My almost 20 daughter and I just talked. She told me that she is submitting her mission papers tomorrow. She is nervous and excited but also very confused by all the changes in her church.

She said it is a lot to take reducing church to 2 hours and the communication with parents on a mission every week. There is just so much change going on that she is both excited and anxious about how the future will be for the church.

I think Rusty's rest and vitamins are causing many of these young adults stress. I hear it in my children's voices. They are all three young adults and say that the changes are exciting but I feel like they feel things a so different from when my wife and I were young that they are in a different church. These barely adult people probably feel like they are pawns in some greater changes spinning out of a man from a previous century's head.

What can I say? The biggest change I saw at their age is my mother told me that they removed the "penalties" weeks before I went to get my endowment.

I would have only one piece of advice for a soon-to-be missionary child:

"When the church and mission leaders try to blame you for not hitting their numbers, and tell you that you're not doing enough; no matter what they say, *it's not your fault.* Remember I told you that."

This is funny and reminds me of my mission president. He liked to make a contest out of getting as many contacts/visits/baptisms/etc as possible and gave ridiculous incentives to pit each district against the other to get the highest numbers. I was in a district that always came in highest with the numbers so I got a dinner (I did like this perk) in the mission home and gifts for good efforts. Funny thing is I never gave a flying leap about the rewards or the numbers. Yet I kept getting those rewards for doing the same things I'd always done. I never baptized a single sole and never hounded anyone to take discussions or let us in their home and my numbers were pathetic. I was just lucky enough to be in a high performing district. Stupid me. I thought I was there because I loved and wanted to share the true gospel and not shove it down anyone's throat. Someone should have told me the Lord wanted me as an annoying salesperson and not a sunbeam.

anonandanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone should
> have told me the Lord wanted me as an annoying
> salesperson and not a sunbeam.

If God exists and God inspires earnestly seeking people towards metaphysical truth being a sunbeam should suffice. Mormonism is a meme and as such requires annoying salespeople to keep the 19th Century millenarian appeal going.

BIC Mormons know it is their duty to always claim to be excited about anything the prophet does or says. This aver is an automatic response. Pavlovian, even.

The affirmation of the prophet's divine inspiration is their way of proving that they too are of the one true god.

Any conversation I've had with a true believer lately I have made a point of asking what they think about no longer being "Mormon". Everyone I ask gets a confused look on their face and changes the subject.

Interesting. I would ask her how she feels about the changes. Does she think the changes are a good thing, or not? Why does she feel that way? TBMs tend to turn a lot of their moral reasoning over to their leaders. I would support her in coming to her own conclusions.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting. I would ask her how she feels about
> the changes. Does she think the changes are a good
> thing, or not?

I will but often we speak on speaker phone and she never talks to me about deep stuff with her mother present. I would like to do it in person.

> Why does she feel that way? TBMs
> tend to turn a lot of their moral reasoning over
> to their leaders. I would support her in coming to
> her own conclusions.

It is all about supporting her I think. She feels this way possibly because she is going to be a missionary. It must be difficult to commit to a mission not know what other changes are coming?

The obvious intention behind the book was to psychologically manipulate borderline doubters and questioning Mormons into simply ACCEPTING that even if they found certain doctrines and practices of the LDS Church to be difficult to comprehend and understand, or to seemingly be in contradiction to other doctrines and practices, the wisest course of action was to ACCEPT things being the way they are, because that's the way things are. (A tautology, I know, and the book was one long exercise in circular reasoning and unexamined premises.)

The book had one constant theme that was, superficially, quite compelling to many people who were looking for something that would give them relief from the throbbing cognitive dissonance they were suffering from as a result of scrutinizing the details of Mormon doctrines, beliefs and practices.

Boiled down, the theme was that (1) We already know that the Church is true; (2) We know that we are struggling to learn eternal principles and are essentially infants in this process; (3) Fully understanding eternal truths and principles is often beyond our pay grade at the moment; and (4) We should therefore realize that true peace of mind comes with ACCEPTING the eternal truths that are taught to us by Heavenly Father through his duly anointed Prophets and Apostles [as I said, the book relies on unquestioned premises at every turn]. In other words rather than insisting on having a full understanding of why things are the way they are, it is better to first accept things the way they really are and conform your life to reality. Another way of looking at it: You don't need to understand all of the biological and physiological properties and processes involved in being burned by acid. You initially just need to know that that's the way things are. Acid burns and avoiding contact with it is the way to avoid being burned by acid. The knowledge of the details concerning the "why" and "how" of it all can come later.

