Ensign article about husband apostatizing: BULL ____!!

Polygamy-Porter · **Joined:** Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 pm **Posts:** 7858

MAJOR FAIL there LDS Inc.

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/2012/07/when- ... g?lang=eng

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:32 pm

Polygamy-Porter wrote:

MAJOR FAIL there LDS Inc.

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/2012/07/when- ... g?lang=eng

I think this started as a newspaper article or blogpost elsewhere.

Polygamy-Porter · **Joined:** Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 pm **Posts:** 7858

Joanna Brooks has some interesting comments under her posting of this article:

https://www.facebook.com/joanna.brooks.71

John's Facebook page as well..

https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin

Polygamy-Porter · **Joined:** Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 pm **Posts:** 7858

This article is contrived bull ____.

"NAME WITHHELD" is bull ____. Like a member sent this in?

LOOK at the image used in the print and PDF version for this article:

Shulem · **Joined:** Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm **Posts:** 4540

Jesus Christ is the gingerbread man with sweet sugar coating. What a joke! b****r off Jesus!

The last thing I need is Jesus' nasty breath over me. Get lost you slob.

Paul O

KevinSim · **Joined:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:31 pm **Posts:** 2904

Polygamy-Porter wrote:

This article is contrived bull s***.

"NAME WITHHELD" is bull s***. Like a member sent this in?

Polygamy-Porter, what is so unbelievable about the assertion that a Latter-day Saint sent this article in?

Themis · **Joined:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm **Posts:** 11352

KevinSim wrote:

Polygamy-Porter wrote:

This article is contrived bull s***.

"NAME WITHHELD" is bull s***. Like a member sent this in?

Polygamy-Porter, what is so unbelievable about the assertion that a Latter-day Saint sent this article in?

I see it as a positive thing. It might help other spouses going through this to stay in the marriage.

Fiannan · **Joined:** Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1195

A good article! I think too many spouses would go for divorce if they found out their husband/wife was having a hard time with their faith.

And I am quite glad that the wife did not suspect porn as the reason for her husband's lack of belief.

MsJack · **Posted:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:35 pm

What was wrong with the article? Seemed like a pretty positive message to me. I'm glad that it didn't match the "it's okay to leave your spouse if s/he leaves the church" vibe that I get from some Mormons.

Infymus · **Posted:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:44 pm

Some good comments:

Quote:

The anonymous author mentions times when her husband did things for her not because he wanted to but because she expected him to. To me that sounds like she is attempting to point out that he didn't ever have a strong testimony, a point members like to use for those who become unbelievers. The reasons for a person to become unbelieving are still not addressed, and never will be.

The unbeliever will always be the one who has destroyed the expectations of a celestial marriage and the believer will always be the one who was wronged and that is taught by the loving leaders of the church. The believer will always be the one making all the sacrifices to love their spouse, the efforts of the unbeliever will not be considered.

In spite of this woman's sincere love for her husband, her first love and loyalty are still to the church. Believing that temple marriage in the COJCOLDS is the only way for a marriage to be happy, fulfilling, successful, and valid comes from the church, not from any god or Jesus. All good things would still exist without the COJCOLDS.

And:

Quote:

I'm not impressed.

It's still the same old passive-aggressive one-sided triteness that Mormonism is made of.

It's still prejudiced, and still assumes that the believer is right, and the unbeliever is wrong and petty.

I find it patronizing, and as usual there are many loose ends and global implications it ignores.

The author expresses sheer selfishness and petty self-serving ends, NOT AT ANY TIME DOES SHE LEND ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE OPPOSING PERSPECTIVE. She is unsympathetic, not discussing any reason WHY her husband "stopped believing" other than the trite and wholly un-explanatory "exercising his agency".

This article does nothing to move the church toward a truly pluralistic paradigm. It talks about the unbeliever like a car that has run out of gas...still good-for-something but not going anywhere until it gets more gas. The article is just about being a good sport about it.

moksha · **Posted:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:59 pm

I see the article as a major plus: It announces to Church members that the loss of the spouses belief in the Church is no reason to abandon the marriage. Instead, it offers the solution to strengthen all other remaining bonds with the non-believing spouse.

We have read too many times of how marriages are broken up over such a change. This article offers a broader and more humanistic view. Hopefully caring bishops will point the worried spouse to this article or even read it to them.

Polygamy-Porter · **Joined:** Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 pm **Posts:** 7858

Thanks Infymus. These comments are inline with my feelings.

All inquiries to me please read these comments.

LDS Inc has a rough decade ahead.

Infymus wrote:

Some good comments:

Quote:

The anonymous author mentions times when her husband did things for her not because he wanted to but because she expected him to. To me that sounds like she is attempting to point out that he didn't ever have a strong testimony, a point members like to use for those who become unbelievers. The reasons for a person to become unbelieving are still not addressed, and never will be.

The unbeliever will always be the one who has destroyed the expectations of a celestial marriage and the believer will always be the one who was wronged and that is taught by the loving leaders of the church. The believer will always be the one making all the sacrifices to love their spouse, the efforts of the unbeliever will not be considered.

In spite of this woman's sincere love for her husband, her first love and loyalty are still to the church. Believing that temple marriage in the COJCOLDS is the only way for a marriage to be happy, fulfilling, successful, and valid comes from the church, not from any god or Jesus. All good things would still exist without the COJCOLDS.

And:

Quote:

I'm not impressed.

It's still the same old passive-aggressive one-sided triteness that Mormonism is made of.

