BYU Study on Pornography: "It’s not porn use, but rather the belief in porn addiction and the conflict with religion, which predict porn-related problems."

[BlueDreams]

19 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I have one more question for you two, see below 

Dr. Christopher Ryan wrote, " for most men in long-term sexually monogamous relationships, a steady decrease in libido has everything to do with biology and hormones and would be the same regardless of the particular woman in their lives. That’s right. The sexually-monogamous husband of the hottest woman on earth will start to lose interest at a certain point. Uma, Selma, it’s not your fault! As for the men’s anger noted in the article, it’s more likely to be the result of our society’s unwillingness to face this biological reality – preferring to tell men there’s something wrong with them. You want an inconvenient truth? Try this one: human beings are clearly evolved for sex lives featuring multiple simultaneous sexual relationships. Men, especially, are designed by evolution to be attracted to sexual novelty and to gradually lose sexual attraction to the same partner in the absence of such novelty. The so-called Coolidge Effect is well demonstrated in social mammals of all sorts, and is old news to anyone knowledgeable about reproductive biology" "An Inconvenient Truth: Sexual Monogamy Kills Male Libid0"  Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. in Psychology

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200805/inconvenient-truth-sexual-monogamy-kills-male-libido

So my question is: Can we conclude that porn really destroys families? or is the root of the problem in our evolutionary history? 

Yeah, we can. The article your quoting doesn't negate this and you're using it as if it's certain fact when the article itself starts by pointing to another therapist/author he disagrees with...which points to the idea that this is by no means a fact but an opinion. And the article itself takes a leap in logic creating a common fallacy when pointing to evolution as the source to human behaviors. For one the idea that men's libido drops could be an indication that men have actually evolved to be in monogamous relationships by dropping their urges to seek another partner and their drive for sex. Instead he takes it to mean something is wrong with a drop in libido...while also saying there's not something wrong with the men. Which is basically double speak.

Quote

Other sex therapists don't believe porn causes ED, and some peer-reviewed research agrees.  

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12853/abstract 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26185674

Well then, I'll just tell some of the husbands in their 20's/30's that see me, that their experiences with their failing member, re-orientation in sexual arousal response, and performance anxiety was actually a figment of their imagination. Seriously though, I have stated in several ways already the limits in this sort of research and the way we assess data on this issue already. Several times. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I just called up Provo LDS Family Services and asked them if there was a policy.  She stated there was and only youth who were almost 18 might be given an exception.  I asked if if this was word of mouth instruction in training or if it was documented and she gave me the number of the reps for our area.

I would rather not bother them.  Will this be accepted as confirmation of the policy as Church wide?

I think it is an important point to be made.  If youth are attending meetings they shouldn't, this could cause significant harm.  It might also limit the openness of those attending.  Even if I knew youth had been exposed to porn, I think I would be reluctant on sharing experiences that might give them new ways to access porn in moments of weakness or expose them to stuff they shouldn't be.

Since this is happening in HJ's region, I think it would be very important for him in some fashion to let higher ups know so this can be corrected so youth won't be put in harm's way, even when thinking it will be helpful.

I also have made a request to SLC LDSFS ARP for a clarification of the policy. I will share it if they respond. I asked as a Service Missionary

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

The lack of classification does not diminish the negative and detrimental consequence it has personally had on me and others.  If it is not "technically" classified as an addiction, what do you technically call it when you want to stop something so bad because it is destroying your life, destroying your marriage, destroying your happiness, destroying your spirituality, shrinking your brain, and causes terrible withdrawals and mood swings; it causes you to lie to your loved ones and take unjustifiable risks in your marriage and work...yet trying to stop it literally causes you to curl up in a ball on the floor, crying for something to change - to make this go away!..and the only way that you know of to make it all go away is to turn to the old familiar numbness?  What is that called exactly?  Am I just so pathetic that I can't stop what I hate?

May I have your permission to share your experiences with our group? with my group? Do have any restrictions on my what. I share. I will respect your wishes.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

So my honest question is: what makes porn "addiction" different? You can be addicted to the internet, video games, ancient scripture studies credit cards, work. What makes addiction to porn worst?  

