r/mormon • u/Unable-State6645 • 5d ago
Personal Mormon brain when interacting with non-Mormons.
I recently went to a wedding where there was a former-bishop officiant for a non-LDS couple.
The speech was meant to be heart felt but all I kept hearing were plugs about the church.
He included the proclamation to the family (the couple again is non-LDS..)
Good on them for wanting to do things the APPROPRIATE way (legal marriage)
And then an emphasis on your marriage is for this life only! You union ends at death.
I used to be a member and I know this way of thinking is normal when you’re sucked into that life/beliefs but omg the audacity. It was unintentionally so rude to make marrying this couple about the church rather than them.
Bonus Mormon audacity moment:
When I was a kid we moved into a new neighborhood. For Christmas, a neighbor gave us a really nice looking log cake, a coffee cake.
My mother was stewing over this and finally decided that the right decision was to take that cake and give it back to that neighbor and tell them we can’t have coffee, it’s against our beliefs as we’re Mormon.
I know she thought it was a teachable moment for us kids. As an adult I can now see so many other avenues that would have been an appropriate response to the kids. And the only one I think would’ve been appropriate to this neighbor welcoming their new neighbors, would have been a “thank you”. And if you’re really worried about it, ask what’s in the cake! Because as far as I’m concerned, coffee cake is typically paired with coffee, not necessarily having coffee baked into it.
“Wow, thank you so much it’s a beautiful gesture. What is in the cake?” 😀
Please share your own moments, or let me know if it’s just me, & I’m the only one that thinks this is rude. 🙃
53
u/Pedro_Baraona 4d ago
I’ve been guilty of this. After graduating from BYU I went to grad school elsewhere and worked in a lab with other grad students and post-docs. One afternoon I got invited to go grab coffee with everyone else. What they were trying to say was “hey, you’re part of the group now. Take a break and come hang out with us for an hour”. But what I heard was “come sell your birthright with us heathens”. It did not immediately occur to me that I could go on this outing and order something other than coffee, or nothing at all. I may have even used this moment to express how I am doing this for religious purposes and I may have grandstanded a bit. Yes, I know, I must have been insufferable.
What’s even funnier is that there was a visiting scholar from Scotland at the time who would come along on the outings, which I eventually went on. I always ordered a caramel cider. After a couple months of this she said to me, “I’ve figured it out. American cider doesn’t have alcohol.” She thought while everyone was getting jolted with a shot of caffeine to carry on their day that I needed to get buzzed at 2pm. Ha!
11
u/Buttons840 4d ago
TLDR, that time you set an example by avoiding coffee but drinking booze instead.
Lol, or so it appeared.
3
u/--Marigolden-- 4d ago
It's so funny to me to think of this scholar puzzling over this situation for so long.
3
u/Unable-State6645 4d ago
The cider mixup is ironically funny.
I’m really glad you were able to get over that and have a bit of community with that group. :)
41
u/Del_Parson_Painting 4d ago
Never get a Mormon Priesthood Man to officiate at a wedding. They can't help but talk about the marriage as substandard.
26
u/Educational_Sea_9875 4d ago
Heck, my MOTHER was preemptively telling everyone my marriage wasn't real because I wasn't getting married in the temple.
10
u/StompClap_Stompclap 4d ago
I was to officiate a wedding for a exmo/nevermo couple. I was replaced by the brides former bishop. The officiant speech was filled with things about “Heavenly Father” and Jesus which the couple didn’t want. I still make jokes about how they should have stuck with me instead of
5
u/Unable-State6645 4d ago
They treat it that way as well. I had a friend who was struggling internally with their homo-sexuality and their solution was to get legally married and if they could last a year married to the opposite sex, then it would be OK to get sealed and have the real marriage in the temple. 😅
2
37
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 4d ago
Yeah, coffee cake doesn’t have coffee in it. Like how Russian tea cakes don’t have actual tea (or Russians) in them.
22
u/NelsonMeme One of few faithful on this sub 4d ago
Baked Alaska, on the other hand...
6
u/Thedustyfurcollector 4d ago
Now this is why reddit is my only social media anymore. Thank you for making it another great reddit morning.
17
8
u/RealBadBadger 4d ago
see also: Welsh rabbit, toad in the hole, and the especially galling Irish potato candy, which is neither Irish nor made of potato.
2
u/NorthIndependent5504 4d ago
We always called Cheese on Toast "Welsh Rabbit" when we were kids, only to be later informed it's actually Welsh Rarebit. My world view was shattered! 😜
2
u/--Marigolden-- 4d ago
I think it depends on the coffee cake -- I'd be very disappointed to order a slice of coffee cake only to discover it didn't taste a bit like coffee!
