Sunday in Outer Blogness: Holy Matrimony, Batman!
Yep, everyone is talking about marriage this week! From those ever stare–worthy polygs, to Rock’s thoughtful history of the rise of the temple wedding, to the sacredness of jumping into marriage before it’s too late! The Segullah Book Club analyzes the innocence of the bride on the way in, Jana inaugurates a series of tales of travelling out of marriage, and the Abbottsville Fourth Ward Bishop offers tips on keeping the conjugal romance alive. Ah, love and betrayal! And for some fascinating marriage theory, don’t miss the two series Chino highlighted.
Even this week’s big political question can be compared to the family budget. Yes, I’m talking about the US budget, where the trick of cutting $100 billion from it has led to some questions about families and the future.
Then, leaving your childhood religion and culture is almost as hard as leaving your family! [Is it me, or is the Deseret News taxonomy of leavers insulting and condescending?] When you keep in mind that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is actually a trademark owned by a corporation, it seems like it shouldn’t be so hard! And yet people can’t stop trying to go back no matter how clear it is that they don’t fit in and respect the tradition of moving on. But it’s so full of memories and familiar associations that you can’t help but want to preserve some parts. But those angry apostates seem to have some complaints about women’s treatment, so some have learned to say no in defiance of an authoritarian upbringing.
(OTOH, Mormonism protects you from immodesty and porn, and how can you argue with this theological evidence?)
I hope you had a romantic Valentine’s Day!! Be sure to give your S.O. a big kiss for me! (And I mean that in the most non-creepy way possible.) Have a great week!
If the Deseret article also had a taxonomy of believers and then did some kind of cross-examination, then it would be better. As it is, its categories are reductionist. For example, “Modern leavers care about reason and rationality. Anything that can’t be verified empirically is superstitious and delusion.” Okay, so does that mean that believers are unreasonable, irrational, superstitious and delusional? If not, then the words “reason” and “rational” are infused with a negative (stereotyping) subtext.
My sense is that believers just can’t get a handle on all the different variables in today’s society, as this is more than a Judeo-Christian country. Dallin Oaks might chalk up support of gay marriage to “moral relativism” or “postmodernism,” but I see it as born from a different morality than his, one that includes God and/or is Judeo-Christian depending on who you talk to.
I love how you always manage to tie it all together! And again, thanks for the shout out.
Back when I was still devout I would look for conference “themes.” One year we heard a lot of talks about the family; the next – Jesus Christ; then sin (usually mostly about pornography); yada yada yada. Finding those themes validated my beliefs…because, you know, “god” was telling all the “brethren” what to talk about. I find it interesting that there are themes in the EXmormon world as well. Today it just so happens to be marriage. Apparently god is still speaking to apostates? 🙂
I used to hear about the “themes” in GC. I never noticed any particular theme. By the time I’d been at BYU for a few years, I realized people picked up whatever theme they wanted. It’s what I call the “white VW phenomenon”: you never notice white VWs, but when your new girlfriend buys one, suddenly they’re all over the place.
That being said, the general authorities (especially the lower-level ones) and ex-mormons with blogs tend toward the same effect of talking about what other people are talking about. Ex-mormon bloggers do it because they all read each other’s blogs. I fear that non-apostle-GAs do it because they want to follow the big boys. IMHO, of course.
Alan — I think you’re right, and in Dallin Oaks’ case, it upsets him more than gay marriage itself. He wants to believe that the non-religious know deep down that it’s better to be religious. He hates the fact that so much of our society sincerely sees the LDS church’s actions (vis-a-vis Prop. 8 ) as fundamentally dishonest, selfish, and unethical. So he uses terms like “moral relativism” because he doesn’t want to call it what it really is: a coherent alternative ethical framework.
Regarding the “themes” — It’s true (as Goldarn points out) that part of it is that the various mo/exmo bloggers read each other’s blogs and are inspired by one another. Also current events often get lots of people talking about the same topics. Then, of course, I always do a little bit of culling. I build my link list all week, and on Sunday I open them all up in my browser, and review them all, looking for common themes. And there are always a handful that are just too far from any of the other discussions to tie them in (so I skip them or do a grab-bag paragraph at the end).
p.s. I accidentally left off the link for leaving last night, but (if you haven’t already read it) go have a look — I think many here will appreciate it.
First I see Goldarn in the comments and I just have to say, “Hi, Goldarn!”
Chanson, thank you for all the links that bring this community together and for those to D&S of course. 😀 Marriage is a HOT topic, as it should be since it’s so HOT. Glad to see it heating-up the church membership.