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."

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

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

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".

So, in the spirit of your post, please back up your position with an appropriate response. This is the umpteenth time I have requested it. I'm sure your proof will be far more acceptable than mine. If it is, I will concede. Otherwise, I assume you concede.

 

[Bernard Gui]

 

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great- so they can give you the policy so we can see it, right? Then the case would truly be closed.

You are free to ask three people for that policy: 1. The Seattle director has offered to respond to you directly. 2. The regional director who has told

you youth can attend and bishops can assign them to attend. 3. The SLC headquarters of LDS Family Services. I've done my homework. Now you

should do yours. What do you have to lose?

Here's the contact information for SLC. You can fill in the blanks and send it off at your leisure. I will send you the Seattle office contact information

in a PM. 

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/feedback?lang=eng

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

You are free to ask three people for that policy: 1. The Seattle director has offered to respond to you directly. 2. The regional director who has told

you youth can attend and bishops can assign them to attend. 3. The SLC headquarters of LDS Family Services. I've done my homework. Now you

should do yours. What do you have to lose?

Here's the contact information for SLC. You can fill in the blanks and send it off at your leisure. I will send you the Seattle office contact information

in a PM. 

https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/feedback?lang=eng

It's your job to provide a reference.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, in the spirit of your post, please back up your position with an appropriate response. This is the umpteenth time I have requested it. I'm sure your proof will be far more acceptable than mine. If it is, I will concede. Otherwise, I assume you concede.

 

Explain to me what evidence I could show that disputes a policy you can't even prove exists. Seriously, I don't know what you want me to show you. That youth can attend? Already did that. How do I provide a reference that a policy doesn't exist, beyond the statement I've already posted from LDS.org?

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, you have. Rudeness has occurred on both sides. From my side, I apologize for anything that was rude or disrespectful. 

"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation." Please report the results of your investigation. 
 

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Explain to me what evidence I could show that disputes a policy you can't even prove exists. Seriously, I don't know what you want me to show you. That youth can attend? Already did that. How do I provide a reference that a policy doesn't exist, beyond the statement I've already posted from LDS.org?

This is what I want you to show: 1. A written statement, such as I have provided, from your LDS FS regional director that youth can attend. 2. A statement from SLC LDS FS that youth are allowed to attend and bishops can assign them to attend and that it is current policy.

I have provided written evidence that that is an old policy and is no longer in force. I have given you three sources and PMed you the address of the Seattle director. You have not done me the same courtesy so I can communicate with your direct. Let's see your proof. Heck, I have enough faith in your integrity that if you just say you made these contacts in good faith and simply report their answers, I won't demand a written policy. I will take you for your word. Fair enough?

 

Here is a suggested email you (or I) could send to your regional director. If you just tell me the region I will try to find out who he/she is.

 

Quote

I have a Family Services Missionary friend who claims youth cannot attend support groups and that bishops should not require them to attend pornography recovery meetings. He says the is the Church/LDS FS ARP policy. Is he correct? Can bishops assign youth to attend pornography groups and can they attend support groups? What is the Church policy on this?"

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is what I want you to show: 1. A written statement, such as I have provided, from your LDS FS regional director that youth can attend. 2. A statement from SLC LDS FS that youth are allowed to attend and bishops can assign them to attend and that it is current policy.

I have provided written evidence that that is an old policy and is no longer in force. I have given you three sources and PMed you the address of the Seattle director. You have not done me the same courtesy so I can communicate with your direct. Let's see your proof. Heck, I have enough faith in your integrity that if you just say you made these contacts in good faith and simply report their answers, I won't demand a written policy. I will take you for your word. Fair enough?

 

Here is a suggested email you (or I) could send to your regional director. If you just tell me the region I will try to find out who he/she is.

Honestly, I'm not interested in what they tell me over the phone. Whether its my guy, your guy, or the LDSFS HQ. I want to see it in writing. As has been amply demonstrated on this thread, different people in different areas may say different things. I don't care what someone (even a regional director) "thinks" the policy may or may not be. There is too much room for error and inconsistency.