It's still prejudiced, and still assumes that the believer is right, and the unbeliever is wrong and petty.

I find it patronizing, and as usual there are many loose ends and global implications it ignores.

The author expresses sheer selfishness and petty self-serving ends, NOT AT ANY TIME DOES SHE LEND ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE OPPOSING PERSPECTIVE. She is unsympathetic, not discussing any reason WHY her husband "stopped believing" other than the trite and wholly un-explanatory "exercising his agency".

This article does nothing to move the church toward a truly pluralistic paradigm. It talks about the unbeliever like a car that has run out of gas...still good-for-something but not going anywhere until it gets more gas. The article is just about being a good sport about it.

ludwigm · **Posted:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:42 pm

moksha wrote:

I see the article as a major plus: It announces to Church members that the loss of the spouses belief in the Church is no reason to abandon the marriage. Instead, it offers the solution to strengthen all other remaining bonds with the non-believing spouse.

Yes.
And this is why I think it was not written by a "NAME WITHHELD" common member.
This new policy should phase in low level. Next time it will be mentioned by one of the 70s, then comes a conference talk...

moksha wrote:

We have read too many times of how marriages are broken up over such a change. This article offers a broader and more humanistic view. Hopefully caring bishops will point the worried spouse to this article or even read it to them.

Hopefully the bishops get a pamphlet about it. They should be strenghtened to be able to do things.

I see this article as a positive step.

Polygamy-Porter · **Joined:** Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 pm **Posts:** 7858

ludwigm wrote:

I see this article as a positive step.

How?

The doctrines do not allow any wiggle room.

The husband decides that Mormonism is bunk. Stops attending services.

Wife and kids continue to attend. Wife listens to doctrines requirements to be sealed to a WORTHY male in temple blah blah blah

Wife hears other sisters stand and pontificate of how wonderful it is to be MARRIED AND SEALED to a WORTHY priesthood holder blah blah, blessings, blah

Unless the almighty brethren vote to change the core doctrines to allow women to be married to atheists, this article is nothing more than lip service.

Edit to add: This article IS lip service.

ludwigm · **Posted:** Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:15 am

Polygamy-Porter wrote:

ludwigm wrote:

I see this article as a positive step.

How?
...
Unless the almighty brethren vote to change the core doctrines to allow women to be married to atheists, this article is nothing more than lip service.

Edit to add: This article IS lip service.

"doctrine" (if such thing exists...) is one thing.
"policy" is another.

My wife has married to an atheist. And remained. No church leader objected.

Maybe, the faith of Hungarian members/leaders is not so strong...

Core doctrines should not be changed. It is good enough to say "we don't teach this".

Called2Swerve · **Joined:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:31 am **Posts:** 98

While I have yet to read the article, I get a sense from reading on multiple message boards that people believe It is positive because it gives the believing spouse a little more clear understanding of what shouldn't be done (divorce).

Does the article reference an addiction to pornography or desire to sin as the source cause of apostasy? If they are not included in the article I could see this as another reason why some feel that this is a positive article.

Polygamy-Porter · **Joined:** Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 pm **Posts:** 7858

Called2Swerve wrote:

While I have yet to read the article, I get a sense from reading on multiple message boards that people believe It is positive because it gives the believing spouse a little more clear understanding of what shouldn't be done (divorce).

Sure, but the wife in this story is miserable.

With many Mormon wives being stay at home mommies, I wonder what the stance on tithing will be with a woman in this situation?

She does not earn any money, therefore pays no tithing.

How many apostate widows and their children can LDS Inc support with no tithes paid by these priesthoodless families?

Called2Swerve · **Joined:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:31 am **Posts:** 98

Polygamy-Porter wrote:

Sure, but the wife in this story is miserable.

With many Mormon wives being stay at home mommies, I wonder what the stance on tithing will be with a woman in this situation?

She does not earn any money, therefore pays no tithing.

How many apostate widows and their children can LDS Inc support with no tithes paid by these priesthoodless families?

I have heard often on this and other message boards that the only thing the LDS church is interested in is the money it receives. This may very well be the case as it seems to be run more like a financial corporation than a religious establishment. But what monetary gain can the church expect to get if the marriage ends in divorce? As long as the marriage is intact the church has a greater chance of turning the apostate around and possibly pressure the man to paying back tithing that was owed. I know of a couple who could not pay tithing for a few years. When everything returned to steady income he began paying a little more than the usual 10 percent to get "Right with the church." So in my mind the article reflects a more common sense approach of how to handle a difference in belief.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7306

The article is unwitting confirmation that the Church has a significant problem with dwindling priesthood numbers.

KevinSim · **Joined:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:31 pm **Posts:** 2904

Polygamy-Porter wrote:

Unless the almighty brethren vote to change the core doctrines to allow women to be married to atheists, this article is nothing more than lip service.

Polygamy-Porter, which core doctrines say anything at all about a woman married to an atheist?

If the woman in the article spends her life trying to live by God's guidance, then she will make it into the Celestial Kingdom regardless of who she's married to in this life. If her husband regains his testimony, then her marriage to him will be eternal; if he doesn't, and therefore ends up not making the Celestial Kingdom himself, then she'll be married to someone else in the eternities. That's how I've always understood how it's going to work.

sock puppet · **Posted:** Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:00 am

ludwigm wrote:

Core doctrines should not be changed. It is good enough to say "we don't teach this".

ah, yes, the Hinckley legacy lives on.

Ensign article about husband apostatizing: BULL ____!!

Who is online