Bishops interview with minors

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is bad form on your part Robert, very low brow.  I’m not just venting, and I’m not using appeals to authority.  I’m sure you’re aware of scholars who’ve written about institutions looking out for their institutional interests.  I have no recollection which Mormon studies scholars have written on that subject, but I’m sure some have.  And I’m not sure what you mean by much of your second paragraph.  

I’m sharing my personal opinion, and that is all I’m doing.  I believe the LDS church has room from improvement on this subject, yes.  

In direct opposition to the notion which you are expressing, scholar Mike Quinn (an excommunicant) found that the LDS leadership -- the First Pres & Twelve -- exhibit great selflessness, showing no interest in monetary compensation for their efforts.  You appear to be assuming that all institutions are alike, that all of them try to protect the institution first, and individuals second.  There is no question of that tendency in general, and one does not need a graduate degree in Organizational Behavior to know that.  However, you appear to be applying that principle to the LDS leadership in an indiscriminate way.  Surely you recognize that some institutions do this to a huge degree and that others much less, and some to a small degree.  When I look at the things which the LDS Church does in the area of Welfare, for example, I do not see the Church which you see.  Nor do I see it in the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, when I look at other institutions (whether religious, political, or business) I see a vast gradation of selfish to selfless behavior.  Comparatively speaking, the LDS Church is salutary.

Sure all institutions and all individuals have room for improvement, but you have been applying your own uninformed personal opinion to the LDS Church without providing evidence one way or the other.  I asked appropriate questions, and you were unable to deal with them, except to take personal offense.

[jkwilliams]

On 12/15/2017 at 5:06 PM, rongo said:

I thought we were talking about masturbation? Where are you getting sexual orientation from?

Well, that's embarrassing. Sorry for getting the threads confused. Mea culpa. 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, that's embarrassing. Sorry for getting the threads confused. Mea culpa. 

No problem! Happens to the best of us.  

[Sethbag]

On 12/15/2017 at 2:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Do you think that the entire question should also be avoided by a Hindu yogi or Buddhist monk/nun?  Is it just silly for anyone to attempt to learn self-control?

Are you familiar with experiments with children in which they are offered the choice of (1) immediate gratification, or (2) delayed but enhanced gratification?  It turns out that children who are able to delay gratification on promise of a greater reward are far more successful in life.  Why?  Because they have learned a valuable lesson in emotional restraint.  Those who do not learn that lesson tend to make precipitate and ill-considered decisions.

This is also a major problem for those with addictions and bad habits -- problems which become their masters.  When one becomes a slave to this or that drug or bad habit, his freedom goes by the boards and his choices in life greatly diminish.  This is true in a completely secular, godless universe, just as much as it is in godly universe.  Thus, it turns out that the teachings of traditional culture may have great value, even though some modern people pooh, pooh it.

Hey guys. Sorry it's a month later. I'm not against people exercising self control. I agree that the ability to exercise some self control is important for peoples' success in life. But not all self control is created equal. And self control that is being "taught" by scaring people with the concept of the Creator of the Universe having sweated an extra drop of blood (I'm being half metaphorical here - work with me) in agony because they slipped up and did something that the church ambiguously sorts into a category of sin that their own scriptures rate as second only to cold-blooded murder is not on a par with people learning, say, to do their homework, or go to bed on time (something I still struggle with) so that they can be healthy, get some exercise, not procrastinate things that they need to be doing, etc.

One of my own little pet theories is that a lot of things that churches teach as taboos ultimately have origins in things that in many cases it actually makes some sense to regulate or at least treat seriously. Uncontrolled reproduction, for instance, can be quite a scourge on society and individuals. So societies found it important to encourage some sort of order in how members of the society reproduced. I get that. What I don't like is when lies are invented and then held over people like a club in order to get them to adhere to the expected norm. And a lot of societies end up taking things too far and making taboo things that are actually ridiculous. The examples from various religions and societies throughout history would be legion.