It is okay to have religious reasons to believe porn is worst, just please let me know it is that. 

May I have your permission to share your posts with my group? Do you have any restrictions on what I share? I will respect your wishes.

[MormonVideoGame]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

PIED can also lead to other health problems. Many men recognize that there is a problem but are unable to break the cycle. They can become embarrassed or depressed when unable to perform with their partner, which can cause them to watch porn more.

I know someone, an inactive LDS member, that never watched porn before finding out he suffers from PE.  

So again, there is simply not enough evidence to conclude that porn causes PE or ED. I shared other studies that disagree. 

43 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Well then, I'll just tell some of the husbands in their 20's/30's that see me, that their experiences with their failing member, re-orientation in sexual arousal response, and performance anxiety was actually a figment of their imagination. Seriously though, I have stated in several ways already the limits in this sort of research and the way we assess data on this issue already. Several times. 

Our human brain also has limits, it is too good at finding patterns. I am sure you are well aware. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't know if I agree.  I really like both posters here so I've been following their interaction.

I think it's pretty clear that when someone makes a claim that something is a churchwide policy, they should answer a CFR with something in writing stating that policy.

I completely trust Bernard's word that his regional leader told him that's what they do for the group participants in their area, but that's not the claim (unless I missed it, I thought he said churchwide).

Just simply provide a source (not just that someone told me for "our area") for the churchwide policy for age guidelines (if you can find one).

HJW, you lead one of these groups, were you given the church guidelines in any written materials?

You both are great guys...got to say...

ETA:

Reading your post above now that you posted while I was typing mine, Calm.... 

You are too kind! I was told by the LDS FS regional director this is the LDS Family Services policy when I inquired when a mother asked us if her boys could attend our meetings. The answer was "18 years or older only. No youth." When HJW said I was wrong, this is regional, and demanded a CFR, I contacted him again and he confirmed the policy. HJW rejected this as proof and said it was just a regional policy.

I contacted him a third time and he confirmed it is the Church-wide policy of the LDS FS that youth do not attend support groups. I reported his communication.

This time I was accused of mendacity and was issued another CFR and was taken to task...I "had the gall" to ask HJW to provide proof that his claim it is a regional issue is true.

It would be disrespectful and unprofessional to contact him a fourth time and say, "I don't believe you. I want written proof."

 I have a pending request to the LDS FS headquarters of in SLC for their policy and am awaiting their reply. If they respond iI will post it here.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/3/2017 at 7:44 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

and there is still no porn addiction in the medical field. The so-called "porn addiction" is like being addicted to video games, ancient scripture studies, movies, MDDB 

 

Will you agree that whether or not it is an addiction, the effects it has on family members are the same as if it were? Will you respond to my postings on the recognized criteria for addiction?

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are too kind! I was told by the LDS FS regional director this is the LDS Family Services policy when I inquired when a mother asked us if her boys could attend our meetings. The answer was "18 years or older only. No youth." When HJW said I was wrong, this is regional, and demanded a CFR, I contacted him again and he confirmed the policy. HJW rejected this as proof and said it was just a regional policy.

I contacted him a third time and he confirmed it is the Church-wide policy of the LDS FS that youth do not attend support groups. I reported his communication.

This time I was accused of mendacity and was issued another CFR and was taken to task...I "had the gall" to ask HJW to provide proof that his claim it is a regional issue is true.

It would be disrespectful and unprofessional to contact him a fourth tim and say, "Indon't believe you. I want written proof."

 I have a pending request to the LDS FS headquarters of in SLC for their policy and am awaiting their reply. If they respond iI will post it here.

I actually hope you are completely right and the 16-18 exception is out of date.  It seems like this should be a support that is divided by age, no one over 21 in one group, no one under 19 in the other.  Perhaps the dynamics are enough different, it wouldn't be a problem, but if they need adult supervision, I think it would be better not to be there at all...though that might mean no support group, so maybe the costs are worth the benefit.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Well then, I'll just tell some of the husbands in their 20's/30's that see me, that their experiences with their failing member, re-orientation in sexual arousal response, and performance anxiety was actually a figment of their imagination. Seriously though, I have stated in several ways already the limits in this sort of research and the way we assess data on this issue already. Several times. 

but many psychologists and sex therapists with years of experience disagree, it is not just research. Are they just blind? .  

