BlueDreams

Yes. For much of my 20's. I found myself in several wrestles with God over it in prayer cuz I found what They were asking to be embarrassing and frustrating on a good day. On a bad day it felt like a waste of my life and in conflict with some of my biggest desires for my future. It often included me whining about how annoying this all was. One day it came to a head when I was prompted to think about what I wanted, giving a sense of choice to either follow God and trust or do my thing and still have a decent life. I wanted to follow God. It changed my sense of victimhood/shame to the will of God to one of choosing a harder path for better reasons I couldn't see at the time. Nowadays I think for me it's more being cautious with individual revelation, beliefs, and practices being balanced with communal revelation/policies. Sometimes a practice or need for me will conflict with common communal practice or belief. I don't usually think that means I'm right and the whole is wrong. That's too black and white for my usual mindset. But I try to be careful with what works and is needful for me and recognizing that may not hold up for a larger group of people with very different personalities and needs. And I try to be humble when I do get a sense that something is missing or off in a common teaching of some sort. With luv, BD

I can definitely see that. Although I get why people often scapegoat something else rather than the thing more directly responsible. Often the more responsible party also holds more complications or loss to recognize as the problem. Not that I'm sure God's the problem in this. But there may be more sense of investment or risk in being angry at God than at someone or something else. With luv, BD

I haven't read the thread just yet as I don't want to shift my own answer in the process. I feel like I've gone though stages with trust in my life. Early on I trusted science and I trusted pragmatic religious practice. Science in the sense of odds and stats about this or that possible outcome from this or that exposure or scenario. It was rooted in my need for proof ...for everything. If you were going to tell me something was right or good or true, you better also give me a solid reason for it. Pragmatically, I could also see people's lives as proof for religious practices. I was miserable when I came to desire what I saw in other people of faith. They looked happy. I wanted that. There seemed to be simple means to get there. And as I did a few of them, things did get better. Proof. Simple. This transformed over time. Faith in science became nuanced as I realized that at some point the odds wouldn't be in my favor, our understanding would always be limited, and there would always be exceptions to the rules around human behaviors. In religion the shift happened more as I realized more complexity into the purpose of this life here. A simple assumption that the right answer was the one that would make me immediately happy shifted to one where meaning and something more lasting came from overcoming pain and experiencing the hardships life will bring. It came from realizing that becoming something better often meant experiencing something hard. I lost faith in my immediate happiness as a reward for faith-practice while gaining a sense that my eternal understanding, peace, and happiness could unfold from my faith in God through difficulty. I find that faith has deepened as my relationship to affliction and pain has shifted. I don't seek these out, but I also don't believe I should avoid them. My goals and assumptions about how life should unfold assumes that pain, sorrow, and death are as essential as soil. I don't fear it as much as I used to and I have faith that what may come can be sanctified in God for my growth or the growth of others. That last part is likely still built on previous experiences for me and others that's shown me even in the worst, God is there. Faith has become an expression of allowing the world to unfurl rather than trying to fuel the illusion that I can control and mitigate pain out of my life. I'm not perfect at it. Far from it. But I can see more the pattern in my life than I did in the past. The moments that have included the most yielding are the moments that have held some of my most sacred experiences. And these have illuminated God most to me. With luv, BD

I haven't follow this thread at all....just haven't had much time this last week or so. You can definitely make a case that priesthood power is given to women in the ordinances. The language is there in both the initiatory and endowment ceremony. But there is definitely a distinction between men and women's experience of priesthood in the initiatory, seen particularly in the work for the dead. For each person receiving initiatory work, men must be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood before it begins. Women, obviously, don't. Women are initiated "preparatory to becoming a queen and a priestess" (quoting from memory from my days as a worker 6-ish years ago)...language that will be repeated in the endowment for both men and women. They engage in priestly rites in the ceremony and women use priesthood power in the initiatory and (less apparent now) the endowment to give the emblems of the higher order/prepare them for it. But ordination itself is an extra preparatory step only found on the men's side. With luv, BD

Nehor can (and does) respond for himself. But I'm deeply disturbed by this response. Seriously, how do you think this helps someone? I had just finished 2 of the article Calm started this thread with and it talks explicitly about the unhealthy effects of a perfectionism that insists "perfect" responses and engagement from others on people's religious engagement. A "faith" that is fueled more by shame and fear than love and invitation. And when I read this I hear more the former. I have gone through my fair share of difficulties. I have also met people with greater difficulties (or at least different ones). Personally, I have been able to deepen my faith, including in times that things have not worked out as I assumed they would, often from spiritual experiences that led me to said assumptions. What those gave me was not a sense of superiority or betterness to those who don't or can't. It gave me a sense of humility, deeper care, and empathy for just how difficult it is to go through heartache of any sort. When I meet people I see as doing so much with situations I fear I would crumple under, I see that same empathy, humility, and kindness in them. For me, God does not bring me to criticism of others struggle or pain. God brings me to compassion. With luv, BD

