A hypothetical situation presented to you, my devoted readers.
Let's say that you are a returned missionary with a somewhat shaky testimony (some days it has stopped shaking and completely fallen down). You haven't seriously attended church in years and probably won't ever be a General Authority, a Seventy of any Quorum, or even the guy asked to bring bread for the sacrament.
Let us further posit that you have recently regained contact with a family you baptized during your mission. The family has now been sealed in the temple, both parents have stake callings and one of the kids has served a mission. What do you tell them about your activity in the Church?
If you say that you don't go anymore, might not their testimony be shaken? On the other hand, shouldn't you always be open and honest with life-long friends like this? Which is worse, lying or hurting them spiritually?
Should we feign testimony to help those who have yet to struggle with theirs? This is a very uncomfortable situation; any counsel would be greatly appreciated.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Friday, October 28, 2005
Worst Halloween Costume Ever
Wow, it turns out that I got sick of the whole you-know-what discussion a lot faster than I thought. I'm over it; let us never speak of it again!
Moving on, I wanted to complain about the previous owners of my house. I hate them with the fire of a thousand suns. Besides painting tacky amateurish murals on the walls and jury-rigging all the window treatments with push- and straight pins, they also left everything they didn't feel like taking with them. I mean everything. We had to have a special trash pick-up ($35) just to get rid of most of the stuff. We filled an 8 ft. x 8 ft. x 4 ft. cube with all of their trash.
The only amusement I get is sorting through all of their ridiculous catalogues that now come to us. Please know that I am only exaggerating slightly when I say they get every catalogue printed. Catalogues full of dog costumes? Check! Catalogues full of gaudy Victorian furniture? Check! Yesterday I got their catalogue for Christian Book Distributors.
It contains the worst Halloween costume ever: BIBLEMAN! Yes, that's the real name. Just for your information, the light saber thingy he's holding is called the "Sword of the Spirit." For perhaps obvious reasons, they don't actually call it a Halloween costume.
Only slightly lower on the child abuse scale is this doozy: the Faithgirlz Bible Backpack. I mean, wow. Note that the front pocket has a clear window so everyone can see you are carrying around the Bible. That's how the Phariseez roll, yo!
I'll stop. I could go through the whole catalogue. I think I became a little more Mormon just reading this thing.
Moving on, I wanted to complain about the previous owners of my house. I hate them with the fire of a thousand suns. Besides painting tacky amateurish murals on the walls and jury-rigging all the window treatments with push- and straight pins, they also left everything they didn't feel like taking with them. I mean everything. We had to have a special trash pick-up ($35) just to get rid of most of the stuff. We filled an 8 ft. x 8 ft. x 4 ft. cube with all of their trash.
The only amusement I get is sorting through all of their ridiculous catalogues that now come to us. Please know that I am only exaggerating slightly when I say they get every catalogue printed. Catalogues full of dog costumes? Check! Catalogues full of gaudy Victorian furniture? Check! Yesterday I got their catalogue for Christian Book Distributors.
It contains the worst Halloween costume ever: BIBLEMAN! Yes, that's the real name. Just for your information, the light saber thingy he's holding is called the "Sword of the Spirit." For perhaps obvious reasons, they don't actually call it a Halloween costume.
Only slightly lower on the child abuse scale is this doozy: the Faithgirlz Bible Backpack. I mean, wow. Note that the front pocket has a clear window so everyone can see you are carrying around the Bible. That's how the Phariseez roll, yo!
I'll stop. I could go through the whole catalogue. I think I became a little more Mormon just reading this thing.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ned's Ultimate Banner of Heaven thread...
We'll all soon be sick to death of the Banner of Heaven talk (and many already are, I'm sure), so I thought I'd get my licks in now.
I think what bothers me most is that my sense of community has been violated. By Common Consent, Kulturblog, and Banner of Heaven were some of my favorite places to hang out. I was looking forward to meeting my fellow bloggers at Steve Evans' Thanksgiving party. Suddenly, I don't feel like doing any of these things, Steve's half-hearted apologies aside. I'm the idiot because I actually thought I had a connection with these people.
Do I want an apology? No, I'd prefer not to get one. If someone apologizes, you have to forgive them or else you're the jerk, no matter what they did.
Steve Evans-- for someone who has spent so much time helping form this bloggernacle community, it is odd, to say the least, that you are so blase about crapping all over it. That's all.
I'll get over it soon enough; it's not that big of deal. But are these people going to be my friends? No, and that's what sucks the most.