I repeat, I know someone, an inactive member, that never watched porn before finding out he suffers from PE.  

poster removed. This is not a pro-porn site.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

So my question is: Can we conclude that porn really destroys families? or is the root of the problem in our evolutionary history? 

"No honey, don't get mad!  Evolutionary history made me do it!" 

Remind me, what is that saying about the "natural man"?

All jokes aside, help me to understand and get this straight.   Monogamy decreases the male libido, which in-turn is responsible for destroying families?  How does that work exactly?  How is the decreased male libido responsible for destroying families?  Wouldn't decreasing the male libido put it more on par with the female libido?  Wouldn't that be a good thing for a long-term healthy monogamous relationship, by relieving the man of sexual frustration due to a much higher libido than his wife? 

What is so sacred about the male libido that it needs to be so much higher than the woman's?  Why do you presume that the male libido is much more important to a covenant marriage than fidelity?

Doesn't it seem obvious to you that feeding the man's libido through porn use and extra-marital affairs is what is destroying marriages and families, and not the decreased male libido?

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

May I have your permission to share your experiences with our group? with my group? Do have any restrictions on my what. I share. I will respect your wishes.

No restrictions, you are free to share it as you please.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I repeat, I know someone, an inactive member, that never watched porn before finding out he suffers from PE.  

I know someone who never smoked a cigarette before finding out that he has lung cancer.  I guess we can rule out that cigarettes cause lung cancer! 

 

[BlueDreams]

27 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

but many psychologists and sex therapists with years of experience disagree, it is not just research. Are they just blind? .  

I repeat, I know someone, an inactive member, that never watched porn before finding out he suffers from PE.  

 Psychologists and sex therapist and researchers often disagree and do. And continue to do so. They come from differing areas of expertise with their own biases and their own bases. It's not blindness, it just differing perspectives on the same phenomenon and having access to certain communities wile not as much others. This isn't a closed field and sexual issues are among the areas of study and focus that are somewhat avant garde in the field of both therapy and research.  

PE and ED are not the same thing at all. (Though, with ED after a while PE can follow).  I said nothing about PE. PE is NOT a good indicator of a porn addiction because many young men - especially if they're sexually inexperienced, they're nervous, or their partner is new - will have PE. Not all sex or relational problems stem from porn.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 5, 2017 by BlueDreams

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

PS to HJW...

Whether or not your intent, I picked up from your comments there were no limitations on youth, neither age nor attending with an adult.  If you were not aware of those restrictions and were presenting it in the way I understood it, then you were wrong.  I don't recall these limitations in your comments, so at best your claim was incomplete.

If BG intended to convey there were no exceptions ever to be made for youth, he also was wrong.

He was right in that only above 18 can attended without restriction.

You were right in that youth, if they are 16-18 and with an adult they can attend.

No, that wasn't my intent. I wasn't thinking about adding qualifiers but could have answered had I been asked. Since I was arguing against the "NO YOUTH anywhere" claim by BG, it didn't really seem necessary to add qualifiers since the possibility of any youth participating had already been dismissed.

You continue to claim some kind of equality in the rightness and wrongness for BG and I. This just isn't correct. BG did make an absolute statement.

As  it turns out, youth ages 16-18 can attend with parental participation AND exceptions are made for youth "close" to age 18 (however one defines that).

IN any case, I'm satisfied that I was correct. I'm sorry I had to become somewhat rude in countering BG's rudeness after my multiple attempts at conciliation and acceptance, but so be it. I'm moving on.