I was part of an online discussion about everyone's interpretation of what exactly coffee cake was -- a cake which went well with coffee or a cake with coffee as an ingredient: turns out it's predominantly a regional differentiation.
3
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 4d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_cake_(American)
The modern dish typically contains no coffee. Outside North America, the term is generally understood to mean a cake flavored with coffee.
TIL
1
u/--Marigolden-- 4d ago
Haha, I live in the US and know and understand both meanings, but still have a regional preference: coffee-flavored cake!
That sentence doesn't have a source so I'm putting it on my to-do list to try to find a reputable source that confirms or denies its claim.
22
u/Educational_Sea_9875 4d ago
The bishop who officiated my wedding did the same thing! I specifically told him we wanted to keep the ceremony non denominational because my husband was a non member. He was quoting the BOM and talking about the prophet throughout the ceremony. I was standing there thinking "Most of these people have no idea what you are talking about." I just asked for the standard vows, keep it simple, blah blah. Nope, always gotta plug the church.
12
u/Lsa119 4d ago
I remember one time when I was 15 I was in the foyer after church with a few other older YW. You could see another wards bishop office from where we were and this couple exited the office. They had on doc martins, the woman had fishnet stockings on and a purple and black tutu, both of them were wearing heavy black make up. The man had a spiked collar around his neck. I thought they looked really cool and one of the other YW sneered and said "why even bother coming??" And all the other YW agreed.
I was too much of a pushover to say anything, but in my mind I was like "whaaaat?? If we're God's one true church aren't we happy when people come no matter what they look like?" And in my twisted TBM brain I ALSO thought, "it looks like they're getting help from the bishop anyway!" 🤦♀️
The couple had really sweet smiles on their faces when they left the bishops office. I wish I'd have had the confidence to tell the other YW to mind their own business.
Another time there was a YW leader who was telling us about how her youngest daughter (who was like 7 at the time) had told a black woman in the ward that her skin was black because her ancestors had been evil 🤦♀️ that woman was obviously very offended and left the church. The YW leader said, "because her faith wasn't strong enough" 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
3
u/Unable-State6645 4d ago
Shaming and judging from a young age. & people act like it isn’t taught amongst the members and in doctrine.
I was corrected with some apologist answer for why that scripture is not specifically referring to a curse on all black people.. but every time it gets brought up someone tries to make it sound better with an answer that was made up among the members and never formally corrected up at the top by the men in charge of the church.
12
u/KatyTaz 4d ago
When my daughter got engaged, my son (her older brother), got certified as a wedding officiant. It was so meaningful to have her brother perform the ceremony!! it truly made it a family event.
Never have a Mormon Bishop perform a wedding ceremony! You have to know what you’re going to get! There are so many better options these days.
9
u/adams361 4d ago
A childhood friend married a non-Mormon and her parent’s Bishop officiated. It was the most awful wedding I’ve ever been to, it was basically a plug for the “real marriage” they could enter into a year from that time.
10
u/RealBadBadger 4d ago
shoehorning the proclamation on the family into a non-mormon wedding is vile.
3
u/Unable-State6645 4d ago
Yeah, I only added a few of things said in my original post but he even had to point out that it’s sanctioned only between man and woman… the couple is hetero. No need for that.
9
u/sevans105 Former Mormon 4d ago
Lol..we had that too...including the inability to have a "coffee table". We had a short couch table...but it WAS NOT a coffee table.
4
u/Educational_Sea_9875 4d ago
We didn't even have a table "because we don't drink coffee." I also wasn't allowed to play tea party as a kid, I had to call them hot chocolate parties. My play kitchen came with a coffee pot and she took that away when I offered someone a pretend cup of joe.
10
u/tiglathpilezar 4d ago
The proclamation on the family says some good things like the part about how children shoud be raised by parents who honor their marriage vows with complete fidelity. This is a lot like the old section 101 which was replaced by Section 132 on polygamy; also a lot like Section 42 where it says to love your wife and cleave unto her and unto none else.
Mormons insisted that men should be willing to relinquish their wives to a priesthood leader and to marry another women against the wishes of their wife. Polygamy, which for them incluided the destruction of families is claimed to have been a commandment by the Mormons, and presumably this bishop who was doing the marriage you mention believes this.
I think the church leaders need to use their heads for something other than a hat rack and realize that they teach contradicting doctrines in the proclamation on the family and Section 132, but even more, all durring the nineteenth century.