A good example of where I agree with the ultimate intent of a norm, but radically disagree with its representation, is the idea of tabacco and alcohol consumption. Alcohol can indeed be very destructive. It's not universally destructive, but it can be destructive. I think it's definitely a topic about which some care and thought should be taken. After being scared all of Mormon life about what would happen to me if I ever started drinking, I discovered that in my particular case it's more or less a non issue, as I have zero problems drinking responsibly, and in fact often go weeks or even months at a time between any consumption at all, and when I do, it's well controlled and safely done. On the other hand, I know some people to whom I am quite close who actually are struggling with some very serious alcohol-related problems, including consuming far too much, with little ability in their ability to self regulate. Thankfully they haven't caused any really serious damage yet, though perhaps some life expectancies have been lowered fractionally. But it's definitely something I worry about. Were the Mormons right? No. They're right that alcohol can cause a lot of problems. They aren't right that alcohol is evil because an invisible bogeyman named Satan is out there tempting people with it, and that God thinks it's a sin for anyone to ever consume any of it, and that if anyone does, it's a sin that Jesus bled and died for, and requires some repentance. 

The reason I have such a problem with myths and fair tales being used to underpin a practice which otherwise would have some fairly sound basis is that when people discover the fairy tale nature of the prohibitions, they can often make some very bad choices.

I'll give you a prime example. I know of quite a few ex-Mormons who, as soon as they learned that the whole "God hates alcohol" thing was actually a big lie, seemed to think that instead of that there were no problems or no reasons not to party like it's 1599. So they started drinking recklessly, to excess, smoking drugs, etc. Had good reasons that don't rely on fairy tales been taught to them on why they need to take alcohol seriously and make carefully considered decisions, they might well have avoided a lot of these problems. The contrary view, that they should have just held onto the fairy tales, simply holds no water with me. I prefer the truth, and think it's better in the end, because the truth isn't ever going to suddenly be discovered to be some mind game "The Man" pulled on them for so many years.

Tobacco is another one. There are tons and tons of good reasons not to smoke. It doesn't require any more than that. Making tobacco taboo because it makes God cry and is a sin isn't the answer. Discussions of addiction and all those gross photos of cancerous 3-pack-a-day smoker lungs from the autopsy photos really are all that should be required, and then let people make their decisions and live with the consequences. Dissuading them with guilt, instead of common sense and an accurate concept of their own mortality is, in the end, a wrong-headed move. Because that guilt depends on their faith in a certain set of beliefs which, if they ever lose, may well undercut their beliefs that something is even a bad idea at all. I've totally seen this, with people I know, firsthand.

I've totally seen ex-Mormons who acted like a tightly coiled spring from lifetimes of guilt-based prohibitions, who as soon as the clamps holding the spring tight were released, just exploded and went off the rails. It doesn't have to be that way.

With regards to masturbation, I just think it's a total non-issue. I completely don't agree that a person will be happier in their marriage, or more successful in life, or more healthy (though perhaps a bit less hirsute in the palms :-) ) if they never masturbate. I think that whatever negatives some may attempt to put forward about masturbation are dwarfed by the problems created by stacking guilt and the concept of sin and Godly disapprobation on it.

I firmly believe that if the church would conduct some longtitudinal studies where one cohort of kids are never taught that masturbation is sinful, never ask them about it interviews, never publicly make them not take or bless the sacrament after confessing to it, or deny the opportunity to baptize each other for dead people, or hand out those towels due to it, and the other cohort of kids are treated the way they traditionally have been thus far in the church, we would not find any measure of success or fulfillment or happiness where the first cohort does more poorly than the second, and quite likely would see the second cohort doing worse. Of course we couldn't actually test this theory, because the church would never go along with it, and thanks to things like the internet there would be cross-pollination between the cohorts anyway. But that's my belief on the likely importance of this.
 

On 12/15/2017 at 2:51 PM, rongo said:

But all of this makes people feel bad by suggesting that they don't have self-control and should improve in it. How dare anyone do that in 2017!

Suggesting to people that they learn and exercise self-control, for perfectly good and valid reasons, is not the same thing as heaping guilt upon them for perfectly normal activities that really haven't got much to do with anything in the end.

A perfect example of this is really fat people who have no self-control over what they eat, but still proudly bear a temple recommend because they obey the WoW by declining to commit the egregious sin of drinking coffee or tea, or smoking a cigarette, or enjoying an occasional cold brewskie. Sure, they'll probably die of a heart attack when they're 50, and prove to be a massive drain on the health care system as their bodies wear out prematurely because of all that extra body fat, but at least they aren't guilty of adding a few drops of blood to Jesus's torture by the Romans, or his voluntary profound malaise in the Garden of Gethsemane, amirite?