*The only other thing I will say is about the nature of CFR's and what bothers me most about this thread. It's not that BG was wrong. We all make mistakes. It's that he failed to provide an adequate reference and then dug in his heels refusing to provide verifiable reference as is required by CFR. Instead he acted offended that we don't just all believe what he says or what some anonymous guy in Seattle told him over the phone. That's not acceptable. My frustration with that is only exacerbated by posters claiming an equivalence between his failure to provide a CFR and me who was simply asking for proof. I don't see that the CFR policy was enforced, which is disappointing. And I don't understand why a respected poster like you seemed to condone the refusal to provide a reference in favor of accepting the reports of a phone conversation.

HJW- Out!

You have both made valuable contributions to the thread and this is an important thread. Both of you are explaining your own experience and it is useful for people to see it. I would like to see everyone work together for an answer to your question. 

[Bernard Gui]

My question emailed to my "some anonymous guy" who is the Seattle regional LDS Family Services director (I choose not to reveal his name for obvious reasons)...

"I'm so sorry to keep bothering you, but I have a person who keeps insisting youth can attend groups as long as they are accompanied by an adult. I would not want youth to hear what is discussed in our meetings, but is this permissible? Can bishops assign youth to attend pornography groups?"

His email response...

"No problem. That was the old policy. Youth are no longer able to attend with adults.  Bishops that are assigning youth to attend may not be aware of the policy change. If that person keeps insisting, please feel free to have them contact me."

Is this a sufficient CFR response? I don't know what more I can do.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My question emailed to my "some anonymous guy" who is the Seattle regional LDS Family Services director (I choose not to reveal his name for obvious reasons)...

"I'm so sorry to keep bothering you, but I have a person who keeps insisting youth can attend groups as long as they are accompanied by an adult. I would not want youth to hear what is discussed in our meetings, but is this permissible? Can bishops assign youth to attend pornography groups?"

His email response...

"No problem. That was the old policy. Youth are no longer able to attend with adults.  Bishops that are assigning youth to attend may not be aware of the policy change. If that person keeps insisting, please feel free to have them contact me."

Is this a sufficient CFR response? I don't know what more I can do.

 

 

No, though I appreciate your effort that is not really an adequate CFR response. Would that kind of response be accepted for any other CFR? I really don't think so. I note that there is inconsistency with that policy both in what I see and have been told personally, as well as what Calm was told when she called a couple of places yesterday.

If there is a new policy that replaces the old policy, that policy must exist somewhere. All I want is to see the policy so that I can know if it really exists. I'm not accepting it on faith .

That's really not too much to ask. Without a documented policy, all I know is that the person you are communicating with really believes there is a policy against youth attending. But that doesn't mean the policy actually exists or that his understanding is correct. That's why documentation is needed.

 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

That's really not too much to ask. Without a documented policy, all I know is that the person you are communicating with really believes there is a policy against youth attending. But that doesn't mean the policy actually exists or that his understanding is correct. That's why documentation is needed.

 

Considering the reps position, I'd consider that a reliable source at least for his area. I'd like to hear what your regional rep says if it is different from this. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by juliann

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, though I appreciate your effort that is not really an adequate CFR response. Would that kind of response be accepted for any other CFR? I really don't think so. I note that there is inconsistency with that policy both in what I see and have been told personally, as well as what Calm was told when she called a couple of places yesterday.

If there is a new policy that replaces the old policy, that policy must exist somewhere. All I want is to see the policy so that I can know if it really exists. I'm not accepting it on faith .

That's really not too much to ask. Without a documented policy, all I know is that the person you are communicating with really believes there is a policy against youth attending. But that doesn't mean the policy actually exists or that his understanding is correct. That's why documentation is needed.

 

Here's the link regarding it on lds.org:

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/help?lang=eng#guide

It still states that "Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian".

If this policy has changed, they should update the info and let those running the programs know about the change, IMO.

It's unfortunate there's confusion between different areas (locations).  

Edited May 5, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

My question emailed to my "some anonymous guy" who is the Seattle regional LDS Family Services director (I choose not to reveal his name for obvious reasons)...

"I'm so sorry to keep bothering you, but I have a person who keeps insisting youth can attend groups as long as they are accompanied by an adult. I would not want youth to hear what is discussed in our meetings, but is this permissible? Can bishops assign youth to attend pornography groups?"

His email response...