I think what bothers me most is that my sense of community has been violated. By Common Consent, Kulturblog, and Banner of Heaven were some of my favorite places to hang out. I was looking forward to meeting my fellow bloggers at Steve Evans' Thanksgiving party. Suddenly, I don't feel like doing any of these things, Steve's half-hearted apologies aside. I'm the idiot because I actually thought I had a connection with these people.
Do I want an apology? No, I'd prefer not to get one. If someone apologizes, you have to forgive them or else you're the jerk, no matter what they did.
Steve Evans-- for someone who has spent so much time helping form this bloggernacle community, it is odd, to say the least, that you are so blase about crapping all over it. That's all.
I'll get over it soon enough; it's not that big of deal. But are these people going to be my friends? No, and that's what sucks the most.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Ex-Mormons are people too...
The second-most famous couplet in the church, and possibly the only one which we still believe in is, "people can leave the church, but they can't leave the church alone." I used to think the same way. Now, I'm not so sure.
A recent thread on M* about the Church's efforts to track down members with no known address (like yours truly) elicited the usual comments about how if people don't want to be tracked down and visited, then they should just get their names removed from the rolls of the Church. Notice how they never use the word "excommunicated"; no, getting exed from the Church is apparently just like getting an unlisted number. You do it one weekend and then you never think about it again. (Please note: some people do just that, but this post isn't about them.)
Some believers (and I used to be one of them) just can't understand how anyone could be conflicted; there are only two options. Either the Church is true, and you should give it your all, or it's all a sham and you should immediately stop talking about, thinking about, or being interested in the Church that dominated a good chunk of your life. What strikes me is this almost neurotic desire to always be in control about what people are thinking about the Church. You should either think good things, or not bother thinking about it at all. This is more than a little unfair to those who suddenly find themselves unmoored by disbelief.
All I'm asking for is a little compassion. You can't possibly know what kind of familial and social pressures people are dealing with. Aggressively suggesting that inactives remove their names from the rolls is thinly disguised ideological bullying: you don't believe the exact same things as I do, so you must renounce Mormondom, cut all your ties, and stop discussing us. No matter how much tithing you've paid, how many hours you've spent in meetings, or how many years you served a mission, none of this can be part of your life story if you're not one of us.
I'm sorry, but I am one of you. No, I don't keep my name on the rolls to have something to complain about, I do it for my family. Heck, maybe I am trying to hedge my bets come Judgment Day, but I doubt whether my name is in an outdated computer system under a granite mountain will make much of a difference to Jesus. As I remember, he didn't much like bullies either.
A recent thread on M* about the Church's efforts to track down members with no known address (like yours truly) elicited the usual comments about how if people don't want to be tracked down and visited, then they should just get their names removed from the rolls of the Church. Notice how they never use the word "excommunicated"; no, getting exed from the Church is apparently just like getting an unlisted number. You do it one weekend and then you never think about it again. (Please note: some people do just that, but this post isn't about them.)
Some believers (and I used to be one of them) just can't understand how anyone could be conflicted; there are only two options. Either the Church is true, and you should give it your all, or it's all a sham and you should immediately stop talking about, thinking about, or being interested in the Church that dominated a good chunk of your life. What strikes me is this almost neurotic desire to always be in control about what people are thinking about the Church. You should either think good things, or not bother thinking about it at all. This is more than a little unfair to those who suddenly find themselves unmoored by disbelief.
All I'm asking for is a little compassion. You can't possibly know what kind of familial and social pressures people are dealing with. Aggressively suggesting that inactives remove their names from the rolls is thinly disguised ideological bullying: you don't believe the exact same things as I do, so you must renounce Mormondom, cut all your ties, and stop discussing us. No matter how much tithing you've paid, how many hours you've spent in meetings, or how many years you served a mission, none of this can be part of your life story if you're not one of us.
I'm sorry, but I am one of you. No, I don't keep my name on the rolls to have something to complain about, I do it for my family. Heck, maybe I am trying to hedge my bets come Judgment Day, but I doubt whether my name is in an outdated computer system under a granite mountain will make much of a difference to Jesus. As I remember, he didn't much like bullies either.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Will blog for food
As you can probably tell just from the sheer number of comments I've been leaving around the Bloggernacle, I am not exactly working at the moment (to borrow a phrase from George Costanza). I wasn't too concerned about a getting a new job after we moved, but now I have been unemployed almost two months. This should be the most enjoyable time in my life, but it's not. Sure, I can sleep till noon, but I always feel guilty when I wake up. I can lounge around the house, but all I can see is all the cleaning and organizing I need to do. I feel cheated: instead of living it up, all I can think about is the growing blank spot in my resume.