They haven't learned self control. What they've learned is minimal obedience to the letter of the law as prescribed within their cultural norms, backed up by a sense of righteousness or guilt as they obey or not obey those norms. And the righteousness even misses the point, because they haven't really learned the self control they think they have at all.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Sethbag

[Sethbag]

On 12/15/2017 at 3:14 PM, rongo said:

Some actually do live a Proclamation on the Family life. I've shared this before, but this is a blog of a gay man (who has been gay his whole life) who married a girl from my previous ward (I sent her out as a missionary). 

http://beingoutisin.blogspot.com/

They aren't the only people I know who are making this work. I know men and women whose testimony and commitment to their covenants is the most important thing in their lives. 

And I have a relative who fathered five children before finally coming out as gay, leading to the divorce from his wife, breaking up the eternal marriage she thought she had and leaving her nearly 50 years old and with the unenviable task of being a single Mormon lady with five kids looking for a Peter Priesthood who isn't either a batpoop crazy 50-year old virgin or else someone possibly damaged by his own nasty divorce. It's terrible to say this, but her best chances are to find some guy whose wife died somehow.

That's not to say this relative had to finally step out of the closet as a gay dude. I mean, he could have stayed in the marriage he probably never should have entered in the first place, and just sucked it up and been unhappy for the rest of his life. In the end I don't judge that situation either way. I just don't know the situation well enough. But I do know that even the church no longer counsels gay men to marry a woman and father kids with her as a way of turning them straight anymore. It just ends way, way too often with unbelievable sadness and family tragedy. Yeah, the guy in that blog may be pulling it off for now, but that doesn't mean that's really a good idea. FSM only knows what it's like to be that guy's wife, knowing the whole time that no matter how many times they may or may not have partaken in that spiritual practice of the power of procreation, he's just not that into her. What a life. A woman deserves to know that the guy she marries not only adores her, but is insanely attracted to her, and ready and eager to please her in all ways, including that way.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Sethbag

[Sethbag]

On 12/15/2017 at 3:06 PM, rongo said:

I thought we were talking about masturbation? Where are you getting sexual orientation from?

I guess, depending on the sexual orientation, and whether or not you believe Spencer W. Kimball, from masturbation, natch. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Sethbag said:

Hey guys. Sorry it's a month later. I'm not against people exercising self control. I agree that the ability to exercise some self control is important for peoples' success in life. But not all self control is created equal. And self control that is being "taught" by scaring people with the concept of the Creator of the Universe having sweated an extra drop of blood (I'm being half metaphorical here - work with me) in agony because they slipped up and did something that the church ambiguously sorts into a category of sin that their own scriptures rate as second only to cold-blooded murder is not on a par with people learning, say, to do their homework, or go to bed on time (something I still struggle with) so that they can be healthy, get some exercise, not procrastinate things that they need to be doing, etc.

One of my own little pet theories is that a lot of things that churches teach as taboos ultimately have origins in things that in many cases it actually makes some sense to regulate or at least treat seriously. Uncontrolled reproduction, for instance, can be quite a scourge on society and individuals. So societies found it important to encourage some sort of order in how members of the society reproduced. I get that. What I don't like is when lies are invented and then held over people like a club in order to get them to adhere to the expected norm. And a lot of societies end up taking things too far and making taboo things that are actually ridiculous. The examples from various religions and societies throughout history would be legion.

A good example of where I agree with the ultimate intent of a norm, but radically disagree with its representation, is the idea of tabacco and alcohol consumption. Alcohol can indeed be very destructive. It's not universally destructive, but it can be destructive. I think it's definitely a topic about which some care and thought should be taken. After being scared all of Mormon life about what would happen to me if I ever started drinking, I discovered that in my particular case it's more or less a non issue, as I have zero problems drinking responsibly, and in fact often go weeks or even months at a time between any consumption at all, and when I do, it's well controlled and safely done. On the other hand, I know some people to whom I am quite close who actually are struggling with some very serious alcohol-related problems, including consuming far too much, with little ability in their ability to self regulate. Thankfully they haven't caused any really serious damage yet, though perhaps some life expectancies have been lowered fractionally. But it's definitely something I worry about. Were the Mormons right? No. They're right that alcohol can cause a lot of problems. They aren't right that alcohol is evil because an invisible bogeyman named Satan is out there tempting people with it, and that God thinks it's a sin for anyone to ever consume any of it, and that if anyone does, it's a sin that Jesus bled and died for, and requires some repentance. 