If there is a policy other than what is publicly posted on LDS.org, then it should be known and verified. Let's assume that your guy is right, and that there has been a change in policy. What is the value of that policy if it is not published, but instead a different policy is published. Is an unpublished policy worth much if those who should be following it aren't aware of it? Is a policy worth anything if it contradicts the written policy leaders see when they refer people to attend ARP? These are totally different questions, but also valid. And frankly, I'm so bored with the squabble about he said, he said, that I need something to hold my interest here.

It's not offensive or even a sleight to suggest that I don't accept the verbal opinion from your regional guy based on his understanding. I don't accept mine either. I am going to require a written policy. We're not talking about some super-secret organization. This is LDS-ARP for heavens sake. Bishops and Stake Presidents (and obviously ARP group leaders) use the written policies to conduct meetings and interact appropriately with the program. One person's opinion/understanding matters very little to me. I want to see something.

I've messaged my Regional guy asking him to provide me a written policy on this. I'm not sure when I'll get a response but I'll post it when I do.

ETA- Beyond the squabble about youth participation, my other squabble is about CFR policy on this board. I would love it if one of the all-powerful mods could correct my understanding of what is and what isn't an acceptable reference.

Edited May 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

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.

This is strange.  Why are you conflating two different reports?

My call yesterday stated, yes, the policy is only 18 and older are to attend the meetings, but exceptions can be made for youth a few months shy of 18.  That is identical to BG's claim save for the belief exceptions can be made for a few months shy of 18. 

The idea that exceptions might be allowed could be a result of the same mentality that allows exceptions for 2 deep teaching/leadership (in other words incorrectly thinking a rule is a 'guide' rather than a law) or a result of asking higher ups for clearance (such as when second sealings for a wife are requested even though no allowance is made in writing in the handbook).  Confirmation of the latter is a word of mouth thing and hard to document.

The LDS.org site has a very different claim and in fact contradicts my source and was not cited by my source.  I have seen many out of date statements on lds.org over the years.  My nephew has been directly over LDS.org and is now over all LDS productions.  We had a conversation on the difficulty of updates for LDS.org a few years ago.  Paraphrasing, he stated it is a constant struggle to keep up with the changes as they are a massive load,  they are always months behind (my memory says he said 6 months, but I may be wrong).  Obviously, some stuff gets immediately updated due to the nature of the material...news releases, conference talks for example.  Others need to wait until they can be checked and double checked.  I suspect (and will ask when I get a chance) that changes are made not item by item, but in bulk.  A particular subset webpage gets corrections when overhauls are made.  This is how it typical has been done from what I have seen of items I have kept an eye on.  I can think of only one case where a correction of one line item was made and that was in a highly controversial topic (polygamy).

Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Honestly, I'm not interested in what they tell me over the phone. Whether its my guy, your guy, or the LDSFS HQ. I want to see it in writing. As has been amply demonstrated on this thread, different people in different areas may say different things. I don't care what someone (even a regional director) "thinks" the policy may or may not be. There is too much room for error and inconsistency.

If there is a policy other than what is publicly posted on LDS.org, then it should be known and verified. Let's assume that your guy is right, and that there has been a change in policy. What is the value of that policy if it is not published, but instead a different policy is published. Is an unpublished policy worth much if those who should be following it aren't aware of it? Is a policy worth anything if it contradicts the written policy leaders see when they refer people to attend ARP? These are totally different questions, but also valid. And frankly, I'm so bored with the squabble about he said, he said, that I need something to hold my interest here.

It's not offensive or even a sleight to suggest that I don't accept the verbal opinion from your regional guy based on his understanding. I don't accept mine either. I am going to require a written policy. We're not talking about some super-secret organization. This is LDS-ARP for heavens sake. Bishops and Stake Presidents (and obviously ARP group leaders) use the written policies to conduct meetings and interact appropriately with the program. One person's opinion/understanding matters very little to me. I want to see something.

I've messaged my Regional guy asking him to provide me a written policy on this. I'm not sure when I'll get a response but I'll post it when I do.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it. Would have saved a lot of grief and bandwidth to just do it from the start. Looking forward to your response.

[Calm]

"I've messaged my Regional guy asking him to provide me a written policy on this. I'm not sure when I'll get a response but I'll post it when I do."