So what does any of this have to do with the OP? Well, to a large extent, this palliative of resigned Acceptance for "things as they really are" has always relied upon a reasonable degree of constancy, consistency and continuity to be psychologically persuasive. How can you resign yourself to peacefully "accepting things as they really are" in circumstances where everything is constantly changing and in flux? In circumstances where increasingly the only thing that is constant is change itself? There is no peace of mind in that. If you were told that acid burns last year and accepted that and then you're told this year that it doesn't burn, the previous peace of mind that you acquired through resigned acceptance no longer works.

Interestingly, Maxwell's book came out a year before major changes were made to the temple ritual (deletion of the bloody oaths and the mystery-man hug known as the 5 points of fellowship). There has been a series of changes in Church policies and practices since then, but the pace was relatively slow. Like moving slowly around the flock of sheep to avoid startling any of them.

But now Nelson seems so eager to create his historical legacy within just a few short years that it's starting to look like a lot of frantic, frightening motion and commotion to many of the sheep in the flock.

Who knew that the pageants were not a wonderful program instituted by God to inspire the people?

Who knew that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir had been insulting Jesus with their name for the entirety of their existence as a choir?

Who knew that the policy of not allowing missionaries to communicate frequently with the folks back home was never really necessary for anything?

Who knew that President Monson had been mocking our Saviour Jesus Christ when he sang the "I'm a Mormon boy" ditty in General Conference?

And so on and so forth....

In other words, how can a borderline doubter or questioning Mormon gain peace in "accepting things as they really are" when the top leaders of the church appear to be striking out, with a bold red marker pen, one thing after another that previously constituted a prominent part of the package of things that comprised the "things that are things as they really are"?

Great reply. Made me think Mormonism is dying from a thousand little things instead of big things. In the beginning Smith was making huge changes to keep power and appeal.

Now it is the word "Mormon." It is how much time you are in church. I think Nelson wants Mormonism to be true to its selling point of "family church" but he is doing absurd "little things."

Many LDS [some FLDS (former LDS)?] parents try to force-talk their kids on missions. How are you any different?

Do you ask her/ them questions [questions that might lead to questions/ (true) answers]? Help her see the oxy-moronic (and destructive/ deceptive) ways & purpose of ldsC, and its 'missing program'? Help her understand (her own) cog-dis [at least]?

I would have a hard time facing a parent that DIDN'T TELL (Warn) ME/ Teach me/ Help me see [THE TRUTH] what they saw/ experienced/ thoughts of Mormonism.

IOW, what are you doing to lead them in the right direction?

One can only wonder, and ask.

moremany Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many LDS parents try to force-talk their kids on
> missions. How are you any different?

I don't know what that means.

> Do you ask her/ them questions ? Help her see the
> oxy-moronic (and destructive/ deceptive) ways &
> purpose of ldsC, and its 'missing program'? Help
> her understand (her own) cog-dis ?

I think so. It is a false belief system. She knows I feel this way and she disagrees with me.

> I would have a hard time facing a parent that
> DIDN'T TELL (Warn) ME/ Teach me/ Help me see what
> they saw/ experienced/ thoughts of Mormonism.

There are two parents involved and one believes this crap.

> IOW, what are you doing to lead them in the right
> direction?

I'm irreligious.

> One can only wonder, and ask.

I'm glad you asked.

Elder Berry Wrote:
> moremany Wrote:
>
> > Many LDS parents try to force-talk their kids on missions. How are you any different?
>
> I don't know what that means.

Then it's probably her "upbringing", mother, and peers.

> There are two parents involved and one believes this crap.
>

> > IOW, what are you doing to lead them in the right direction?
>
> I'm irreligious.
>

That's fine either way. However,
I was referring to healthier ways of life like nature, organics, Wabi Sabi, Feng Shui, art, philosophy, critical thinking (like seeing through the hogwash that is mormonism, or EXACTLY what it shuns, avoids, ignores, denies, and claims not to be), more sustainable outlooks, higher living, unconditional love and equanimity.

Not simply non-lds/ religion, but alternatively, CRITICAL THINKING.

> > One can only wonder, and ask.
>
> I'm glad you asked.

Thanks. Wishing you and yours the best, always!

"unconditional love and equanimity"

Both my wife and I probably failed our daughters in this regard. I think they might think that their religion promotes these concepts. I tell them LDS is all about conditional love but their mother and grandparents are unfortunately good examples for loving them unconditionally and with equanimity.

The way Mormonism says and how Mormonism acts is contrary to reality... hence, Mormonism confuses Mormons most.