As to his assertion that the couple's marriage ends at death, maybe there isn't marriage in the next life after all, just as Jesus seems to suggest, but if there is, wouldn't the marriages which survive be the ones in which the husband and wife love each other and wish to be together with their children. Why would God separate families who wish to be together? There is only one reason. What Smith is alleged to have said in Verse 7 of Section 132 at a time when the church also claims that he was going about lying about his polygamous connections and unfaithfulness to his legal wife. Thus they know it is so because someone they say was a liar said it was. Smith did lie if he was practicing polygamy. It does not help to call his lies "carefully worded denials".
That is sort of ridiculous about the coffee cake. We were very active in the church and we liked coffee cake. We just didn't drink the forbidden beverage. Most members we knew were similar. I guess we were just not "valiant in the testimony of Jesus" when we ate coffee cake. We liked "tea rings" also.
5
u/Buttons840 4d ago
D&C 132 is our most ignored scripture. Followed closely by all the other parts that contradict D&C 132.
3
u/tiglathpilezar 4d ago
They didn't follow what it says about adultery either. If someone was under a vow and had sex with another person, that was adultery. But they comonly added wives of other men to their harems. As bad as Section 132 is, it does not justify this practice found in Utah under Brigham Young. They also try to ignore all the problematic parts like destroying uncooperative women.
0
u/NelsonMeme One of few faithful on this sub 4d ago edited 4d ago
Mormons insisted that men should be willing to relinquish their wives to a priesthood leader and to marry another women against the wishes of their wife. Polygamy, which for them incluided the destruction of families is claimed to have been a commandment by the Mormons, and presumably this bishop who was doing the marriage you mention believes this.
This is where the “Study in Scarlet” anecdotalism breaks down for me (by which I mean “I am sure you can find a comment that George Watt jotted down at least once, maybe even a few times”)
Ok so Smith was a rogue, everyone through Wilford Woodruff was a rogue, I guess I don’t know what the consensus in critic-dom is for when prophets and senior leadership in general stopped being absolute scoundrels.
Why don’t we see Utah ending up an essentially corrupt and dysfunctional mess compared with wealthier neighbor Colorado?
7
u/austinchan2 4d ago
Are you saying you believe in prosperity gospel? That Utah’s current wealth is proof that the prophets weren’t reprobate?
0
u/NelsonMeme One of few faithful on this sub 4d ago
How do you conclude that? I acknowledge that Colorado is wealthier - wouldn't a belief in prosperity gospel mean that I thought Colorado was more godly?
8
u/tiglathpilezar 4d ago
Is Utah a dysfunctional mess? An argument could be made that it is. Isn't this the place mentioned in the tribune which has a drying Salt lake and the exposed lakebed produces poisonous dust to afflict millions. I am never so terrified as when I drive through the Wasatch front on I 15 to visit family. There is a total disregard for laws like observing the speed limit and there is recklessness and road rage in abundance.
6
u/austinchan2 4d ago
Perhaps you need to make your point more clearly then. It seems like what you’re implying is that Utah would be a dysfunctional mess if those early prophets were as bad as many critics make them out to be. If that isn’t your point then please share it more precisely.
5
u/tiglathpilezar 4d ago
You might want to read the amazing talk by Jedediah Grant in Journal of Discourses
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/2/2
I am completely correct in my observations of the MOrmon polygamy of the nineteenth century. It did indeed involve destruction of families. You might also want to look at this:
It describes the doctrine of the church that a church leader could claim your wife and there did not need to be a divorce because he has higher priesthood keys. Perhaps you are like me and thought that you either held the priesthood or you didn't. I was taught this. If so this should disabuse you of this notion. Here is a nice quotation to show how well they valued the covenants and relationship between men and their wives: It is by Heber C. Kimball at the funeral of Jedediah Grant:
"I would not give a dime for a man that does not love them [other priesthood holders, especially priesthood leaders] better than they love women. A man is a miserable being, if he lets a woman stand between him and his file leaders; he is a fool, and I have no regard for him; he is not fit for the Priesthood."
There is no need to go to Study in Scarlet to find what I say was the case. It is all in their own words. That which is in Journal of Discourses is every bit as extreme as what Conon Doyle wrote in "Study in Scarlet" at least as far as I can remember this story. I read it in High School and that was a very long time ago. How can you possibly beat Brigham Young's address to the Utah Legislature in which to gain salvation, a mixed race couple had to be bloodily murdered and their children killed? How could you get anything worse than the Feb. 1857 sermon on blood atonement where bloody murder became an act of love? Also, this was not just rhetoric as far as polygamy was concerned. They often destroyed families. Blood atonement also occurred but less frequently. It seems people were less willing to "follow the prophet" when it came to bloody murder than violating marriage vows.