Good.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is strange.  Why are you conflating two different reports?

My call yesterday stated, yes, the policy is only 18 and older are to attend the meetings, but exceptions can be made for youth a few months shy of 18.

The LDS.org site has a very different claim and in fact contradicts my source and was not cited by my source.  I have seen many out of date statements on lds.org over the years.  My nephew has been directly over LDS.org and is now over all LDS productions.  We had a conversation on the difficulty of updates for LDS.org a few years ago.  Paraphrasing, he stated it is a constant struggle to keep up with the changes as they are a massive load,  they are always months behind (my memory says he said 6 months, but I may be wrong).  Obviously, some stuff gets immediately updated due to the nature of the material...news releases, conference talks for example.  Others need to wait until they can be checked and double checked.  I suspect (and will ask when I get a chance) that changes are made not item by item, but in bulk.  A particular subset webpage gets corrections when overhauls are made.  This is how it typical has been done from what I have seen of items I have kept an eye on.  I can think of only one case where a correction of one line item was made and that was in a highly controversial topic (polygamy).

Yes, as I said, you reported both things. Exceptions can be made to allow a youth under age 18 and also the 16-18 with a parent.

Quote

Calm-

Found this:

"There are recovery meetings for individuals who struggle, as well as support meetings for family or friends of those who struggle. Meetings are focused on either general addiction or on pornography and sexual addiction. Meetings are 60 to 90 minutes long, ongoing, and are held year-round. No referral is necessary. Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian. Dress is casual and modest"

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

So I'm not sure why my statement is "strange". It seems quite accurate. You reported both things. How am I incorrect?

Edited May 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Now that wasn't so hard, was it. Would have saved a lot of grief and bandwidth to just do it from the start. Looking forward to your response.

I'm not accepting that smugness from you.

Provide a policy that we can read. That's what would save this ridiculous back and forth. Telling us what your Regional guy said isn't adequate, nor is reporting on a personal email from the guy. That this isn't obvious is astounding to me. Next time I'm challenged for a CFR I think I may just have to say, but XXXX told me so. That wouldn't be very effective or useful just as your responses have not been useful.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's your job to provide a reference.

Not for the CFR I have given you. That is your job.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not accepting that smugness from you.

Provide a policy that we can read. That's what would save this ridiculous back and forth. Telling us what your Regional guy said isn't adequate, nor is reporting on a personal email from the guy. That this isn't obvious is astounding to me. Next time I'm challenged for a CFR I think I may just have to say, but XXXX told me so. That wouldn't be very effective or useful just as your responses have not been useful.

Oh, smugness. Come on. Read your own responses.

Quote

  -You then have the gall ask Me for a CFR for something you admittedly cannot substantiate. It would have been so much better if you had just played nice. Oh well. If you are serious, all I can say is, "Dude, seriously?" Just be accurate. That's all I'm asking. It's not hard. Nice job on the smiley faces. If you are making a joke, it can help. You're learning  

Just be accurate. That's all I'm asking. It's not hard. etc. 

This shoe fits both our feet. This is going to get the thread shut down. 

I think we can all agree that youth attending support groups where people with serious problems are revealing deep and dark behaviors

is not appropriate. It is my hope that this doesn't happen anywhere. I don't care if a parent is present, it's a really bad idea. It would be

antithetical to the purposes and goals of the groups. 

[Calm]

HJW, there is a huge difference between letting any youth attend (youth defined in the Church as 12-17) and on occasion allowing a 17 years and 10 months old attend.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

HJW, there is a huge difference between letting any youth attend (youth defined in the Church as 12-17) and on occasion allowing a 17 years and 10 months old attend.

I never said "any youth" can attend. You made assumptions.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh, smugness. Come on. Read your own responses.

This shoe fits both our feet. This is going to get the thread shut down. 

I think we can all agree that youth attending support groups where people with serious problems are revealing deep and dark behaviors

is not appropriate. It is my hope that this doesn't happen anywhere. I don't care if a parent is present, it's a really bad idea. It would be

antithetical to the purposes and goals of the groups. 

That's fine. This has been pointless for quite some time.

