Survey on LDS marriage/sealing

[Just_A_Guy]

Carol Lynn Pearson is doing some research on LDS concepts of "sealing" and has created an online survey here.

I'd be interested to see responses, especially in light of some discussions that have been taking place here at LDS.net of late.

[pam]

I would truly like to know what she hopes to accomplish by this research.

With many of the things she has been actively involved in and with her own life experience...it just makes me wonder.

Especially with her questions regarding women being able to be sealed to another while still living.

[skippy740]

I took it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Ah...doctrinal determination by survey. Just the way the Lord intended it to be.

I took it. As with most surveys it limited some answers based on the bias of the survey creator. Like, for example, the question, "The apostles and prophets of the LDS church are always right". Because of the inclusion of the word "always" I had to select "strongly disagree" even though I don't feel that accurately reflects my p.o.v. Same sort of problem with "Do you agree with the current sealing policy (see statement directly above this question) that allows only men and not women to be sealed to more than one spouse?" I put "no opinion" on this because it was the closest, but that isn't really true at all. I have a strong opinion. But it isn't that the policy is right or wrong. It's that it's none of my freaking business. Of course neither of these two questions had the "other"/fill in the blank options.

[mirkwood]

Typical agenda driven survey. The questions either pigeonholed me or will be taken out of context.

[Just_A_Guy]

I would truly like to know what she hopes to accomplish by this research.

With many of the things she has been actively involved in and with her own life experience...it just makes me wonder.

Especially with her questions regarding women being able to be sealed to another while still living.

I'm still making up my mind about Pearson; but I'd noticed that this survey was being circulated mostly around leftward-leaning LDS-oriented blogs. Just on the off-chance that the survey results were going to be used in a "see? See? The at-large membership is dissatisfied with the status quo!" sort of way, I figured I'd make sure the survey got some attention from a more "mainstream" element of Mormonism. (I used the "other" and "comments" sections liberally.)

At any rate, it can't hurt for Pearson to be reminded that not every informed, intelligent Mormon thinks that the modern LDS Church is the Great and Abominable Church incarnate.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Typical agenda driven survey. The questions either pigeonholed me or will be taken out of context.

I agree. After I took it I regretted taking it. I feel like I've contributed to something I shouldn't have now. I really just wanted to see what the questions were.

Oh well...there goes my temple worthiness. Heheh.

Actually, I'm not really that concerned. Even if the survey shows (via out-of-context or via truthful opinions) that everyone feels policy should change it won't matter. I'm confident the Lord leads the church in spite of popular opinion.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm still making up my mind about Pearson; but I'd noticed that this survey was being circulated mostly around leftward-leaning LDS-oriented blogs. Just on the off-chance that the survey results were going to be used in a "see? See? The at-large membership is dissatisfied with the status quo!" sort of way, I figured I'd make sure the survey got some attention from a more "mainstream" element of Mormonism.

At any rate, it can't hurt for Pearson to be reminded that not every informed, intelligent Mormon thinks that the modern Church is the Great and Abominable Church incarnate.

Which would be great if mainstream Mormonism could actually say what they mean, as in, "The Lord leads this church." I suppose I could have written that in the open essay at the end. But I was lazy.

[pam]

Actually, I'm not really that concerned. Even if the survey shows (via out-of-context or via truthful opinions) that everyone feels policy should change it won't matter. I'm confident the Lord leads the church in spite of popular opinion.

See that's the thing. The entire time I was taking the survey (yes I completed it) I was thinking, is this another thing to show that changes need to be made due to popular opinion?

[Wingnut]

I took this survey and shared it on Facebook, just barely before coming over here and seeing this thread.

Ah...doctrinal determination by survey. Just the way the Lord intended it to be.

I don't think anyone said anything about determining or changing.

At any rate, it can't hurt for Pearson to be reminded that not every informed, intelligent Mormon thinks that the modern LDS Church is the Great and Abominable Church incarnate.

I've never heard this sentiment.

[Quin]

I read the title of this wrong... I read "survive an LDS sealing".

Even had visions of guys with swords.

I was just stumped for a moment.

I know they changed the video, but who knew that now one had to dodge the arrows and slings of fortune for real befor- oh. Wait.

Darn slysdexia.

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

I read the title of this wrong... I read "survive an LDS sealing".

Even had visions of guys with swords.

I was just stumped for a moment.

I know they changed the video, but who knew that now one had to dodge the arrows and slings of fortune for real befor- oh. Wait.

Darn slysdexia.

Q

Ha ha. Shotgun wedding!

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think anyone said anything about determining or changing.

Not yet, at least. See Pam's original post for what I mean by this. I also wonder about the motivations here. My interpretation is that the objective most certainly is/will be to try and have doctrine altered via popular vote. Moreover, there is an underlying and obvious implication to this sort of survey that reads -- what people think about doctrine matters as to the value of that doctrine. What people think about doctrine does not have any bearing on it's value. So my opinion is clear, I'll also add the "policy" in addition to doctrine. Policy and/or doctrinal determination by survey.

I was reading a few articles yesterday about a "flood of requests" and a petition going to the church concerning feminist issues, including changes to the sealing policy to make it equal for women. I very much suspect that a survey like this is to help put weight behind such petitions.

[estradling75]

The thing about trying to change things by public opinion is that God seems to allow it... To our sorrow.

In the Old Testament Samuel was the prophet and leader of the Israelites. The Israelites really really wanted to have a King (I guess it was popular all the other nations had one)

Through Samuel God said no and warned them of the dangers. The Israelites ignored the warnings and still wanted a king. God relented and had Samuel anoint Saul as a King. And all of God warnings about choosing a king came true.

We also have a modern example in the lost 116 pages. Martin Harris wanted to take the manuscript and through Joseph Smith God said no and warned them of the dangers. They ignored the warnings and made promises that it wouldn't happen that way. God relented and had Joseph Smith hand over the document. We all know how that ended.

Popular opinion can't change the word of God but it sure can cause us to be wrecked against it.

[pam]

Not yet, at least. See Pam's original post for what I mean by this. I also wonder about the motivations here. My interpretation is that the objective most certainly is/will be to try and have doctrine altered via popular vote. Moreover, there is an underlying and obvious implication to this sort of survey that reads -- what people think about doctrine matters as to the value of that doctrine. What people think about doctrine does not have any bearing on it's value. So my opinion is clear, I'll also add the "policy" in addition to doctrine. Policy and/or doctrinal determination by survey.

I was reading a few articles yesterday about a "flood of requests" and a petition going to the church concerning feminist issues, including changes to the sealing policy to make it equal for women. I very much suspect that a survey like this is to help put weight behind such petitions.

And that is the vibe I got. Especially knowing Pearson's past.

[The Folk Prophet]

... To our sorrow.

*points to own nose, points to estradling75*

The thing is, what constitutes "popular opinion"? If the entire church membership were actually surveyed, I'm pretty sure most of these issues would not show a popular vote for change. If you include the nation or the world...different story. News stories try and sell it as if it is a change in the tide and popular opinion swings a certain way. Where they say things like, "hundreds of women met in front of the conference hall" as if hundreds had any meaning against the numbers in the church. Even thousands has no meaning as to popularity. (That being said, I definitely see the influence of such agendas bleeding more and more into the memberships).

Also, there is a distinct difference between the examples you gave and actual doctrinal changes. It doesn't matter how many people vote to rescind the law of chastity, for example. It ain't happening. :)

Still, as you point out, it is to our sorrow, a sad day indeed, when the church memberships votes themselves right out of blessings and joy because of petty, mortal foolishness.

[mnn727]

There was a spot to put a comment at the end

Here is what I put:

Too many people spend too much time on this.

The Celestial Kingdom is about Joy and no one will be forced to live a principle they don't agree with or don't understand.