The only thing I can do is get a job. Unfortunately, there simply aren't as many companies or openings around here as I am used to. I had a hard enough time finding a job in D.C.; how am I going to find one in Stars Hollow? I think the solution is to start spending at least as much time on job-hunting websites as I do in the bloggernacle.
So, if you see me leaving too many comments or comments at weird hours of the night, just say, "Ned, knock it off and get a job!"
The only thing I can do is get a job. Unfortunately, there simply aren't as many companies or openings around here as I am used to. I had a hard enough time finding a job in D.C.; how am I going to find one in Stars Hollow? I think the solution is to start spending at least as much time on job-hunting websites as I do in the bloggernacle.
So, if you see me leaving too many comments or comments at weird hours of the night, just say, "Ned, knock it off and get a job!"
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Various Stages of Mormondom
I just wanted to announce that the good people at Various Stages of Mormondom have invited me to post on Saturdays (or, in the case of this week, very, very early on Sunday). I have already ordered my Mayor Quimby-esque "Saturday" sash to wear around the house. You can check out my first post, on Mormon myths, here.
I've always enjoyed VSoM, and I am honored to be a part of it. JLS is irreplaceable, so hopefully we haven't seen the last of him around these parts.
P.S. I have been getting an enormous amount of comment spam recently, so I have turned on "word verification" for the comments. You just have to type the word displayed there, so it knows you're not a spammer. Please email me (VivaNedFlanders -at- gmail.com) if you have any problems leaving comments. Thanks!
I've always enjoyed VSoM, and I am honored to be a part of it. JLS is irreplaceable, so hopefully we haven't seen the last of him around these parts.
P.S. I have been getting an enormous amount of comment spam recently, so I have turned on "word verification" for the comments. You just have to type the word displayed there, so it knows you're not a spammer. Please email me (VivaNedFlanders -at- gmail.com) if you have any problems leaving comments. Thanks!
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Snarkernackle!
No one else seems to have mentioned it, but there is a great new site in the bloggernacle: Snarkernackle! Very amusing, even if it can't decide how to spell itself. Snark on that, Snarkernackle!
Friday, September 30, 2005
I've decided not to raise my children Mormon...
...and I swear it's only partially because of this post on Times & Seasons. For those of you who don't want to read hundreds of comments (and who can blame you), I'll summarize. A T&S perma-blogger believes that, absent massive personal revelation, it is better to stay single forever than marry outside the temple. The rationale given is that mixed-religion marriages can "hamper... their children's spiritual growth" because kids will figure out that one of their parents don't believe. Even worse, they'll figure out that religion is not more important than marriage. I present the following quotation verbatim:
I don't want my kids exposed to these kinds of clannish, suffocating ideas, at least not until they are old enough to judge for themselves. I think it is a toxic mindset. And I don't think it's only Mormons that are afflicted with this; most churches (I'm looking at you Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, etc.) strongly discourage marrying outside of your religion. I whole-heartedly reject all this foolishness.
Which is more important, my wife or church? You shouldn't even have to think about it.
My wife will always take precedence over church. My family will always take precedence over church. Guess what? I hope my children do learn that the church is nice and okay for some people, but it's not the most important thing and it's not for everyone. It certainly shouldn't determine who you marry and it definitely shouldn't make you feel bad about yourself.
And that brings me to the second reason I won't raise my (theoretical) children Mormon: the church can't deal with sexuality. If I was scarred by the repressiveness of the church teachings growing up as a straight male, I can only imagine the hell it must be to grow up gay and Mormon. If my kids are gay, I don't want them them to be made miserable by constantly hearing about how bad of sinners they are, just for being themselves. There is a lot of ugly, unnecessary guilt imposed by the church that we could do without.
The number one lesson that will be taught in the Flanders' home is that being a good person and good to others are the only essential things. Everything else, including church, is fungible.
"The problem is that SOME [exposure to the gospel] may be worse than NONE. I've been around people from part-member families (and while I know not all are like this), ones that I have known have had no trouble taking the sacrament and then going out to lunch and ordering (gasp!) an iced tea. Not that that is evil incarnate, but it suggests that this person, at least, has fully learned the lesson of her youth: the church is nice, and it works for some, but it wasn't crucial to me (as your mother) that you be raised by someone who believes in it. She would have perhaps been better off raised without the gospel and then encountering it wholeheartedly instead of learning that 'the half-way covenant' is good enough."I think this is the problem; this person believes the Church should trump all relationships, especially marriage. You shouldn't even consider marrying an outsider. Why would you? They aren't part of the Church, and the Church is the most important thing in life.
