward you in this life, but your wife truly believes that she will be condemned to not having you, the love of her life, with her in the eternities. You're kidding if you think that doesn't cut her to the quick. You picked her because you wanted a wife who would not settle for less than the CK, but now that you've changed, you want her to abandon all her beliefs in order to still remain happy and satisfied with you. Do you see the utter desolation you are putting your wife through? And you're unhappy because she treats you less lovingly, while she has to give up all of her dreams-- dreams that she has earnestly worked toward. She hasn't fallen away, she did all the right things to ensure she get to heaven. But now you won't be going with her. Because you are no longer the same man she chose years ago.

You take a risk when you pledge yourself to another for eternity. You also pledge to be there for better or for worse. While it does hurt when someone leaves the faith, your faith and that ancient promise of eternal love should surmount the heartache. It is difficult to stomach someone feeling the way you've described, but if you truly love someone, you have to forgive and accept and prioritize happiness across a temporal spectrum that you can control. If you're willing to flush the dream of eternity together because the other person no longer believes, then I'd ask if the faithful spouse is even worthy of eternity with anyone. I hesitate to get behind anyone who claims to have all the answers and to speak for the greater good because I've been endowed by my Creator to use my free will to make decisions in ways that are likely to lead to good outcomes (taking into account the limitations of individual faculties). I'm skeptical of any leader who would claim to have eternity all figured out for someone else, which is why I don't think that the loss of faith by one partner in a marriage is as catastrophic as it sounds. God expects us to be impartial towards sin and to forgive freely when someone else sins....that's like the common currency of humankind. These faculties allow us to create an autonomous moral system (even as we inhabit a heteronomous one) and acknowledge moral trade-offs between ourselves and our eternal companions and adjudicate among them. Meaning, I can decide that my love of my wife means that I will Rachel Marronesquely always love her no matter what, or that I will love her in spite of what comes, or that I will tolerate her shortcomings because of my love for her, or that I will accept that she doesn't believe even as I try to helpest her unbelief.

I resent the implication that women who remain believers reject their non believing spouses because now he cant get them to heaven, so they want to exchange him for someone else. I fully believe that women can get to heaven on their own. It would be crushing for my husband to reject the church not because I won't ascend to the highest heights without him, but because I will miss him so much not being in my eternal life any more. I will miss his counsel in all the decisions we make in this life because of our collective anticipation of an eternal life.

You say this like you wouldn't be willing to go down to his level? I'd go anywhere my wife went because heaven wouldn't be heaven without her. I mean that. If God won't let me be with her wherever she is, then I'll do something to get sent down to where she is.

You do stuff all the time that you don't want to, because it makes your wife happy. You go to chick flicks, you eat indonesian cuisine, you take up ballroom dance, you visit Vancouver. For your kids, you ferry them to fencing class, you watch their boring soccer games. In none of those sacrifices do you agonize "Gee, I'm not really a chick flick fan, and I struggle with pretending to like indonesian food and soccer- I'm so unhappy and I'm such a hypocrite. Why do you need such high standards about religion? What's wrong with telling your wife, "I am struggling with some of these things, but dont worry- I will still come to church with you, and I will still stay active so I can bless our children, which I know is important to you." This is a man who really loves. The men who won't participate in church because they feel compelled to be true to themselves and their mighty struggle are just saying that their feelings of ambivalence are more important than the religious devotion of their wives and kids.

I think these examples are absurd. Religious dogma isn't Sate skewers. However, I agree that a loving spouse will go above and beyond the call of conscience to make their spouse happy. That said, there are some affronts and hurts that happen that make people feel like a spouse is forcing or demanding a choice, and I understand why some people can't bring themselves to do something.

I still think you're awesome and I hope you don't hate me after reading this. It's kind of rambling, but I'm trying to type it and get kids ready for bed.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

You are describing my brother. 1. Comes out that he is atheist. 2.Outwardly claims that we are all sheep and need to "Wake Up" 3. Bishop tells him he is released from his calling of teaching priesthood. Brother can't understand why they would release him. 4. Bishop asks for his Temple Rec my Brother literally wants to fight the Bishop until he gets so upset he rips it up himself.


Why do you want to teach in EQ if you don't believe there is a God? Why do you want your temple rec and go to the temple? I don't love doing either of those things and I believe!

I didn't know John Dehlin's brother posted on CS. Cool.

[Pelado]

Most men would not even think of divorcing someone because she gained 20 lbs over 20 years of marriage. But some might.

Minus the porn and the Alzheimer's, I think most would agree that the other issues would be deal breakers in any marriage.

I'm hoping that doesn't apply to husbands that packed on some pounds. Otherwise my marriage may be over soon.