pogi

Book of Mormon secret combinations are one thing, but prophecies of modern day secret combinations are pretty poignant. There are pretty frightening warnings of destruction and overthrow of freedom, nations, and countries, if we don't identify and resist these latter-day secret combinations in Ether 8:

Also, we are warned of latter-day secret combinations in scripture. I imagine this must have some effect in priming LDS to be much more open to consider conspiratorial thinking. There is no question for many that the problem exists, it is simply a matter of identifying the problem and resisting it. We are definitely warned to be suspicious/watchful in that way. My mother in law never talks about her conspiracy theories (which are many) without including Mormon scripture and gospel teachings. I know that conservative Christianity is a breeding ground for this type of thinking, in general. I’m not as sure how the religious component plays a role there, but it seems that the combo of Christianity and conservative politics is fertile soil for conspiratorial thinking. The non/less-religious and/or moderate political leanings seem to be less vulnerable.

Should the church then discourage working with the opposite sex?

What does "lots" mean? Because I can't think of a church calling that requires being alone with anyone for more time than is required at most full-time jobs. I agree with teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves. That is not what is happening here though. If it is true that women are deprived of these callings for the reasons that are being speculated about, then that is not a recommendation or discouragement, it is an act of compulsory means in controlling behavior. I don't agree that it is a "correct principle" to discourage men and women from working together in church callings. I think the "correct principles" address the real core issues that drive infidelity and not the correlations of time together.

That has always been the case. Why would that have changed in the last few years.

I don't think it would be considered weird for people of the opposite sex to have work/church related relationships without intimacy. If they start going to the movies (does anybody still do that?) together after dropping off church deposits at the bank or start frequently doing other non-church related activities together without involving their spouses, then that would raise some cultural red-flags. I have several close relationships with co-workers of the opposite sex. I am a male nurse, so we are kind of outnumbered and I don't have many other options. I don't think there is any cultural "demand for sexual intimacy" in the types of relationships and dynamics we are talking about.

Is there any indication that has increased from previous years?

I don't have data to prove this, but my instinct tells me that while there may not be more persecution overall, I think the severity of persecution has likely increased to reportable levels. So, while there might be overall less bullying, there may be more reportable hate crimes. That's my best guess.

My guess is that with increased acceptance comes increased resistance/fear/hate. Their way of life and thinking is being threatened with all the acceptance messaging, and there will predictably be a counter-offensive. It's all the gay's fault, don't you know? I have heard it before.

Probably the closest comparison would be to the community of Christ. They have a similar structure to ours but have ordained women, and so have an organization where each sex is required to work closely with members of the opposite sex in leadership roles. There are women apostles working closely with men apostles. Locally, they have pastors (man or woman) who work closely with members of the opposite sex in leadership roles such as finance and other priesthood callings. A member of the Seventy (man or woman) has been "teamed" with an apostle (man or women). It appears there are pairs of men and men, women and women, and also men with women, or women with men. Community of Christ membership and field organization - Wikipedia

Proximity also happens to be the initial source of friendship and healthy social activity. Healthy relationships between men and women is a good thing that shouldn’t be mitigated out of life out of life due to potential risk. The vast majority of us are going to have working relationships with members of the opposite sex. We shouldn't make it all taboo. There are potential risks with all good things in life, that doesn't mean that we should avoid those good things because a minority of people make unhealthy choices. It feels overly controlling with unhealthy dominion. Again, the parent child dynamic shows up. I like the idea of being taught correct principles and let people govern themselves. Let people decide for themselves if they are able to have healthy relationships with the opposite sex. Some will mess up. Others will grow because of it and gain new diversity of perspectives in those roles. Isn't that what life is supposed to be?

Yes, it is that attitude that “we cannot be trusted” that is a more damaging than effective approach. There is also the “forbidden fruit” mentality that may actually be increasing desire and may be hampering our ability to act in healthy ways around the opposite sex. I think the healthier approach would be to focus on what to do when sexual desire arises, and that sexual desire is a healthy and normal aspect of human existence that is better to be reined and directed rather than attempting to extinguish and avoid it.

I personally think this culture of separating the sexes in adulthood is unhealthy. Every other day of the week we are expected to work with and coordinate with members of the opposite sex as coworkers, leaders or subordinates to them. We need to learn how to work together in more healthy ways, because life requires that, and this culture is a barrier to that growth.

Who knows, maybe it is all Madam Pattrini’s fault In Mormonism, we like to keep it all in the family. By marrying other members, we all seem to marry people with common pioneer or early Mormon ancestors. If there is a heritable component as suggested by some studies, maybe we are just circulating the same gayness around and around and around again.

"He who has eyes to see..." That is all we have to go on in the end. We can't just implicitly and blindly trust that all changes are progressive, rather than regressive. Our own understanding can't always be trusted either. It is a messy mist of darkness we are wading through, isn't it? Feeling our way down the rod of iron is not as solidly sure as we may wish to believe.