Very true. Thinking back on it, it's rare that I feel like I have to completely shoot down someone for their opinion or beliefs. Often there's aspects that I can say I get or find true while adding a different perspective. Which means the truths take less of a confrontational tone and more of a "yes-and" feeling. Even when it's something that does more overtly conflict, I can usually do it by cementing it into my own experience which changes the framework from absolutes to varying opinions and experiences. Sometimes it's just having reminders that there's exceptions to rules or general views. Say if someone's over focusing on healthy nuclear families as gospel truth, I (or often others) can point out that the gospel can and should apply to people who's families do not fit that mold. Either way I don't think I agree with @ZealouslyStriving on it devolving into arguments. These really can happen in a church setting and it not only not devolve, but increase the circle of people who feel enriched or at least represented in a discussion. It's been extremely rare that I stay a lone voice in my experiences. So many people don't fit what we presume is the norm model for gospel living and views...that it's bound that at least a few others will end up nodding their heads and/or looked relieved that someone gave a different perspective. With luv, BD

I often wonder why I haven't had much problems with push back. I'm definitely one to speak up when something's off the wall, especially if someone else hasn't. But I assume there's a few reasons it hasn't really blown up for me. - I've been in less common LDS contexts in the mountain West (heavily student ysa's and Spanish wards). Student wards would always have a subsection of people who would agree with me and speak up if one person did. So though I stood out as being more forward...I didn't stand out in conflicting opinion given. Spanish wards do not have the same culture around contention. Our Sunday schools have often had very forward disagreements show up. - I don't have a personality that's really sensitive to offending others. I'm often just not aware that I've hurt someone's feelings. So unless the directly confront me I have no clue. And if they do (they don't) I'm nice and I work towards reconciliation, but I rarely back down on my main point. I usually frame as differing opinions which reduces some of that. But again...a lot of that is hypothetical or based on my job more than church. People in church don't usually confront me. - I often frame my opinion in the personal and concrete. It's harder for people to get offended from personal experience. They may not value my experience, but it becomes easier for them to not feel confronted, even if I'm contradicting them. - I often have had a very good relationship with my leaders. It gives me more leeway and more sense of being an asset, even if (or because) I'm different. I do wonder how well who I am would translate in the wards around me that are definitely culturally more different than me, from what I've seen. Some of this would still apply...but some of it wouldn't. With luv, BD

There's not a one size fits all solution on that. And there's no way that everyone will be taken care of. But I do think talk is nice, but there can be far more examples from others of what it looks like to be imperfect. More space to show and value variation in thought or implementation of gospel principles. More care to correct and work with those who may tend to social perfectionism to help reduce the unintended damage they can render by their insistence on other's perfection. More training on how to ask questions to gage for misunderstanding or miscommunications in meetings or groups. I do think we've moved in better directions over the years, but that doesn't mean we've suddenly arrived. With luv, BD

Personally I don't take the data to immediately mean the church is looking great. Yes, active members are scoring less perfectionistic. But what I also take from this is that members who have some variant of TP are still falling through the cracks. And that those who are still members with TP may be more at risk for taking in unhealthy messages from church or becoming alienated. I'm assuming, like most social research, the link isn't fully causal and more a series of snapshots that expose trends. with luv, BD

FTR, I'm planning to definitely read at least 3 of these and may later peruse the others later on. I'm really curious about this as it definitely dovetails with my day job a bunch. (Therapy probably disproportionately has a ton of people with some version of TP). I would note for myself my experiences with TP were time limited (teens to middish 20's) and subject specific (I was deeply afraid of having a dysfunctional family). In most other ways I probably am more healthy perfectionistic at most. I tend to set big goals, but I'm usually fine if they don't pan out or if I veer off course from what I initially expected. I use them more as ways to push myself when I want to grow in something. Not litmus tests for how good I am or what my worth is. I've often assumed that I'm not a perfectionist because I think toxic variants are what most of us focus on as THE definition for perfectionism. And I don't really fit that mold. With luv, BD