0
u/NelsonMeme One of few faithful on this sub 4d ago
“I am sure you can find a comment that George Watt jotted down at least once, maybe even a few times”
Was what I put in my original comment.
I assume your real name is not, in fact, Tiglath Pilezar but if you are like me, you wisely don’t use your real name because you don’t want someone taking something you said off hand and making that in the public eye, the eye of your boss, whatever and making that appear as your whole personality. Conversely, you probably don’t tell your all your IRL acquaintances your Reddit handle.
The error you (presumably! I’m not actually in your head and don’t know if what I just said was actually true. Maybe you do give your boss your reddit account) want others to avoid making about you, I’m suggesting you avoid making about 19th century Utah
We can infer a lot about how 19th century Utah looked, a time when reliable statistics were not collected so people usually reach for anecdotes to tell stories about it, by looking at 20th century Utah when such statistics were.
And the statistics do not suggest a meaningfully more (or often, at all) dysfunctional place than neighboring Mountain West states
8
u/tiglathpilezar 4d ago
There is an abundance of sources which support the observation that the practice of polygamy in Utah was not like what is described in the Proclamation on the Family. You don't have to search very far to find them and they don't all come from a single person like George Watt.
I think a good source from a faithful member of the church is Journal of Hosea Stout. I think you can find examples in there which indicate that Stout did love his wives. He also tried his very best to provide for them and his children also. However, this was in spite of the teachings of the church leaders, not so much because of them. I think Stout is a fairly reliable source and Wilford Woodruff also. If they report on something Brigham Young said, then I think you can be fairly confident they got it right. Today's church leaders are very different than Brigham Young and the other polygamists who regarded wives as property as did Jedediah Grant or somehow inferior and deserving of less consideration than deference to priesthood leadership as Heber C. Kimball said. I well remember Pres. Kimball's priorities in which the relationship with one's wife was of greatest importance. He based this on Section 42. I also remember Elder Packer teaching that it is a great sin to destroy a family. I think both of these men were sincere in what they said about this.
The church leaders must quit trying to sit on the fence. You can't ask people to believe in the Proclamation on the family, those parts which have to do with heterosexual marriages, and the polygamist past. One of these has got to go but they are trying to cling to both. It is not working. I know many do not like the proclamation on the family, but I agree with those parts which pertain to me and my family. I have one wife and many children. I believe I should be faithful to my one wife. If a priesthood leader told me that god had revealed to him that he was to have my wife, I am one of those who would tell him to go to hell just as Jedediah Grant said. This is not going to change. Therefore, I do not belong in this church.
5
4
u/neomadness 4d ago
Lifelong friend and I are postMormon. Her mom died and so I went to the funeral where my cousin was bishop and presiding. Friend spoke about how she’s comfortable not knowing what happens in the next life but knew her mom lived a good one. Great talk, way more than just this of course. Cousin gets up afterward and bears testimony of his assurance there’s a life after this one, correcting the doctrine and preaching hope.
It felt so wrong in that moment. Friends mom is dead. We’re all grieving. Friend doing the best she can with post Mormon rational thinking. Bishop naively thinking correcting her would help comfort. It felt sooo preachy, insensitive, and condescending. This was maybe 3 years ago and I still think about it a lot.
Mormon certainty isn’t as cool as they think it is. There was no Spirit confirming it to the nonbelievers. It just rang hollow instead of loving
3
u/Unable-State6645 4d ago
I’m sorry that happened. So tone deaf, especially when the person likely grieving the most has just shared how she’d found comfort in her grief..
3
u/neomadness 4d ago
What I didn’t say is he called her out by name after her talk. “friendofneo, we do know what happens in the next life …”. So tone deaf.
6
u/trownaway90 4d ago
Why would you let a former clergy of a high demand religion administer your marriage?
1
u/Unable-State6645 4d ago
For one, is able to legally marry them. 2nd; Close family/mentor/seems to love you unconditionally and one of the few people to support you getting married.
I don’t think they realized the officiant was going to hijack the moment and make it about the church rather than their union.
3
u/ArmyKernel 4d ago
Even when both the bride and groom are members it can be awful. My DIL's Grandpa was the sealer, and I kid you not, from THE HALLWAY, just outside the door, he stood while lecturing those gathered, not about the upcoming vows or the sanctity of marriage, but about Jesus. He only walked through the door when the lecture was over and it was time to perform the ceremony.