"No problem. That was the old policy. Youth are no longer able to attend with adults.  Bishops that are assigning youth to attend may not be aware of the policy change. If that person keeps insisting, please feel free to have them contact me."

Is this a sufficient CFR response? I don't know what more I can do.

 

 

I am very glad to hear this.  Thank you for doing it one more time.

My source was that it was allowed if only a month or two away from being 18, I see that as likely a local adaptation.  People are used to handbooks being guides, not absolutes though we have them such as the two deep policy.

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, though I appreciate your effort that is not really an adequate CFR response. Would that kind of response be accepted for any other CFR? I really don't think so. I note that there is inconsistency with that policy both in what I see and have been told personally, as well as what Calm was told when she called a couple of places yesterday.

If there is a new policy that replaces the old policy, that policy must exist somewhere. All I want is to see the policy so that I can know if it really exists. I'm not accepting it on faith .

That's really not too much to ask. Without a documented policy, all I know is that the person you are communicating with really believes there is a policy against youth attending. But that doesn't mean the policy actually exists or that his understanding is correct. That's why documentation is needed.

 

What group do you host and how long have you hosted it?

I feel you are being unfair and disingenuous. Questioning our director's competence and my integrity is uncalled for and only weakens your tenuous position. You have no evidence of either.

I have always responded honestly and accurately here. I have no reason to lie and I don't appreciate your accusations.

I have held up my part. Now hold up yours. I have acted in good faith from the start. This cuts both ways. I won't run away from the discussion because of this. It is now up to you to satisfy my CFR.  

Here it is: please give written proof the old policy is still in effect that 1. youth are allowed to attend group meetings and 2. bishops can assign them to attend a pornogrsphy recovery group. 

 I have gone way beyond the extra mile and done all I can except report the awaited response from SLC. I'm going to guess they will refer me to my regional director.

PM me and I will send you the Seattle contact information and you can contact him directly. You can demand a copy of the written policy from him. This is a second appropriate response to your CFR.

Please contact your director and post his response here. If you choose not to, I will assume you concede the point. I have offered to contact him for you and I renew that offer now. It's not too much to ask for you to do that as a good will courtesy.

When a sister approached us with a request for her sons to attend our meeting. We asked for guidance and received the above instructions and were told it was LDS FS policy. As a compromise we set up a private group just for her and the boys only.

You have said you have seen bishops in your area assign youth to attend group meetings. Please provide proof that they are following policy.

Please to contact the Seattle office and tell us what is said, and provide a written response from your director to the same questions I asked mine. My experience is LDS FS is making a concerted effort to standardize their program. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, though I appreciate your effort that is not really an adequate CFR response. Would that kind of response be accepted for any other CFR? I really don't think so. I note that there is inconsistency with that policy both in what I see and have been told personally, as well as what Calm was told when she called a couple of places yesterday.

If there is a new policy that replaces the old policy, that policy must exist somewhere. All I want is to see the policy so that I can know if it really exists. I'm not accepting it on faith .

That's really not too much to ask. Without a documented policy, all I know is that the person you are communicating with really believes there is a policy against youth attending. But that doesn't mean the policy actually exists or that his understanding is correct. That's why documentation is needed.

 

My source is pretty close to BG's.  It makes much more sense believe to have exceptions if a few months shy of 18 if no one younger than 18 is the policy than it does if 16-18 year olds need an adult present but if you are 19 or older you can come on your own.  The ages for one thing are off in the latter case.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What group do you host and how long have you hosted it?

I feel you are being unfair and disingenuous. Questioning our director's competence and my integrity is uncalled for and only weakens your tenuous position. You have no evidence of either.

I have always responded honestly and accurately here. I have no reason to lie and I don't appreciate your accusations.

I have held up my part. Now hold up yours. I have acted in good faith from the start. This cuts both ways. I won't run away from the discussion because of this. It is now up to you to satisfy my CFR.  

Here it is: please give written proof the old policy is still in effect that 1. youth are allowed to attend group meetings and 2. bishops can assign them to attend a pornogrsphy recovery group. 

 I have gone way beyond the extra mile and done all I can except report the awaited response from SLC. I'm going to guess they will refer me to my regional director.

PM me and I will send you the Seattle contact information and you can contact him directly. You can demand a copy of the written policy from him. This is a second appropriate response to your CFR.

Please contact your director and post his response here. If you choose not to, I will assume you concede the point. I have offered to contact him for you and I renew that offer now. It's not too much to ask for you to do that as a good will courtesy.

When a sister approached us with a request for her sons to attend our meeting. We asked for guidance and received the above instructions and were told it was LDS FS policy. As a compromise we set up a private group just for her and the boys only.

You have said you have seen bishops in your area assign youth to attend group meetings. Please provide proof that they are following policy.

Please to contact the Seattle office and tell us what is said, and provide a written response from your director to the same questions I asked mine. My experience is LDS FS is making a concerted effort to standardize their program. 

You are the one making accusations. We're in bizarro world right now where you are trying to require me to provide a reference that disputes a policy you can't prove. I've been congenial enough and have not accused you of ill-intent or dishonesty as you repeatedly are doing to me when you say I am "disingenuous". I'm not disingenuous by desiring and calling for an actual verifiable reference. I'm "incredulous" that the rule is not being followed and that you seem to be emboldened by the lack of enforcement.

Quote

Here's the link regarding it on lds.org:

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/help?lang=eng#guide

"Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian". 

*ETA- from the board guidelines of unaccaptable behavior...

Quote

• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

Perhaps we need to have a discussion about what is and what isn't an appropriate reference in supporting one's statements and claims. In my mind, an appropriate reference is something that can be examined. An actual source that multiple people can review. An appropriate reference is NOT a claim in which the individual making the claim requires people to take his word. It doesn't matter how trustworthy the individual is. People hear, read, and interpret things differently. Hearsay is not an appropriate reference. If board gurus determine it is the CFR will mean very little and anyone will be able to claim anything they want (I'm not saying that's what BG is doing, yet bypassing the CFR process and not providing "appropriate" references is still resulting in far too much consternation.

This should be very simple. BG makes a claim that would reasonably be backed up with a policy. A CFR is issued which should result in BG providing an "appropriate reference to support [his] statements".

Edited May 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Bernard Gui]

Further clarification from LDS Family Services. I consider the matter closed, but will post the LDS FS SLC headquarters response if they reply.

Quote

LDSFS has Regional Managers, but they don't set policy. Policy is set at our Central Office in SLC.  This may be a matter of this individual or possibly Regional Manager not being aware of the policy change. No apology necessary. Thank you for seeking a clarification.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

My source is pretty close to BG's.  It makes much more sense believe to have exceptions if a few months shy of 18 if no one younger than 18 is the policy than it does if 16-18 year olds need an adult present but if you are 19 or older you can come on your own.  The ages for one thing are off in the latter case.

BG's statement making "much more sense" to you does not mean it is close to what you reported. It may make more sense. I would actually advocate for youth not participating (& I have with leaders), but that does not mean the policy he claims exists.

You reported both that exceptions are made for youth who are almost 18 (however that is defined), and also that youth 16-18 can attend with parents. How is that close to BG's claim that youth are absolutely not able to attend.

While I understand that you may desire for it to be closer to what BG says, he has in not demonstrated that to be the case. In fact his Reg. Rep directly contradicted what you reported and what I reported. If there is a policy other than what is listed on LDS.org, I think we should be able to see that. Otherwise we're accepting the Seattle Reg. Reps opinion over LDS.org. How does that make sense?

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Further clarification from LDS Family Services. I consider the matter closed, but will post the LDS FS SLC headquarters response if they reply.

 

Great- so they can give you the policy so we can see it, right? They might also explain why the policy (assuming it exists) conflicts with the statement on LDS.org. Then the case would truly be closed.

I have never accused you of lying or being disingenuous (like you have called me multiple times), but trust is strengthened through verification. You still have provided nothing that a 3rd party could observe or review. "trust me" is not a an appropriate CFR response.

I'm beating my head against the wall here so I am done too. Just know that your claim has not been proven

Edited May 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon