FAMILIES ARE SO IMPORTANT - LDS Hymn Parody #29



Mormon Temple Wedding Policy Petition

One of the things that seems to be commented on a great deal when discussing the Mormon Church is how family-oriented it is.   That aspect of families being so important is one of the things that makes the Mormon Church stand out, and although I don't believe that the church is true anymore, I still acknowledge that part of its uniqueness.  Because of that reputation of being family-oriented, I feel that the Mormon Church should be very careful with the way in which that message is given to the world, especially since it is obvious that the Mormon Church wants to be accepted as Christian by the Christian community.  If the Mormon Church truly wants to be known for being family-oriented, then I feel that it should acquiesce and change its policy about how weddings are performed within the church.   By allowing civil unions prior to sealings in Mormon Temples, they would exhibit Christian attitudes and show that really care about keeping families together.  That, in my opinion, would go a long way to cementing that "family image" in people's minds. 

So here is another hymn parody that I have written in support of the Mormon Temple Wedding Policy Petition.  Isn't it about time?

FAMILIES ARE SO IMPORTANT
Sung to the tune of As I Search the Holy Scriptures, #277

Families are so important,
By the Mormon Church defined
As eternally connected,
Ever with their lives entwined.

Temple wedding ceremonies
Should include the families
Even if they’re not all Mormon,
Please remove the boundaries.

Just allowing civil unions
To take place before they’re sealed
In a Mormon Temple wedding
Would consideration yield.

Far too many are excluded,
It is time for compromise.
Changing things to show compassion
Would go far in people’s eyes.

© Diane Tingen, 7/11/2011

MORMON TEMPLE WEDDING POLICY PETITION and Related LDS Hymn Parodies #26 and #27

I recently got an email from a lovely lady named Jean Bodie who has become a follower of my blogs, especially in connection with my hymn parodies.  I first met Jean at the ExMormon Foundation Conference in October 2010 where she gave a wonderful talk entitled Good Works in a Post-Mormon World.  Even though I didn't get to know her very well then, I felt an immediate kinship with her as a ExMormon woman.  Since then, though, we have become Facebook friends and have exchanged several messages that have further cemented my opinion of her, and I now consider her a very good friend IRL.  I admire Jean's courage and conviction despite the struggles she has encountered since leaving Mormonism as illustrated very vividly in this video posted on YouTube (from the I Am an ExMormon website).  Jean currently serves as the Secretary of the ExMormon Foundation, and is involved in working on this petition as well as many other worthwhile activities.

In the recent email I received from Jean, she asked if I would write two hymn parodies highlighting the issues that are addressed in the Mormon Temple Wedding Policy Petition which seeks to change the policy of the Mormon Church requiring people who decide to first have civil weddings to wait for a year before they are allowed to have their Temple weddings.  She told me that she wanted to use these hymn parodies in varoius ways to support the petition, including possibly being sung publicly during the time when the petition will be delivered to Mormon Church leaders in October 2011.  In communicating with Jean about this (and reading the information contained on the petition website), I began to see that this is an important issue and a compromise that the Mormon Church should make - and since it became so obvious to me that this policy is unfair to non-members and others who cannot attend temple weddings, I agreed to write the hymn parodies.  Because Jean gave me the inspiration for these hymn parodies and provided various possible lyrics to me (some of which I used), I have given her credit on these hymn parodies as well. 

Of note, of course, is the fact that in countries other than the United States, this policy does not apply.  In such countries as Latin America and throughout Europe, people are allowed to be married civilly first and then soon after that to be sealed in a Mormon Temple.  Why should the United States and Canada be any different?  After all, from what I have been able to ascertain, there is no doctrinal backup for this tenuous position taken by the Mormon Church.  In short, it is exclusionary and discriminatory against those who are not members of the Mormon Church or who do not have recommends enabling them to enter Mormon Temples.

