Jump to content

gopher

Members
  • Content Count

    331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

447 Excellent

About gopher

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

2,029 profile views
  1. Hopefully, that doesn't happen any more in temple recommend interviews with the current instructions. If you are asked a followup question, refer the Bishop to the instructions at the top of the page of the interview questions. One problem is having people confess things they haven't done. One sweet sister had been reading the racial discussions going around online. She confessed that she must be racist since she read that white people in the US are racist whether they will admit or not. She couldn't list anything she had said or done that was racist. It was interesting.
  2. Yet some members I know appreciated that the church discouraged OS because they feel it is degrading and demeaning. No, none are male. Is that evidence that these women have an unhealthy view of sex because of the church? I agree that we don't fully understand the doctrines around sexuality. I'm just not convinced that we are getting closer to that understanding. Maybe we are. I don't know.
  3. When you say "kids" and "child", are you referring to YSAs that are discussing here? It's much different for YSAs because they usually know more about sex than the Bishop. Their innocence is long gone by then. I'm sorry you've had to deal with creepy Bishops. I don't think asking about 'm' needs to be part of the temple recommend interview for younger kids. I've never discussed it with any young women. It's only the young men that I've ever talked to about it and in all cases pornography was also involved. Sure, they were uncomfortable conversations at first, but seeing how these yo
  4. If we talk about sex, we are obsessed. If we don't talk about sex, we are repressed. My view is that Bishops should stay out of the sexual counseling business and leave that to the professionals. But Bishops still have the responsibility to help those who wish to confess sins and transgressions.
  5. Thanks, I agree there's always room for improvement. Is it an understanding of Church doctrine or a misunderstanding of Church doctrine that leads to these sexual problems for some members?
  6. I agree that anyone who confesses any sin or transgression to a Bishop shouldn't be condemned or shamed.
  7. Our ward hadn't had an Eagle scout in a few years, but when the announcement came out one young man decided he would finish his Eagle requirements before the deadline. He was able to convince three other young men to do the same. It was the first time we've ever had an Eagle court of honor with four Eagle scouts so it was very cool. Usually, we'd have a ceremony for a single Eagle scout.
  8. No, but I wouldn't have a problem asking it if it became a requirement (just as we were instructed to ask about pornography for a few years). But my experience is different from yours - I see YSAs come in with "carnage" and "huge problems" and leave feeling relief and hope after confessing sins and transgression, including 'm'. I understand it may be an uncomfortable question for some, but I don't understand how asking it causes the damage that is alleged here. I suspect there is more going on in those instances. My point in relating that was that we shouldn't discourage anyone from
  9. For the sake of argument, why is being asked this question causing "carnage" and "huge problems" for youth and YSAs? Is it only because of how it's being asked by voyeuristic Bishops? I understand discussing sexual matters is uncomfortable for some people whether it's a Bishop or a doctor during a checkup. But it's a serious enough issue the the Church lists it as something that can "lead to sexual transgression". I agree Bishops shouldn't interrogate anyone about it (or anything else). But I don't think we are helping young people by de-emphasising it. I didn't feel right after intervie
  10. I couldn't find anything in the official letters from the First Presidency from 2015 that states that Bishops must ask YSAs this question so I'm going to assume it's either an Internet rumor or it doesn't apply church-wide.
  11. I'm not questioning whether either response is valid. But knowing that many have overcome or avoided similar feelings and keep their testimony intact and remained members of the church may be helpful to members struggling in the dire situation presented by 2BizE. Of course, not everyone is looking to keep their testimony intact or remain members in the church so they are free to start a blog to convince others to experience the sense of betrayal and animosity they've experienced themselves.
  12. Why do you think other true believing Mormons don't feel that betrayal and animosity you described when learning new, sometimes uncomfortable information about church history and Joseph Smith? Instead they feel that, wow, church history is much more interesting than what I was taught growing up!
  13. Does anyone believe Joseph Smith was a prophet solely as the results of scholarship? I'm always impressed at how informed the doubters and former believers are on Egyptology, metallurgy, Ancient America history, archaeology, agriculture, etc, but it's been difficult to find anyone that bases their belief on those things. It's easy to find believers that claim they believe as a result of the Holy Ghost confirming that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but it's rare to find anyone who claims they stopped believing because the Holy Ghost confirmed that he was a false prophet. Runnells claimed he gat
  14. Do they allow you to submit usernames from Internet discussion forums if you don't know their actual names? There are few posters here I'm worried about...
  15. I realize that is the claim made by most apologists, but not a single credible Egyptologist believes that. Oops, wrong thread.
×
×
  • Create New...