IF this is a principle in the Celestial Kingdom then you will both understand it and embrace it if you are in the C.K. Do you think the C.K. is for pissed off people that hate what they have to do there? I am sure we will all have a lot to learn after we 'pass the veil' about a great many things.

[The Folk Prophet]

The Celestial Kingdom is about Joy and no one will be forced to live a principle they don't agree with or don't understand.

It should be stated (and I think you implied this in the rest of your post) that this is because if you don't agree or don't understand a C.K. principle you won't be there anyhow, not that you'll be able to go to the C.K. anyhow and just opt out.

[Suzie]

I would truly like to know what she hopes to accomplish by this research.

According to the link provided:

It is my intention with this survey to establish whether or not the beliefs and experiences I have outlined above are extensive throughout the Mormon community and to learn from you who take this survey whether or not you feel at peace with the teachings and policies as you understand them.

[Suzie]

At any rate, it can't hurt for Pearson to be reminded that not every informed, intelligent Mormon thinks that the modern LDS Church is the Great and Abominable Church incarnate.

Hey JAG what makes you think Carol needs to be reminded of that? Did she say something similar?

Especially knowing Pearson's past.

What past if you don't mind expanding?

[The Folk Prophet]

According to the link provided:

It is my intention with this survey to establish whether or not the beliefs and experiences I have outlined above are extensive throughout the Mormon community and to learn from you who take this survey whether or not you feel at peace with the teachings and policies as you understand them.

That's not much of a reason. "I'm trying to gather information so I have information."

The question is, what does she intend to DO with that information?

[Suzie]

That's not much of a reason. "I'm trying to gather information so I have information."

The question is, what does she intend to DO with that information?

Well, that's the reason she gave. Whatever she plans to do with that information is a matter of speculation at the moment, let's see.

[applepansy]

I took the survey and now I'm not sure it was the right thing to do. I'm uncertain how Carol will use the information. She can't possibly get a good cross section of LDS members because the only members who will be participating in the survey are actively online. I know people who aren't "actively" online. I'm sure many of you do too. I can't see how she's going to get a representative opinion.

As for the sealing policy: So many times I think those who are upset by it forget the purpose of sealing. We perform sealings as living ordinance and an ordinance for the dead. The reason is so that we are all connected in the Family of our Heavenly Father. If you believe Heavenly Father loves you then why is there so much heartache over this issue? He's not going to force anyone into circumstances where they won't be happy. And before we have to choose we will understand everything.

I know I'm older than dirt.

But, when I was a child back in the 60s my parents were friends with another couple who had five girls. She had been sealed before and on their honeymoon he was killed in a car accident. I remember playing on the floor while the adults talked about the issue of sealing. I remember hearing the conversations my parents had about it between themselves (not realizing children do listen.) What I remember was a sense of peace from the 2nd husband, from the wife, from my parents. The peace came from the knowledge that Heavenly Father love his children.

If we truly believe that Heavenly Father loves us then speculation over these issues just causes turmoil and contention.

[Just_A_Guy]

The thing is, what constitutes "popular opinion"? If the entire church membership were actually surveyed, I'm pretty sure most of these issues would not show a popular vote for change.

That was one of my motives in linking to the survey here, FWIW.

Hey JAG what makes you think Carol needs to be reminded of that? Did she say something similar?

I should have written that "it can't hurt for Pearson or anyone else to be reminded . . .", as it more accurately reflected my intentions. Apologies to you, to Sister Pearson (on the off-chance she reads these forums), and to any other reader, if it seemed like I was singling her out.

I think there's a fine line between noting particular problems within Church culture and suggesting new approaches, versus actively struggling against Church doctrine. The entire enterprise tends to make me uncomfortable, but I've not read enough of Sister Pearson's writings to draw any conclusions as to whether she actually crosses the line.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

If we truly believe that Heavenly Father loves us then speculation over these issues just causes turmoil and contention.

In many cases I agree with this, but not as a blanket statement. However, I greatly appreciated the rest of your comments in this post. :)