I don't want my kids exposed to these kinds of clannish, suffocating ideas, at least not until they are old enough to judge for themselves. I think it is a toxic mindset. And I don't think it's only Mormons that are afflicted with this; most churches (I'm looking at you Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, etc.) strongly discourage marrying outside of your religion. I whole-heartedly reject all this foolishness.
Which is more important, my wife or church? You shouldn't even have to think about it.
My wife will always take precedence over church. My family will always take precedence over church. Guess what? I hope my children do learn that the church is nice and okay for some people, but it's not the most important thing and it's not for everyone. It certainly shouldn't determine who you marry and it definitely shouldn't make you feel bad about yourself.
And that brings me to the second reason I won't raise my (theoretical) children Mormon: the church can't deal with sexuality. If I was scarred by the repressiveness of the church teachings growing up as a straight male, I can only imagine the hell it must be to grow up gay and Mormon. If my kids are gay, I don't want them them to be made miserable by constantly hearing about how bad of sinners they are, just for being themselves. There is a lot of ugly, unnecessary guilt imposed by the church that we could do without.
The number one lesson that will be taught in the Flanders' home is that being a good person and good to others are the only essential things. Everything else, including church, is fungible.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
New online forum for believing spouses
I came across this new site during my daily scouring of the internet: a forum for believing Mormon spouses of inactives or non-members called Faces East. This community is just getting started, so if you fit the profile, or know someone who does, check it out.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Rough Stone Rolling release party?
With the release of the highly anticipated Rough Stone Rolling just minutes away, I have to ask, where is the excitement? To my knowledge, Deseret Book doesn't have any midnight release parties, and no members of the bloggernacle are headed off to the bookstore in their best Porter Rockwell costume. This is our Harry Potter, people! Supposedly, my copy left the warehouse today. We'll see if Amazon delivers it as timely as it did my wife's copy of the Half-Blood Prince.
I can't make any promises about staying up and reading all 768 pages straight through, though.
I can't make any promises about staying up and reading all 768 pages straight through, though.
Friday, September 16, 2005
A delicate topic
Mormonism and its relationship with homosexuality seems to be the hot topic. If Steve would ever bother to restart his Bloggernacle Zeitgeist column, it would certainly be this week's winner.
If you haven't checked out Silus Grok's guest stint over at Nine Moons, I highly recommend that you do. Frankly, it's tough to read about someone willing to sacrifice so much to stay Mormon; I have to admit I'm a little ambivalent about it. I think the Church is richer with people like Silus in it, and I think his openness can only help tolerance and understanding develop in Mormon culture. On the other hand, I can't help thinking that he might be happier in a church that didn't brand his most basic desires as irredeemably sinful.
For those of us not in Silus's situation, the question of the Church's policy towards homosexuality can be troubling. The way I look at it, there are a couple possibilities:
1. God approves of the way the Church is handling the "gay question" and...
(a) will never change.
(b) will eventually include all sexual orientations. The time is just not right now.
2. God disapproves of the Church's policy towards gay members, but...
(a) chooses not to intervene. He lets the prophets make their own decisions.
(b) not so much that it warrants a new revelation.
(c) he can't get anyone on the line.
3. God isn't Mormon/doesn't exist/doesn't involve himself in human affairs.
I don't know that any of these are really attractive options for me. This is a tough and sensitive subject. I truly believe that God wants all of us to be happy, or as close as possible; I guess whether this includes the Church or not depends on the individual.
Regular readers will know that I am a huge Morrissey fan. On his latest album, he had a song that seems very relevant to this discussion (especially considering Morrissey's ambiguous sexuality and proclaimed celibacy), called "I Have Forgiven Jesus." Some of the lyrics are as follows:
"I have forgiven Jesus
for all of the love
he placed in me
when there’s no one I can turn to with this love...
why did you give me
so much desire?
when there is nowhere I can go
to offload this desire?
and why did you give me so much love
in a loveless world?
when there is no one I can turn to
to unlock all this love
and why did you stick me in
self-deprecating bones and skin
Jesus-do you hate me?"
I can't really add anything to that.