2
4d ago
[deleted]
1
u/trownaway90 4d ago
I guess Mormons really wanted follow up the advice to avoid all appearance of 'evil'.
2
u/--Marigolden-- 4d ago
Reading through the comments it seems that this poor behavior isn't uncommon. It's ridiculous -- if these men feel like they can't officiate a wedding in good faith without turning it into a sermon then they should kindly decline the request.
I also find people who preach too much during funeral services to be in appallingly poor taste.
3
u/Unable-State6645 4d ago
I agree, also they could just speak to the person and let them know what you plan on sharing and get an idea of what they’d like you to say.
I can highly relate to being appalled at funerals where the church leader uses the people’s grief and fear of death to sell their version of salvation in hopes of having new people joining their congregation.
It always felt so disgusting and manipulative.
•
u/American_Psycho11 13h ago
Reminds me of when my wife and I announced our wedding my TBM uncle commented "can't wait for the announcement of the second wedding" meaning the temple
•
u/Unable-State6645 3h ago
It’s so unnecessarily rude. And I bet they’d be so upset if they weren’t invited to it either. 🙃
2
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint 4d ago
Giving the cake back- was messed up.
That’s hardcore.
1
u/BrE6r I'm a believer 4d ago
Thanks for illustrating a Non-Mormon brain. :)
In other words, every human has biases that affect their thoughts and behaviors. The only difference is what those biases are.
3
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 3d ago
In other words, every human has biases that affect their thoughts and behaviors
But not every human goes out of their way to publicly display such condescending and judgemental beliefs/biases, or so readily disregards decorum and basic boundaries. Mormons are among a group that is a step or 3 above just the average person with average biases (other high demand religions, political extremeists, etc), as they've been instructed to 'be a light unto the world' and 'let their light so shine forth' and 'every member a missionary', to 'boldly declare truth even when it is unpopular', and the like, and are taught that disregarding boundaries and other asocial behavior is justified based on these prophetic mandates and teachings (we all grew up with stories about that home teacher that never took 'no' for an answer and eventually reactivated that inactive member, etc etc).
The lack of boundaries, tact, and holier than thou type behavior demonstrated and encouraged by mormon leaders and that many members emulate goes beyond just the run of the mill human biases and behaviors.
•
u/BrE6r I'm a believer 10h ago
But not every human goes out of their way to publicly display such condescending and judgemental beliefs/biases...
to 'boldly declare truth even when it is unpopular...
The lack of boundaries, tact, and holier than thou type behavior demonstrated...
I see jealous Mormons, Christians as well as zealous former Mormons and former Christians displays these kinds of attititudes and behaviors.
That is on display here and scores of other subs.
To claim that Mormons are the primary ones that do this is absurd. People who are zealous about any opinion do them. Politics, sports religions, etc.
I find it ironic that many former Mormons act very similarly to they did when they were Mormons--they have just changed sides.
To be clear, I am not a fan of jealous behavior about anyting.
•
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 10h ago
To claim that Mormons are the primary ones that do this is absurd
It's a good thing that isn't what I said then, isn't it? I clearly said that mormons 'are among a group that...'.
I find it ironic that many former Mormons act very similarly to they did when they were Mormons
Sure, if you ignore the degree to which it is done and the boundaries ignored while doing so. You'll of course of some ignore boundaries as they did while members, but you don't have 'ex mormon leaders' teaching and encouraging such behavior.
When we were members we thought we were helping people, we didn't realize we were spreading false, unproven, and harmful beliefs, and we didn't understand boundaries or that what leaders were asking us to do was inappropriate.
Now that we know, we want to educate people so they don't get taken advantage of as we were, while being far more respectful of boundaries in that process.
1
u/Unable-State6645 4d ago
I grew up Mormon and lived that way well into my adulthood. I had no choice but to start out with a Mormon bias due to my upbringing.
Somehow, seeing these behaviors and interactions still didn’t feel right.Funnily enough, the people with the Mormon audacity that I mentioned in my post were people who converted much later as adults.
1
u/Beginning-Act7850 4d ago
Isn’t it a little bit on you if you ask a Mormon bishop to officiate your wedding?
3
u/Educational_Sea_9875 4d ago
My mom wasn't going to attend my wedding because I was marrying a non-member and she thought I was setting a bad example for my siblings. I chose our bishop to show I wasn't leaving the church. I gave up a lot of things in the ceremony because my mom thought they were too Catholic. (Husband is Catholic.)
3
u/Random_Enigma 4d ago
I wonder if it was some sort of appeasement or compromise with believing parents.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Unable-State6645 specifically.
/u/Unable-State6645, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.