I happen to agree with the rest of your statement. But that's not what the argument has been about. It has been about you making an absolute statement about a policy for which you cannot provide documentation.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I never said "any youth" can attend. You made assumptions.

I didn't say you said that, but just as you are arguing that BG is wrong because my source said exceptions might be made for 17 years and 10 months or thereabouts old, your comments that just said "youth" could be assumed to mean all youth and thus all 12-17 year olds.

Since you never made the effort to give an age range, it appears (accurately or not) you do not put limits of older or even smaller range restrictions.

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's fine. This has been pointless for quite some time.

I happen to agree with the rest of your statement. But that's not what the argument has been about. It has been about you making an absolute statement about a policy for which you cannot provide documentation.

Actually, it is a critical point. Should LDS youth attend addiction recovery groups? Should bishops require them to attend

as a condition of repentance? Does the church have a policy that allows or requires it?

I think these are serious questions that must be answered in any discussion on addiction. If we all agree that it would not be appropriate, then that would suggest the Church is engaged in an inappropriate behavior. That is not pointless. It's to the point. Misinformation is worse than no information.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

From my Regional Director of LDSFS. Here is my message thread so far.

Quote

HJW

LDSFS Director, Is there a written policy about whether or not youth may attend ARP meetings? My understanding has been, and it states on LDS.org that "Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian". Also, exceptions can be made for youth nearing the age of 18. Has this changed? Would you be able to send me the current policy on youth participation?

His response....

Quote

HJW--you have it exactly correct. When I get to my computer I will send you what I have on it. Is there a specific issue with it?

So I'll have to wait for the written policy.

Like I've been saying this entire time. He said, he said doesn't get us anywhere. We need a verifiable, written policy that we can review.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Actually, it is a critical point. Should LDS youth attend addiction recovery groups? Should bishops require them to attend

as a condition of repentance? Does the church have a policy that allows or requires it?

I think these are serious questions that must be answered in any discussion on addiction. If we all agree that it would not be appropriate, then that would suggest the Church is

engaged in and inappropriate behavior. That is not pointless. It's to the point. Misinformation is worse than no information.

I agree these are serious issues. Our dueling testimonials about my LDSFS director is smart than yours is what has been pointless. And it will remain pointless until we get a policy that you should have provided.

These issues are serious which is why I originally mentioned it as a criticism. I'm glad we agree about that.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn't say you said that, but just as you are arguing that BG is wrong because my source said exceptions might be made for 17 years and 10 months or thereabouts old, your comments that just said "youth" could be assumed to mean all youth and thus all 12-17 year olds.

Since you never made the effort to give an age range, it appears (accurately or not) you do not put limits of older or even smaller range restrictions.

Calm- I'm really struggling with you on this thread. You are usually fair in your approach but this thread has been different as you've attempted to defend BG at every turn while casting doubt on my assertions. That's fine. You don't have to be neutral, but your position is weak and your allowance of BG to avoid CFR guidelines is inconsistent with what I've seen from you in the past. I can't remember another time on this board where I have ever seen "Because XXXX told me so" work as a CFR response.

When you say things like "since you never made the effort to give an age range" is a bit accusatory and inaccurate. I never avoided an age range. I was never asked about it and it didn't pop up in my mind as an important tidbit (right or wrong) because BG was arguing about a total ban on youth attending. In any case, I reject you characterization that I "never made the effort".

Edited May 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/5/2017 at 2:06 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree these are serious issues. Our dueling testimonials about my LDSFS director is smart than yours is what has been pointless. And it will remain pointless until we get a policy that you should have provided.

These issues are serious which is why I originally mentioned it as a criticism. I'm glad we agree about that.

Quote

 

From me to MC, Seattle Regional Director, LDS Family Services:
 

Quote

Well, I had hoped I had driven a stake into this vampire-like discussion, but this was cited as proof the official policy is that youth can attend meetings and that bishops can require them to attend pornography and addiction recovery meetings. He wants to see a written policy that contradicts this:

"There are recovery meetings for individuals who struggle, as well as support meetings for family or friends of those who struggle. 