While discussing the issues surrounding this petition with Jean by email, and commenting that sometimes when something doesn't directly affect people, some tend to shrug it off, Jean very eloquently replied as follows: 

"As you said, if something doesn’t directly affect people they can just shrug it off.  We have to make people realize that it really DOES affect them; it can affect anyone – children, non-endowed members, non-tithe paying members, ‘unworthy’ members, and Ex-Members. Then it can affect anyone who is not a Mormon and that is the majority of people in the world. Why the heck are they building temples all over the world when so few people can enter? The temples are the brainwashing centers of the cult. It is so obvious from what goes on inside and all the Masonic symbols on the buildings, even the new ones. If it wasn’t part of their brainwashing/occult stuff, wouldn’t you think that now with all the negative publicity that they would be leaving out those Masonic symbols?"

"We also need Mormons to understand that we are not trying to take away their right to be married in the temple, if that is their choice, and that we are not asking for all the above who are excluded to be allowed in their temples. It is just a case of removing the penalty; there is just no need for it except as a means of control – get the couple into the closest brainwashing center to make those scary covenants so that they have them by the short hairs."

I hope that you will take the time to consider this important issue and visit the website dedicated to the Mormon Temple Wedding Policy Petition - and if you are so inclined, that you will sign it.  It is only through making issues heard that they are ever changed.  Indeed, the old adage that says "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is very true.

Below are the two hymn parodies on this issue.  As a note, these hymn parodies were written from a Christian point of view even though I consider myself an Agnostic now.  But it seems rather obvious to me that this is a universal issue, regardless of a person's religious affiliations or inclinations, and it is one that needs to be addressed.

I SIT OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE 

Sung to the tune of I Love to See the Temple, #95

I sit outside the temple,
My daughter’s getting wed.
I long to be there with her,
To hear their vows be said.
But I can’t go in this house of God,
A place where few can enter,
Even though I worship Jesus Christ,
Oh yes, he is my Savior.

I know the path she’s chosen,
But such a special day,
Should not be so exclusive,
This is the price I pay
For not worshipping the way she does,
Since I am not a Mormon,
But if there was just some other way
That felt much more like heaven.

The temple’s very sacred
To Mormons everywhere,
But weddings without families
Seems totally unfair.
But I sit outside the temple now,
And think about the wedding,
Trying hard to wait here patiently,
Although my heart is aching.

If only they would hear me,
And change the way it’s done,
Allow a civil wedding
And then the temple one.
They would help keep families unified
Although they are not Mormon,
And if they would make this compromise,
They’d show that they are Christian.

© Diane Tingen and Jean Bodie, 7/4/2011


FAMILIES CAN BE TOGETHER FOREVER 

LDS Hymn Book, #300

I have a family here on earth,

They are so dear to me,

But they believe that I won’t be

With them eternally.

(Chorus)

Families can be together forever

In Christianity.

Though Mormons all believe

The doctrines they receive,

Yet I know the Lord still loves me, too,

I know the Lord still loves me, too.

I have a daughter and a son,

So special and unique.

But when they marry, I won’t hear

The vows that they will speak.

(Chorus)

Families can be together forever,

As Mormons testify.

But there’s a cruel ban,

Through Mormonism’s plan,

So I won't be able to attend

Because the Mormon Church won't bend.

© Diane Tingen and Jean Bodie, 7/5/2011

TURN THE OTHER CHEEK???

Today is Monday, May 2 - the day following the news of the death of Osama bin Laden.  When I heard the news last night, I was relieved that this man will no longer be able to terrorize other human beings.  Yes, his organization (Al Qaeda) will still exist, but since Osama bin Laden was its founder and leader, hopefully his death will impact Al Qaeda negatively even if it doesn't dissolve completely (which would be the preferred outcome).  Of course, the impact that his death will have on the world and Al Qaeda remains to be seen.  Regardless, though, I agree with President Obama who said that "this is a good day for America."

After hearing the news and listening to the President's speech, I was astounded when I went on Facebook and saw the mixed reactions.  Some comments were positive and expressed relief and happiness as well as gratitude that Osama bin Laden had finally been brought to justice.  But other comments were somewhat negative, expressing feelings like "So what?" Some comments even said that he was "old news" and the only thing this did was to make him a martyr, basically inferring that it really didn't matter.  I disagree.  I think this is a very big deal, and is a positive development in the war against terrorism.  It may have taken almost 10 years after 9/11 to eliminate the evil forces that Osama bin Laden was hoisting on the world, but I see the fact that he is now dead and gone as very positive and encouraging.

This morning on my way to work, I was on a bus in downtown Denver, and a fellow passenger (male) was having a conversation with the bus driver.  During their exchange, the passenger said, "A man is dead, and we shouldn't be having a parade about it."  While I agree that death is not something to necessarily celebrate, I do feel that in this instance there is some jubilation inherent in the situation.  An evil man who masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 is now dead.  That is a good thing.  And even though I don't believe that the Book of Mormon is either true or actual scripture anymore, I do think the philosophy behind one of its scriptures does fit this occasion (namely, 1 Nephi 4:11-13) - and to paraphase it, "It is better for one man to perish than for an entire world to live in fear and terror."  In certain circumstances, I believe retaliation and vengance are in order.  And to me, this is one of them.

The man on the bus also asked, "What about turning the other cheek?," saying that the death of Osama bin Laden was not condoned by Jesus Christ or the New Testament.  The bus driver answered by saying that scripture does not apply in the situation.  He said that Christianity requires its followers to be humble, forgiving and to turn the other cheek when they are wronged.  But when the harm being perpetuated on that person is both harsh and repeated, they would be foolish not to retalitate and that Jesus Christ does not require them to be push-overs.  And I agree completely with what this man said.  Obviously killing Osama bin Laden will not bring back the people who have been killed because of his actions, but keeping him alive only makes his actions continue and the threat that he posed more looming and dangerous. 

In perusing articles on the internet, I came across one on http://www.beliefnet.com/, which I found to be very interesting.  That article is entitled, "The Limits of  'Turn the Other Cheek,' and in it, the author says the following:

The doctrine of nonviolence advocated by Martin Luther King is most commonly associated with the New Testament, specifically with Jesus' statement in the Sermon on the Mount: "Offer the wicked man no resistance.  On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well." (Matthew 5:38-39)

Although one might think that the example cited by Jesus (being slapped by a violent person) is uncommon, in fact it occurs quite often.  Many women, and a smaller number of men, are married to, or live with, a partner who slaps and beats them.  Does one counsel such people to accept abuse, to offer the other cheek, or rather tell them to immediately leave the relationship, and perhaps file a criminal complaint? I believe that the latter course - which rejects Jesus' advice both to "resist not evil" and to offer the other cheek - is not only more effective but also more moral.

It's worth noting that Jesus speaks of offering your other cheek to one who slaps you – a painful but not normally life-threatening circumstance.  It's not clear that he's also advocating that you allow yourself to be murdered rather than fight back.

Yet in the 20th century, people from Leo Tolstoy to Mahatma Gandhi interpreted Jesus' words to mean that one should be willing to die rather than fight back against a would-be killer.  I find this reading of the New Testament to be troublesome.  In any situation in which a would-be murderer confronts a potential victim, I believe that the world is a better place if the would-be murderer, rather than the intended victim, emerges dead from the encounter.  As Thomas Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia and a great humanist, said in response to Tolstoy: "If someone attacks me with the intention of killing me, I shall defend myself, and if I cannot avoid it, I shall kill the attacker.  If one of us must be killed, let the one be killed who has the bad intentions."

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2000/01/The-Limits-Of-Turn-The-Other-Cheek.aspx#ixzz1LEJQDi8L

While I think it is important that violence not be perpetuated, and that every slight should not be met with instant retaliation, I also think that people need to use their heads and decide when violence and retaliation are necessary.  Showing violent people that they are not dealing with a doormat is an important signal to send.  It shows that while others may not be looking for a fight, they are not going to turn away from such an altercation if the situation warrants it.

Time will tell what impact the death of Osama bin Laden will actually have on the world.  It may have none.  Al Qaeda may go forward, business as usual.  But at least the messages have been sent that we will not sit by idly and "turn the other cheek" - and that we as Americans are not doormats.  Those are very important messages to be sent and received.

Like I said in a Facebook post last night, "Whether or not bin Laden's death has any 'strategic importance in the long run' is really immaterial.  It is an important step in the war against terrorism, and it is very important for America in general, and the people who lost family members on 9/11 in particular."