I'm just starting and I'm admittedly skipping around as I have most immediate interest. In the article "understanding perfectionism," It iterates the key for TP is not the striving for high goals. It's fear/shame of what it means if you make a mistake or don't meet the goal. I have no clue what your mission was like. It could be that you had a few key people (MP's, ZL's, DL's, certain companions) that would fit into the categories for TP (other oriented perfectionism, would be particularly problematic, IMHO). It could be that your own predispositions and experiences colored how you viewed or experienced these. From what I see, it can be both...but the latter is more potent and increases the likelihood of negative experiences. I've seen this in real time, where the message I hear and the message a client or friend etc hears from the exact same source are completely different. They may pick up on things that seemed small to me because I didn't have the same trigger points as they did. 2 mission related examples. Serving a mission actually helped reduce some of my unhealthy mindsets and beliefs. The first bit was quite an emotional roller coaster as I had to confront some emotional concerns I'd been ignoring prior. At one point I was wracked with a deep sense of inadequacy. The inadequacy wasn't new, it was something I'd had for years prior. But before I'd found ways to mitigate or ignore it. My mission brought it front and center. Not because of any leader, but because of the very structured context with high goal orientations that do not mix well with shame orientations. No one treated me like I was inadequate on my mission. I'd come to assume as much because of the parts of me that didn't measure up. At some point in some meeting or discussion it dawned on me that this is not how God sees me. I believed strongly that God had given me an outline of who I truly was in my PB. Before than I both believed strongly in it and could feel how much I fell short of it, which fed my inadequacy. But something switch and I then used the same tool to combat my sense of inadequacy and shame. I made a short list based on descriptions in it labeled "how God sees me" and kept it in my scriptures. Whenever the inadequacy would attack I'd pull it out and read a number of those, reminding me this was who I was to God, not my fears and shames. My sister is also currently serving a mission. She's a very strong-headed sort. Once she knows what she needs to do, she's very likely to do it and just about nobody could sway her otherwise. She got an MP who I would say used unhealthy means to try and persuade her that cutting her mission a month short to continue her education and not lose her credits was the wrong choice. She took his words, thought about them carefully....and came to the exact same conclusion she'd had before. His actions had little long-term effect on her beyond taking a moment of self-reflection. I know for others having someone like that would have eaten them alive and led them to chronically question their decision if it went against the counsel of a leader. The leader wouldn't have helped...but the negative consequence can only go so far without a person with just the wrong set of struggles to act as a catalyst to them. So your mission could have had TP in it, you could have had personal contexts that made you more sensitive to TP or been TP yourself, or both could have been at play. But, this research does suggest that TP is not necessarily a structural reality of the gospel/church at large. This doesn't mean it's not there though...it's just not as ubiquitous as assumed before. WIth luv, BD

Not sure, I follow your point on this one. So what I'm about to say could be off base. I agree with points of nuance that are being mentioned here, particularly the insights Dr. Steuss brought in. Even the pro-life more absolutist states tend to have some marginal "exceptions," which could also indicate a form of minimal compromise with a preeminent value. (usually these exceptions are around abortion pre heartbeat, IVF treatment, or extreme circumstances. Only the most ardent pro-lifers want to absolutely no exceptions) But I was largely thinking about the dialogue around this. I fit in line with most americans in policy for what I want to see happen, at least according to most polls I've seen. I want access for abortions of any reason with a cut off near the beginning of the 2nd trimester (I vacillate and can be convinced for anywhere between 12-14 weeks). Post this, there would need to be more medical (physical and severe mental health issues) or extreme circumstances (rape, for example)...the later in pregnancy the more extreme it would need to be. But I would want this less regulated by legislatures and more so by doctors. I would not want it criminalized. And I would want to close laws that would effectively cut off access to treatment to women despite technical legality. There's other forms of both preventative measures and post pregnancy maternal support that I would also like to see go into effect to reduce the disproportionate burden this can cause on mothers as much as possible (this part may not be a popular, depending the policy I'm rooting for). When I bring this up with those who are more solidly pro-life or pro-choice, this may be picked apart and criticized as too "fill in the blank." For political orientations like, say idaho's current position, I would be pro-abortion, champion of murder, and okay with killing babies. For those more alligned with DC I might be too restrictive and repressive of women's rights over their bodies. That's generally what I mean by absolutist. Less about actual policy (though those are growing) moreso about how we dialogue about this issue. It's why we can't have a solid national law. Because those most politically pro-active about this sell any form of compromise as a threat to women's rights or baby's lives. When what's more true is that the current status quo is a threat to both. With luv, BD