If you haven't checked out Silus Grok's guest stint over at Nine Moons, I highly recommend that you do. Frankly, it's tough to read about someone willing to sacrifice so much to stay Mormon; I have to admit I'm a little ambivalent about it. I think the Church is richer with people like Silus in it, and I think his openness can only help tolerance and understanding develop in Mormon culture. On the other hand, I can't help thinking that he might be happier in a church that didn't brand his most basic desires as irredeemably sinful.
For those of us not in Silus's situation, the question of the Church's policy towards homosexuality can be troubling. The way I look at it, there are a couple possibilities:
1. God approves of the way the Church is handling the "gay question" and...
(a) will never change.
(b) will eventually include all sexual orientations. The time is just not right now.
2. God disapproves of the Church's policy towards gay members, but...
(a) chooses not to intervene. He lets the prophets make their own decisions.
(b) not so much that it warrants a new revelation.
(c) he can't get anyone on the line.
3. God isn't Mormon/doesn't exist/doesn't involve himself in human affairs.
I don't know that any of these are really attractive options for me. This is a tough and sensitive subject. I truly believe that God wants all of us to be happy, or as close as possible; I guess whether this includes the Church or not depends on the individual.
Regular readers will know that I am a huge Morrissey fan. On his latest album, he had a song that seems very relevant to this discussion (especially considering Morrissey's ambiguous sexuality and proclaimed celibacy), called "I Have Forgiven Jesus." Some of the lyrics are as follows:
"I have forgiven Jesus
for all of the love
he placed in me
when there’s no one I can turn to with this love...
why did you give me
so much desire?
when there is nowhere I can go
to offload this desire?
and why did you give me so much love
in a loveless world?
when there is no one I can turn to
to unlock all this love
and why did you stick me in
self-deprecating bones and skin
Jesus-do you hate me?"
I can't really add anything to that.
Friday, September 09, 2005
BYU is the fittest school?
The magazine Men's Fitness has apparently named BYU as the fittest college campus. I don't know if requiring a phys-ed class to graduate necessarily makes a campus fit, but I was surprised at the large percentage of students that participated in intramural sports. I wish my alma mater had more stuff like that.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Fondue with the Tanners
It always depresses me when the bloggernacle stoops to petty (and seemingly interminable) back-and-forths like this recent M* thread. But at least Kaimi's links finally revealed to me the origin of the fondue story: this comment. I'm sure everyone already knew this, but I've been wondering about the origin for months. I finally get to be in on the joke!
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Movie Review: Transporter 2
Transporter 2 was number one at the box office last week, thanks in part to Maude and me. We both enjoyed the goofy fun of the first Transporter, which has two of the best fight scenes ever (one involves a doorbell and the other bicycle pedals). We were also looking forward to seeing Jason Statham in action once again, as he is a criminally under-used actor.
As we left the theater after watching Transporter 2, I said to Maude, "Quick, let's get out of here before anyone realizes that we paid money to see that."
The first Transporter was fun and stupid; this one is just stupid. I don't go to action movies looking for plausibility, but don't insult my intelligence. I can't help feeling insulted when the Transporter flips his car 360 degrees in the air and clips a crane to knock a bomb off his car. I sense nothing but contempt from the filmmaker who has a plane crash full speed into the ocean with minimal damages.
I don't understand what is so hard about making a movie like this. Your audience has very limited demands: cool fight scenes and action sequences. Period. They couldn't care less about glowing purple orbs of vaccines, Russian biochemists, and Columbian drug cartels. (And Columbian drug cartels? Seriously, Luc Besson? Is it 1986?) The problem with Transporter 2 is that it doesn't even deliver this. The fight scenes are so heavily edited that you can't really tell who is punching whom, and the action sequences are too cartoonish to be any fun.
Despite this being a terrible movie, I have to say that I'm glad it made 20 million last weekend. Maybe now Jason Statham will finally start getting the roles he deserves. Let's just hope it's not Transporter 3.
As we left the theater after watching Transporter 2, I said to Maude, "Quick, let's get out of here before anyone realizes that we paid money to see that."
The first Transporter was fun and stupid; this one is just stupid. I don't go to action movies looking for plausibility, but don't insult my intelligence. I can't help feeling insulted when the Transporter flips his car 360 degrees in the air and clips a crane to knock a bomb off his car. I sense nothing but contempt from the filmmaker who has a plane crash full speed into the ocean with minimal damages.
I don't understand what is so hard about making a movie like this. Your audience has very limited demands: cool fight scenes and action sequences. Period. They couldn't care less about glowing purple orbs of vaccines, Russian biochemists, and Columbian drug cartels. (And Columbian drug cartels? Seriously, Luc Besson? Is it 1986?) The problem with Transporter 2 is that it doesn't even deliver this. The fight scenes are so heavily edited that you can't really tell who is punching whom, and the action sequences are too cartoonish to be any fun.
Despite this being a terrible movie, I have to say that I'm glad it made 20 million last weekend. Maybe now Jason Statham will finally start getting the roles he deserves. Let's just hope it's not Transporter 3.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The Maginot Line
I almost didn't go to church again this weekend. The Episcopal church meets at the same time and Maude wanted to go. I told her we could alternate Sundays (since we only have one vehicle) and that she could take the first one. When it actually came time to wake up, she was too sleepy and told me to go ahead.
I didn't know what to expect, but this being the Northeast, I figured the Mormon ward house would be small and possibly located in a converted IHOP restaurant. Boy, was I wrong. I pulled up to a brand-new building, fresh out of the church-approved architectural oven. Is it just me, or are the Church buildings getting better-looking? I think this is a positive development for missionary work; it's hard to get people excited about worshipping God in what looks like an old bank branch.
The chapel itself was actually pretty small. Who has ever heard of a chapel with only six rows of pews? I guess this is a mini-ward house, kind of like the newer mini-temples. They had the overflow open so that it was about the size of a regular chapel, only with half of the seats being located in the cultural hall.
I came in about two minutes before the meeting started and landed a primo spot in the back row, just like old times. In my old ward in Virginia, I never exchanged more than two words with anyone during the eight or nine times I went, probably because there were 200-250 people there every week. This week, however, as soon as I had sat down, the guy next to me had introduced himself, his wife and his kids. I was right; it's going to be a lot harder keeping a low profile in small ward. He had gotten my name and half my life story out of me just during the prelude music. I tried going with the whole "I'm just visiting" shtick, but that never works. I wasn't planning on revealing too much about myself, but he came right out and asked me, "So, is your wife a member?" There's really no way around that question. I was only hesitant to answer because I saw two sets of typical over-eager Elders sitting in the chapel. I think they can smell part-member families, just like dogs can smell fear.
Finally, the meeting started and during it I met the guy sitting on the other side of me. He seemed like a kindred spirit, and possibly a new convert. He didn't take the sacrament either, which I find helps ease some of the stigma. As I prepared to bolt at the end of the meeting (to avoid having to meet the Bishop), this guy says, "See you next week." I don't think he was planning on sticking around for Sunday School either.
I am glad that everyone I've met so far has been so nice; I think I could enjoy my time here. However, I am a little apprehensive about the Elders getting ideas about Maude. She hasn't shown any interest in attending, but if she ever does come, I don't think she'd respond well to the missionaries. It was easy to have boundaries in a large ward; I have a feeling it will take a lot more energy now to defend them.
I didn't know what to expect, but this being the Northeast, I figured the Mormon ward house would be small and possibly located in a converted IHOP restaurant. Boy, was I wrong. I pulled up to a brand-new building, fresh out of the church-approved architectural oven. Is it just me, or are the Church buildings getting better-looking? I think this is a positive development for missionary work; it's hard to get people excited about worshipping God in what looks like an old bank branch.
The chapel itself was actually pretty small. Who has ever heard of a chapel with only six rows of pews? I guess this is a mini-ward house, kind of like the newer mini-temples. They had the overflow open so that it was about the size of a regular chapel, only with half of the seats being located in the cultural hall.
I came in about two minutes before the meeting started and landed a primo spot in the back row, just like old times. In my old ward in Virginia, I never exchanged more than two words with anyone during the eight or nine times I went, probably because there were 200-250 people there every week. This week, however, as soon as I had sat down, the guy next to me had introduced himself, his wife and his kids. I was right; it's going to be a lot harder keeping a low profile in small ward. He had gotten my name and half my life story out of me just during the prelude music. I tried going with the whole "I'm just visiting" shtick, but that never works. I wasn't planning on revealing too much about myself, but he came right out and asked me, "So, is your wife a member?" There's really no way around that question. I was only hesitant to answer because I saw two sets of typical over-eager Elders sitting in the chapel. I think they can smell part-member families, just like dogs can smell fear.
Finally, the meeting started and during it I met the guy sitting on the other side of me. He seemed like a kindred spirit, and possibly a new convert. He didn't take the sacrament either, which I find helps ease some of the stigma. As I prepared to bolt at the end of the meeting (to avoid having to meet the Bishop), this guy says, "See you next week." I don't think he was planning on sticking around for Sunday School either.
I am glad that everyone I've met so far has been so nice; I think I could enjoy my time here. However, I am a little apprehensive about the Elders getting ideas about Maude. She hasn't shown any interest in attending, but if she ever does come, I don't think she'd respond well to the missionaries. It was easy to have boundaries in a large ward; I have a feeling it will take a lot more energy now to defend them.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Sheep in sheep's clothing
Fortunately, I was in the midst of a move and missed most of the M*/BCC/Dialogue nonsense that flared up last week. (If you missed it too, and have a healthy dose of masochism, feel free to read it here.)
The fallout from this is that over at M*, Jonathan Max Wilson informs us that he can no longer in good faith participate in the bloggernacle. It seems to me that every six months or so, certain bloggers get fed up with the bloggernacle, insinuate those left behind are on the road to apostasy, and bow out. (In fact, I made a similar post almost exactly five months ago, and J. Max Wilson even left a comment.) That's fine. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong; what irritates me is the suggestion that they know my intentions better than I do.
I think the bloggernacle would be a much nicer place if everyone just took a deep breath, relaxed, and ascribed the best intentions to everyone in it. The idea that there are wolves in sheep's clothing, or Bloggernacle stalwarts who are secretly anti-Mormons posing as faithful questioners, is patently ridiculous.
Heterodox Mormons are not in league with Satan, and Orthodox Mormons aren't (all--ha!) Pharisees bent on driving the rest of us from the church. We are all working out our own salvation here, trying to resolve our feelings about often difficult and murky topics. I am not trying to lead anyone astray; I couldn't even if I tried. I am trying to figure out what parts of Mormonism work for me and which ones don't, and whether those that don't preclude me from returning to full activity. If discussing hard topics offends some people, then they shouldn't participate; life is too short to be constantly offended.
If the open and freewheeling nature of bloggernacle discussion offends you, fine, but don't pretend to know my motives. We are all sheep, still looking for the right shepherd.
The fallout from this is that over at M*, Jonathan Max Wilson informs us that he can no longer in good faith participate in the bloggernacle. It seems to me that every six months or so, certain bloggers get fed up with the bloggernacle, insinuate those left behind are on the road to apostasy, and bow out. (In fact, I made a similar post almost exactly five months ago, and J. Max Wilson even left a comment.) That's fine. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong; what irritates me is the suggestion that they know my intentions better than I do.
I think the bloggernacle would be a much nicer place if everyone just took a deep breath, relaxed, and ascribed the best intentions to everyone in it. The idea that there are wolves in sheep's clothing, or Bloggernacle stalwarts who are secretly anti-Mormons posing as faithful questioners, is patently ridiculous.
Heterodox Mormons are not in league with Satan, and Orthodox Mormons aren't (all--ha!) Pharisees bent on driving the rest of us from the church. We are all working out our own salvation here, trying to resolve our feelings about often difficult and murky topics. I am not trying to lead anyone astray; I couldn't even if I tried. I am trying to figure out what parts of Mormonism work for me and which ones don't, and whether those that don't preclude me from returning to full activity. If discussing hard topics offends some people, then they shouldn't participate; life is too short to be constantly offended.
If the open and freewheeling nature of bloggernacle discussion offends you, fine, but don't pretend to know my motives. We are all sheep, still looking for the right shepherd.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
He who is transplanted, still sustains...
Phwew! It's been a rough few weeks, but somehow Maude, me, and the majority of our stuff made it to our new home. As you may have noticed from my updated profile there on the right, I have left the Washington D.C. metro area forever and am now a curmudgeonly New Englander. I've already practiced saying, "you cahn't get there from heeahr." I am certain my neighbors will just love me.
It's a big transition moving from an apartment to a home. Suddenly, I am responsible for maintaining more than twice the usual amount of space and three times as many bathrooms. Frankly, we weren't all that good about keeping three rooms clean; how are we going to fare with a whole house? I think maintaining this place and the yard could be my full-time job, which is convenient, because I still haven't found one. Without work, I've totally lost track of what day it is but I am pretty sure tomorrow is garbage day. Maybe this Sunday I can finally check out the new church.
I do miss my old work internet connection; I have about two and a half weeks of bloggernacle postings to catch up on.
It's a big transition moving from an apartment to a home. Suddenly, I am responsible for maintaining more than twice the usual amount of space and three times as many bathrooms. Frankly, we weren't all that good about keeping three rooms clean; how are we going to fare with a whole house? I think maintaining this place and the yard could be my full-time job, which is convenient, because I still haven't found one. Without work, I've totally lost track of what day it is but I am pretty sure tomorrow is garbage day. Maybe this Sunday I can finally check out the new church.
I do miss my old work internet connection; I have about two and a half weeks of bloggernacle postings to catch up on.
Monday, August 01, 2005
NY Times article on Mormon cinema
I haven't seen anything in the bloggernacle about the New York Times Sunday Magazine article about Mormon cinema so I thought I would link to it (registration required, lamentably).
I'm not a fan of most Mormon-themed movies, but a comedy about church basketball sounds hilarious. It's too bad the title "Murderball" was already taken. On one hand, "Church Ball" will star Fred Willard. This can only be good news. One the other, it will also feature Gary Coleman. It could be a wash.
I'm not a fan of most Mormon-themed movies, but a comedy about church basketball sounds hilarious. It's too bad the title "Murderball" was already taken. On one hand, "Church Ball" will star Fred Willard. This can only be good news. One the other, it will also feature Gary Coleman. It could be a wash.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Too much personal revelation...
I think the concept of "personal revelation" is quickly wearing out its welcome in the Flanders' home. Everywhere I go in the bloggernacle, all I hear about is personal revelation. Apparently, if I want to drink a Coke or watch Schindler's List or jay-walk, I have to receive personal revelation that it's alright.
If I want to deviate from the Proclamation of the Family and stay at home with the kids or have my wife wear pants, we'd better start praying to secure our exemption from this draconian document.
I for one say, NO MORE! No more personal revelation about cooking with wine! No more asking about career choices. Do it or don't. Stop bothering God! He doesn't care! I just don't understand the compulsion to clear every single decision we make in this life with the Almighty. We've been taught correct principles (hopefully), now let's govern ourselves, people! Seriously.
It probably won't shock anyone that I'm not a huge Bruce R. McConkie fan. The excerpts I've read from Mormon Doctrine sometimes make my blood boil. That's why I was surprised to read about the following talk Bruce gave once at BYU:
...[E]xamples of what [McConkie] called "extremism" among both students and ecclesiastical leaders which he counseled avoiding: giving excessively burdensome callings...; prohibiting students from studying on Sunday; allowing students to seek "special blessings" ("These tend to... encourage undue reliance upon divine intervention in mundane matters"); praying on dates; choosing a marriage partner (he encouraged using "personal judgment, not requiring a heavenly revelation"); making no long-term goals in the mistaken belief that the second coming of Christ is imminent; lacking discretion in ecclesiastical interviews...; and avoiding "a witchhunting attitude when discussing which sins should be confessed to a bishop." (source)
What's this? A talk by Bruce R. that feels like a breath of fresh air? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
If something as important as choosing a marriage partner should be decided using "personal judgment, not requiring a heavenly revelation" then why are we pestering the Lord about things much less momentous?
If I want to deviate from the Proclamation of the Family and stay at home with the kids or have my wife wear pants, we'd better start praying to secure our exemption from this draconian document.
I for one say, NO MORE! No more personal revelation about cooking with wine! No more asking about career choices. Do it or don't. Stop bothering God! He doesn't care! I just don't understand the compulsion to clear every single decision we make in this life with the Almighty. We've been taught correct principles (hopefully), now let's govern ourselves, people! Seriously.
It probably won't shock anyone that I'm not a huge Bruce R. McConkie fan. The excerpts I've read from Mormon Doctrine sometimes make my blood boil. That's why I was surprised to read about the following talk Bruce gave once at BYU:
...[E]xamples of what [McConkie] called "extremism" among both students and ecclesiastical leaders which he counseled avoiding: giving excessively burdensome callings...; prohibiting students from studying on Sunday; allowing students to seek "special blessings" ("These tend to... encourage undue reliance upon divine intervention in mundane matters"); praying on dates; choosing a marriage partner (he encouraged using "personal judgment, not requiring a heavenly revelation"); making no long-term goals in the mistaken belief that the second coming of Christ is imminent; lacking discretion in ecclesiastical interviews...; and avoiding "a witchhunting attitude when discussing which sins should be confessed to a bishop." (source)
What's this? A talk by Bruce R. that feels like a breath of fresh air? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
If something as important as choosing a marriage partner should be decided using "personal judgment, not requiring a heavenly revelation" then why are we pestering the Lord about things much less momentous?
Dear Prudence...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