The reason I have such a problem with myths and fair tales being used to underpin a practice which otherwise would have some fairly sound basis is that when people discover the fairy tale nature of the prohibitions, they can often make some very bad choices.

I'll give you a prime example. I know of quite a few ex-Mormons who, as soon as they learned that the whole "God hates alcohol" thing was actually a big lie, seemed to think that instead of that there were no problems or no reasons not to party like it's 1599. So they started drinking recklessly, to excess, smoking drugs, etc. Had good reasons that don't rely on fairy tales been taught to them on why they need to take alcohol seriously and make carefully considered decisions, they might well have avoided a lot of these problems. The contrary view, that they should have just held onto the fairy tales, simply holds no water with me. I prefer the truth, and think it's better in the end, because the truth isn't ever going to suddenly be discovered to be some mind game "The Man" pulled on them for so many years.

I was never told those "fairy tales."  Just never got interested in booze, cigarettes, and drugs.  Seemed like a waste of money and time.  Of course, Joseph Smith and Jesus drank wine, and may have gotten tipsy.  I see no sin in that -- at least not before the WOW became obligatory.  Then the concept of a holy naziritic vow comes into play (Judges 13:3-24).  Such is always optional, just as being Mormon is optional.

2 hours ago, Sethbag said:

Tobacco is another one. There are tons and tons of good reasons not to smoke. It doesn't require any more than that. Making tobacco taboo because it makes God cry and is a sin isn't the answer. Discussions of addiction and all those gross photos of cancerous 3-pack-a-day smoker lungs from the autopsy photos really are all that should be required, and then let people make their decisions and live with the consequences. Dissuading them with guilt, instead of common sense and an accurate concept of their own mortality is, in the end, a wrong-headed move. Because that guilt depends on their faith in a certain set of beliefs which, if they ever lose, may well undercut their beliefs that something is even a bad idea at all. I've totally seen this, with people I know, firsthand.

I've totally seen ex-Mormons who acted like a tightly coiled spring from lifetimes of guilt-based prohibitions, who as soon as the clamps holding the spring tight were released, just exploded and went off the rails. It doesn't have to be that way.

Life is not easy, and it isn't supposed to be.  It wouldn't be worth living if it were a piece of cake, right?  I've seen the soft underbelly of society up close and personal, and I feel compassion for those who have lost their way.  However, I see no point in condemning the sinful nature of people who have drinking, smoking, and drug habits.  What one normally does is to help them see that it isn't so much sin as a danger to their health and psyche.  That is why former addicts are the best therapists for addicts.

2 hours ago, Sethbag said:

With regards to masturbation, I just think it's a total non-issue. I completely don't agree that a person will be happier in their marriage, or more successful in life, or more healthy (though perhaps a bit less hirsute in the palms :-) ) if they never masturbate. I think that whatever negatives some may attempt to put forward about masturbation are dwarfed by the problems created by stacking guilt and the concept of sin and Godly disapprobation on it......................................

Suggesting to people that they learn and exercise self-control, for perfectly good and valid reasons, is not the same thing as heaping guilt upon them for perfectly normal activities that really haven't got much to do with anything in the end.

Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, etc., all suggest that learning self-control is a way of attaining spiritual mastery.  Silence, fasting, meditation, self-flagellation, etc., are merely vehicles to that end.  And those who have attained such mastery are called upon to help others to do likewise.  I don't understand the guilt part of that.

2 hours ago, Sethbag said:

A perfect example of this is really fat people who have no self-control over what they eat, but still proudly bear a temple recommend because they obey the WoW by declining to commit the egregious sin of drinking coffee or tea, or smoking a cigarette, or enjoying an occasional cold brewskie. Sure, they'll probably die of a heart attack when they're 50, and prove to be a massive drain on the health care system as their bodies wear out prematurely because of all that extra body fat, but at least they aren't guilty of adding a few drops of blood to Jesus's torture by the Romans, or his voluntary profound malaise in the Garden of Gethsemane, amirite?