This still doesn't sound like concessions or compromises. It's a moral stance based in nuance and moral balance, not absolutism. But for me, my view isn't much different from the church's (minus that I would expand examples of exceptions to include relationships where abuse is prominent and a few more risky health concerns such as drug addiction). But I don't view that as a "compromise" I view it as a basic position not fitting our current political paradigm that runs towards absolutes. What is an example of a compromise is what legislation I am actually for compared to my personal moral stance because it does allow space for early pregnancy elective abortions. That's not fully reflective of my personal values around abortion and is a compromise with varying groups that view this issue differently from me and are more morally okay with other reasons for abortion. If the church gave support for a policy that included not just allowances for exceptions they see fit, but allowances for ones they weren't as okay with, that would be a compromise. As it is, it's just a policy trying to maintain a moral balances in 2 values we hold: agency and life. With luv, BD

I don't think I'm better. Just in a different context that makes it easier for me. For one I'm happily LDS. So my larger conflict with where I live is not one of religious concern, moreso social and political. On the social I've been able to insulate myself from the things that drive me the most nuts about UT or at least keep it in balance, so that Utah culture doesn't feel all encompassing. It allows me to like what I like about it and not engage with what I don't when I want to. And I have my friends and family with points of similarity that I can vent to about social or political things when I need it. Plus, I just don't have much vinegar in my bones at this point in my life. Some of that is probably life experience that's made me devalue reacting strongly to most things. Some of it may be my general outlook about people (I believe we all make sense in our contexts, people are generally good or want to be good...these are fundamental in how I think about people). Part of it is pragmatic: what do I want in a conversation with someone? I write with those in mind most days. With luv, BD

I think it's human. I've had to proactively work to keep it back. If a person asks my opinion about Trump and the current MAGA movement, I will be fairly blunt and clear about just how problematic and corrosive I think it is to a functioning democracy in particular. But where I stop (or at least try to) is what that means about the people who voted for at least him if not the movement itself. I won't lie, that's not easy. As I've mentioned before, there's been multiple times that even adding nuance and understanding to why a person may adhere to a position, does not necessarily absolve the problems I see in the reasoning. No idea. I only partially pay attention to them when they happen. I'm not a fan of "both sides" arguments. Within my field I'm often working with couples. Often times both couples are accountable for the problems they bring in the office. But often, they're not equally accountable. One often is pulling more weight in problematic behaviors. That's similar to what I see in our current political climate. Yes, both sides had/have issues that without Trump would've needed addressing and shifts to promote healthier democracy and representation. But what Trump brings is not equivalent to what was going wrong prior. It represents something worse. Including in terms of degree of bad mouthing the "other side." When I hear "both sides" on this it generally translates into not seeing clearing what one side is bringing to the mix. Again, I should note much of this doesn't just come from analyses or political commentary. It comes from proactively listening to both sides in campaign, official addresses, etc in full. It's just not true that what they were doing was equivalent in rhetoric. One was clearly worse than the other. I can understand that. I just don't agree with it. Going back to my couples therapy. I am adament in reducing and working to eliminate emotional abuse in my office. When I see it, I call it out. When I hear signs of it, I don't ignore it. If it's there, it becomes a main focus of therapy because I deeply believe that any other goal will be hamstrung by psychological disrespect and harm. If I just say I don't tolerate or believe in emotional abuse, but ignore the emotional abuse for other goals the couple has, I'm going to lose credibility in that. Abusers are often not flat characters, they have empathizable stories, legitimate concerns, often underlying psychological issues. I could easily focus on something else in therapy, but if I'm not really addressing the abuse patterns while talking about how important it is to not abuse it will fall flat. Worse, I will likely normalize and minimize what's happening for the couple. It becomes just one of their quarks or arguments. That's my problem with this. I get that for people who vote for Trump there is a range of interests and concerns that led them to it. I get that they may not agree with his entire platform or methods. But if there isn't real pushback or action against said concerns, it loses credibility for me. It will come off as caring more for a speech on allowing diverse voices, while ignoring the very obvious signs that only certain speech is welcome in a Trump/MAGA orientation to government. That may work for people with a similar opinion. For those who don't, to say it falls flat is a bit of an understatement. I don't mean this to sound like the only solution would be to never vote for someone with MAGA leanings. There are a number of other potential ways to really show and engage to try and influence a movement for something more moderate in tone. But if all there is is lip-service to civility and pluralism it's not going to go very far. And it will land wrong for others outside said circle. I hope my examples are more politics light than deep dives into policy itself. I'm bringing them up not to go down political rabbit holes, but to note inconsistencies or concerns in the main topic around Rauch. They technically are. I say technically because I think that there is a disproportionate lean socially in leadership. This can inadvertently lead to a focus on things with examples, views, and experiences that resonate more with people with similar social outlooks. I think that's lessening to some degree as the church diversifies and outreaches to other faith/social communities. But I still see it fairly regularly. It's probably more apparent to me than you due to my differing political and social outlook. As I'm more likely to be confronted with disagreement when I'm listening to something. With luv, BD