Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
Polygamy-Porter wrote:MAJOR FAIL there LDS Inc.
http://www.LDS.org/ensign/2012/07/when- ... g?lang=eng
Polygamy-Porter wrote:This article is contrived bull s***.
"NAME WITHHELD" is bull s***. Like a member sent this in?
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?
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.
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.