Perhaps you are right in describing your own upbringing, but this sounds very foreign to me, never having been exposed to that nonsense.  As far as I can tell, Jesus suffers a set amount of infinite pain, which is not enhanced or diminished by our behavior.  Indeed, it would be absurd to make that assumption.

2 hours ago, Sethbag said:

They haven't learned self control. What they've learned is minimal obedience to the letter of the law as prescribed within their cultural norms, backed up by a sense of righteousness or guilt as they obey or not obey those norms. And the righteousness even misses the point, because they haven't really learned the self control they think they have at all.

Wow, sounds almost like the horrors of guilt visited upon a kid by a Yiddishe Mama.  Never had to deal with that from my Mom & Dad.  They didn't believe in guilt-trips. In fact, I didn't have any friends who seemed guilt-ridden when I grew up.  However, I have lived in the Jewish community as an adult, and am aware of Portnoy's Complaint.  So some kids are indeed victimized in this way, and maybe that is why I don't have as much ambition as the Jewish guys.  Maybe I needed a guilt trip to become a high achiever !! 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was never told those "fairy tales."  Just never got interested in booze, cigarettes, and drugs.  Seemed like a waste of money and time.  Of course, Joseph Smith and Jesus drank wine, and may have gotten tipsy.  I see no sin in that -- at least not before the WOW became obligatory.  Then the concept of a holy naziritic vow comes into play (Judges 13:3-24).  Such is always optional, just as being Mormon is optional.

Life is not easy, and it isn't supposed to be.  It wouldn't be worth living if it were a piece of cake, right?  I've seen the soft underbelly of society up close and personal, and I feel compassion for those who have lost their way.  However, I see no point in condemning the sinful nature of people who have drinking, smoking, and drug habits.  What one normally does is to help them see that it isn't so much sin as a danger to their health and psyche.  That is why former addicts are the best therapists for addicts.

Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, etc., all suggest that learning self-control is a way of attaining spiritual mastery.  Silence, fasting, meditation, self-flagellation, etc., are merely vehicles to that end.  And those who have attained such mastery are called upon to help others to do likewise.  I don't understand the guilt part of that.

Perhaps you are right in describing your own upbringing, but this sounds very foreign to me, never having been exposed to that nonsense.  As far as I can tell, Jesus suffers a set amount of infinite pain, which is not enhanced or diminished by our behavior.  Indeed, it would be absurd to make that assumption.

Wow, sounds almost like the horrors of guilt visited upon a kid by a Yiddishe Mama.  Never had to deal with that from my Mom & Dad.  They didn't believe in guilt-trips. In fact, I didn't have any friends who seemed guilt-ridden when I grew up.  However, I have lived in the Jewish community as an adult, and am aware of Portnoy's Complaint.  So some kids are indeed victimized in this way, and maybe that is why I don't have as much ambition as the Jewish guys.  Maybe I needed a guilt trip to become a high achiever !! 

Just curious about this statement. I know it's something that is said and generally accepted as true, but why? Is an easy life a bad life? Is a hard life the only one worth living? Must things be difficult? Must God make things hard to test our faith? Why?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just curious about this statement. I know it's something that is said and generally accepted as true, but why? Is an easy life a bad life? Is a hard life the only one worth living? Must things be difficult? Must God make things hard to test our faith? Why?

 My personal view is that God does not make life hard, but that life is hard by nature, and that the challenges we overcome just naturally strengthen us.  We do this through a larger community, and we could not do it otherwise -- through the built-in altruism of our species.  Ambition and achievement seem to come naturally to all of us, at least to some degree, and some make the most of those opportunities.

Why, for example, does a kid play sports and allow himself to be coached in order to become better at it, perhaps going on into professional sport?  Why would anyone go out and run a marathon or half-marathon?  Why would someone want to join a SEAL team?  Life is a test, and we seem inured to it.  Some of us take the hard way, some the easy way.  Many have no choice, and their difficulties are overwhelming.  Life is not fair.

Faith is a test, but it is optional, and (according to Paul) they who have not the Law are a law unto themselves, i.e., they are judged by their own cultural norms.  Only a perfectly fair judge could take the correct measure of each of us at the Final Judgment.  I believe that He will be kind and generous.