Meetings are focused on either general addiction or on pornography and sexual addiction. Meetings are 60 to 90 minutes long, ongoing, and are held year-round. No referral is necessary. Youth 16 to 18 years of age can come with a parent or guardian. Dress is casual and modest"

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

 

To me from MC, Seattle Regional Director, LDS Family Services:

Quote

Apparently the site hasn’t been updated to reflect the change.  Please find an email excerpt below from the Program Manager over ARP system-wide as of February 27^th as “proof.” By the way, “EC” stands for Executive Council, which is where decisions are made on a system-wide level.

"This was just discussed by the EC. My understanding is that attendance is for 'adults' only. While we don’t 'card' attendees, we should make sure our staff are communicating to priesthood leaders and others that the group is intended for 'adults' which we are defining as 18 and older."

I will send an email to our Central Offices to let them know about the policy change and the site that appear to contradict.

Thanks,

MC, LICSW - Manager

 

Brother C was accurate in the guidance he gave me. It is not a regional policy. The meetings are for adults which means 18 or older.

I consider this a stake in the heart, a silver bullet, a dose of pure sunlight, and a garlic necklace to this controversy. I hope HJW passes this on to his director

and the bishops in his area stop requiring youth to attend his meetings. Now let us move on.

Best wishes to all.

Bernard

This fills the requirement of a CFR. More arguing will get the thread closed.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Calm- I'm really struggling with you on this thread. You are usually fair in your approach but this thread has been different as you've attempted to defend BG at every turn while casting doubt on my assertions. That's fine. You don't have to be neutral, but your position is weak and your allowance of BG to avoid CFR guidelines is inconsistent with what I've seen from you in the past. I can't remember another time on this board where I have ever seen "Because XXXX told me so" work as a CFR response.

When you say things like "since you never made the effort to give an age range" is a bit accusatory and inaccurate. I never avoided an age range. I was never asked about it and it didn't pop up in my mind as an important tidbit (right or wrong) because BG was arguing about a total ban on youth attending. In any case, I reject you characterization that I "never made the effort".

I was the one who posted the LDS.org site contradicting BG.

The problem is I see the CFR issued to BG as fulfilled by BG.  I believe you could fill the CFR by giving the policy that contradicts what he claims...essentially what I did with LDS.org, except for the contradiction of that online policy from my family services source and BG's.  Hopefully one of these days we will find sources all agreeing.

What I want and probably am too obsessed with is accurate info, including what is described about others' posts.  I am not making the claim that my interpretation is always accurate or even mostly so at times I may be pushing for something I think is accurate, but is not.

I apologize for writing the "never made" comment, it wasn't meant to be accusatory, just explanatory of why I thought your position could be unintentionally confusing, that it could appear that based on your experience the age range was 12-17 allowed given that is how "youth" is defined in the Church. Sometimes we write things assuming they are easily understood when they are not.

To me the age of theyouth involved is a huge thing and is the reason I got involved.  It didn't really occur to me that others wouldn't see this the same way, especially given some past discussion on ages of youth in topics that are about or at least touch on sex relatedtopics.

I have written LDS.org, hopefully they will get back to me.  I didn't mention it before because I hoped it would be resolved by others' efforts because I have a 50/50 rate of getting back useful responses.

No need to respond, it appears there was a lot of miscommunication going on.  I will try and limit any further comments to whatever I come up with sources, whether from LDS.org or if I decide to get input directly from my ARP Reg. Rep.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

From me to MC, Seattle Regional Director, LDS Family Services:
 

To me from MC, Seattle Regional Director, LDS Family Services:

 

Brother C was accurate in the guidance he gave me. It is not a regional policy. The meetings are for adults which means 18 or older.

I consider this a stake in the heart, a silver bullet, a dose of pure sunlight, and a garlic necklace to this controversy. I hope HJW passes this on to his director

and the bishops in his area stop requiring youth to attend his meetings. Now let us move on.

Best wishes to all.

Bernard

This fills the requirement of a CFR. More arguing will get the thread closed.

Thank you, BG.  Hopefully my feedback to LDS.org will motivate them to change it.  More likely BG's guy will push for it though (not sure if he is intending to do so from the response)

 I would suggest everyone else concerned about this to use the feedback form and ask them to update the site, whatever they believe the update will yield in terms of info.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm