Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I'm just now getting more into hearing all of it - and even though he didn't 'go all the way" he did make out with his now wife WHILE he was a missionary, and WHILE she was 16!  Yikes!

That definitely puts a new "yuck" spin on it.  And lessens the "we shouldn't have been taught to feel ashamed of what we did before marriage" spin that he seemed to be putting on that part of his life**

(**if that's what he's doing.  I haven't watched the interview and am only going off of how that section was described to me).

[Calm]

opps

Edited February 6, 2024 by Calm

[ttribe]

On 2/4/2024 at 9:47 AM, Teancum said:

That is true.  @ttribeis not a fan.  That's ok.

Truth.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I'm just now getting more into hearing all of it - and even though he didn't 'go all the way" he did make out with his now wife WHILE he was a missionary, and WHILE she was 16!  Yikes!

Yea that was a bit icky.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

Truth.

😁

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I'm just now getting more into hearing all of it - and even though he didn't 'go all the way" he did make out with his now wife WHILE he was a missionary, and WHILE she was 16!  Yikes!

Yea that was a bit icky.

I am curious about this response.  If Mr. Jones published this admission while still identifying as a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint and current bishop, would you call what he has apparently admitted doing a missionary ("though he didn't 'go all the way' he did make out with his now wife WHILE he was a missionary, and WHILE she was 16") "a bit icky"?

Or would you call is something more serious?

I rather wish people were less inclined to go about publicly airing their private lives and inviting commentary and critique and judgment.  Perhaps 'twould be better to privately repent, reconcile, make amends, etc.  Or, if the individual feels no "repentance" is necessary, to simply proceed in life and generally keep their private lives private.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yea that was a bit icky.

He does seem a bit on the haughty side, lol. And was a MMA fighter, so I'm gathering he doesn't hold back much on things. But maybe like @MaestrophilI think mentions, his testimony wasn't as strong or even the testimony of mission rules weren't all that important. 

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious about this response.  If Mr. Jones published this admission while still identifying as a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint and current bishop, would you call what he has apparently admitted doing a missionary ("though he didn't 'go all the way' he did make out with his now wife WHILE he was a missionary, and WHILE she was 16") "a bit icky"?

Or would you call is something more serious?

I rather wish people were less inclined to go about publicly airing their private lives and inviting commentary and critique and judgment.  Perhaps 'twould be better to privately repent, reconcile, make amends, etc.  Or, if the individual feels no "repentance" is necessary, to simply proceed in life and generally keep their private lives private.

Thanks,

-Smac

I personally find it refreshing when people are open about past transgressions.  It de-stigmatizes the idea of making mistakes and helps youth understand that things can be overcome and that our mistakes don't need to define us.   I found it incredibly helpful to hear other people open up about their addiction recovery experience.  It helpful to know that other people were in the same boat I was in and that things can and do get better.  It certainly requires an amount of bravery to be vulnerable and open, but I have found that it usually builds more trust than it does "judgment".   

I personally don't see anything "icky" about an 18 year old making out with a 16 year old.  When I was 15 I had a 17 year old girl friend.  Nothing weird about it.  2 years difference is nothing, even at that age.  

The only problem that I see is that he violated missionary guidelines and code of conduct. While it shouldn't have been done, I don't find it particularly icky.   Where was his companion though?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I personally find it refreshing when people are open about past transgressions. 

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  I readily admit that I am a sinner, but I don't think it helps to publish to the world the various particulars of my errors and omissions.  As Oscar Wilde put it: "{P}ublic and private life are different things. They have different laws, and move on different lines."

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It de-stigmatizes the idea of making mistakes and helps youth understand that things can be overcome and that our mistakes don't need to define us.

I think there are plenty of ways to achieve those ends without publishing private and embarrassing details to the world, particularly when they are of a sexual nature.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I found it incredibly helpful to hear other people open up about their addiction recovery experience.  It helpful to know that other people were in the same boat I was in and that things can and do get better.  It certainly requires an amount of bravery to be vulnerable and open, but I have found that it usually builds more trust than it does "judgment".

I personally don't see anything "icky" about an 18 year old making out with a 16 year old. 

Not even when the 18-year-old (assuming he was that age, and not 19 or 20) is currently serving as a missionary for the Church?  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The only problem that I see is that he violated missionary guidelines and code of conduct.

I think that's a pretty big problem.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

While it shouldn't have been done, I don't find it particularly icky. 

For me, it's less about the age than the position he was in.  He was a missionary.  He was a representative of the Church.  He was in a position of trust.  He engaged in conduct to gratify his urges with a 16-year-old girl, with whom he would not have had any association but for his status as a missionary.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Where was his companion though?

A reasonable question.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I personally find it refreshing when people are open about past transgressions.  It de-stigmatizes the idea of making mistakes and helps youth understand that things can be overcome and that our mistakes don't need to define us.   I found it incredibly helpful to hear other people open up about their addiction recovery experience.  It helpful to know that other people were in the same boat I was in and that things can and do get better.  It certainly requires an amount of bravery to be vulnerable and open, but I have found that it usually builds more trust than it does "judgment".   

I personally don't see anything "icky" about an 18 year old making out with a 16 year old.  When I was 15 I had a 17 year old girl friend.  Nothing weird about it.  2 years difference is nothing, even at that age.  

The only problem that I see is that he violated missionary guidelines and code of conduct. While it shouldn't have been done, I don't find it particularly icky.   Where was his companion though?

Do we know how old he was at the time?  If he's around my age then he wouldn't have been serving as an 18 year old, but maybe he's a lot younger than I am.  I can't really tell from the pictures I've seen.  I know they changed the age in 2012.

I don't think the age difference is the yuck part personally (but if he was over 20 then the age difference is definitely on the creepy side).  Doing it while a missionary is more than a violation of guidelines to me.  That makes it sound like he didn't go to bed at 10:30 or played full court basketball.  Making out with someone on your mission is a violation of the calling. 

But if he was sharing it as an example of him having sinned and then repented, it's not a bad story.  It doesn't sound like that was why he was sharing it though.  What are your thoughts on why he shared it?  I haven't listened to him explain it in person.

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think there are plenty of ways to achieve those ends without publishing private and embarrassing details to the world, particularly when they are of a sexual nature.  

Obviously, one need not go into graphic details, but the general nature of the sin (porn, for example) should not be seen as "embarrassing" or shame inducing.  It is that cultural stigma/embarrassment that reinforces the problem by keeping people in isolation instead of reaching out for support.  Understanding that "there is no sin that is uncommon among men (1 Corinth 10:13)", is in a way healing.  More openness reinforces that healing idea and brings people out of isolation.  

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For me, it's less about the age than the position he was in. 

That was my point, I agree.  The fact that age was even included, and the word "icky" associated with it, I thought people were commenting more on the fact that an 18-year-old made out with a 16-year-old.  I could be misreading that. 

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He engaged in conduct to gratify his urges with a 16-year-old girl, 

I'm not sure why the age keeps being emphasized unless it is about the age.

They were teenagers, 2 years apart.  They did what is completely normal and non-transgressive among teenagers in any other setting.   Dating or kissing isn't really a sin for teenagers to do - it is a policy violation for missionaries only.  It is only a rule to help keep kids focused on their mission.  He lost his focus, that is all.  He made a mistake; it sounds like he recognizes that.  Nothing to be embarrassed about.

 

Edited February 6, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we know how old he was at the time?  If he's around my age then he wouldn't have been serving as an 18 year old, but maybe he's a lot younger than I am.  I can't really tell from the pictures I've seen.  I know they changed the age in 2012.

I don't think the age difference is the yuck part personally (but if he was over 20 then the age difference is definitely on the creepy side).  Doing it while a missionary is more than a violation of guidelines to me.  That makes it sound like he didn't go to bed at 10:30 or played full court basketball.  Making out with someone on your mission is a violation of the calling. 

But if he was sharing it as an example of him having sinned and then repented, it's not a bad story.  It doesn't sound like that was why he was sharing it though.  What are your thoughts on why he shared it?  I haven't listened to him explain it in person.

That's true.  He could have been 19 or 20.  

I haven't listened to that part yet.  From what is being shared it sounds like it was in the context of unnecessary shame for violations.  I agree with him on that, if that is the case.  Sure, it was a mistake.  But the stigma and shame of that kind of violation on a mission stick with a person.  I know several people who have been embarrassed to tell me that they met on their missions - they didn't even do anything on their missions to violate the rules, but there is that stigma.  It is all too much to me and I agree that these kinds of cultural/policy "sins" need not be shame inducing.   The fact that they ended up marrying shows that it wasn't just some casual "gratify his urges" type of thing.   It was a distraction from what he should have been doing/focusing on, but it wasn't all superficial it seems. 

Edited February 6, 2024 by pogi

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

they didn't even do anything on their missions to violate the rules, but there is that stigma. 

Times must have changed, I have known several couples who have bragged about it, including my in-laws who met in Australia.  She used to say she chased him halfway around the world until he caught her.  I can’t, however, remember when they actually started having a relationship, if before she immigrated or afterwards.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I think there are plenty of ways to achieve those ends without publishing private and embarrassing details to the world, particularly when they are of a sexual nature. 

Obviously, one need not go into graphic details, but the general nature of the sin (porn, for example) should not be seen as "embarrassing" or shame inducing. 

Okay.  Is this a ubiquitous rule?  Is there any misconduct that is, or is likely to be construed as, "'embarrassing' or shame inducing"?

Moreover, oversharing is not limited to "sins," as it (oversharing) can substantially affect family members as well.  See, e.g., this sad article about (former Latter-day Saint) Heather Armstrong:

Quote

For Heather Armstrong, blogging was never just a way to explore what it means to enter motherhood. It was a way to cope with the exhaustion of sleepless nights, endless diaper changes and the seemingly nonstop cries of a newborn. In the thick of the joy and confusion of being a new mom, she turned to her keyboard to cope with the challenges.

"It helped me process the fact that it was extraordinarily difficult," she said in an interview last fall. "I had no idea what I was doing. I didn't have friends who had babies. My mom was not in town."
...

It wasn't long before Armstrong's blog gained millions of views, and with that popularity came the opportunity to profit off the content. It started with product placements with her kids, then book deals. She was hailed by Forbes as one of the most influential women in media and even appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

Yet, despite this success, Armstrong admitted it wasn't always easy being an influencer. Armstrong died by suicide in May after a lengthy battle with depression and addiction — struggles she was open about with her legions of followers.

"The scrutiny from being very public online is extraordinarily difficult to deal with," she said last fall. "At times, it's excruciating."

By putting her family on the internet, Armstrong had not only exposed herself to this attention, but also her children, who were featured in her content. Her daughter Leta Elise Armstrong, now 19 years old, says these blog posts affected her, too.

Leta remembers reading her mom's posts sometimes and realizing that things were often embellished for readers. "I was a little frustrated because, like, I have all this content being put of me online and sometimes it's not even accurate," she says. "It's just embarrassing."

And this has led to some anxiety. As she's applying to jobs and internships, Leta's also thinking about how this digital footprint will follow her. "I think it's scary to think that, like, I can be judged off of that."

• "'The scrutiny from being very public online is extraordinarily difficult to deal with,' she said last fall. 'At times, it's excruciating.'"'
• "By putting her family on the internet, Armstrong had not only exposed herself to this attention, but also her children, who were featured in her content. Her daughter Leta Elise Armstrong, now 19 years old, says these blog posts affected her, too."
• "Leta remembers reading her mom's posts sometimes and realizing that things were often embellished for readers. 'I was a little frustrated because, like, I have all this content being put of me online and sometimes it's not even accurate,' she says. 'It's just embarrassing.'"

And here (same article) :

Quote

Take Lou, who for privacy reasons asked to be identified only by their first name. When they were a kid, they were used to strangers reaching out to them on the internet. That's because their mom wrote about her children in an online forum, where she would share information about her life — including posts on motherhood and, consequently, her children.

Adults armed with in-depth knowledge about Lou's family and the events going on in their life would message Lou online. Sometimes they offered kind words and emotional support. Other times they sent messages that crossed the line into flirtation. This kind of interaction might sound scary for a child, but it was all too normal for Lou, whose life had been shared online for as long as they could remember.

Like Heather Armstrong, Lou's mom took to the internet to find community. But while this may have brought catharsis for their mom, Lou was often left troubled by the stories shared online for all to read.

"There was just this twilight zone kind of feeling. It was crazy-making. I felt nuts all the time," says Lou.

Peers and teachers at school knew when their parents had been fighting, and, in some cases, had access to intimate or embarrassing details about Lou's home life. To Lou, these stories told from their mom's perspective were often exaggerated or misconstrued for their mother's audience. But the online version of Lou didn't just live on the internet — it became a part of Lou's identity in real life, one they couldn't escape.

"It's not even a fictional character that I'm dealing with and unpacking. It's this version of me that my mom's publicized and made very permanent. It's feeling like a bird in a cage with the mirror," Lou describes.

When we reached out to Lou's mom, Jody, for a response, she said that until two years ago, she had no idea Lou had any issue with what she shared about them. Jody's last name is also being withheld from this story for privacy reasons.

• "Lou's mom took to the internet to find community. But while this may have brought catharsis for their mom, Lou was often left troubled by the stories shared online for all to read."
• "Peers and teachers at school knew when their parents had been fighting, and, in some cases, had access to intimate or embarrassing details about Lou's home life."
• "{Lou's mom said} she had no idea Lou had any issue with what she shared about them."

And here: Kids are punishing parents who embarrass them on social media

Quote

Kids are parenting their moms and dads about oversharing on social media.

A post on reddit is going viral after a middle schooler pleaded for advice on how to stop his mom’s constant invasions of privacy through Facebook posts about his life.
...

Parents are sharing every proud moment of their babies’ lives. But what happens when those babies grow up, go online, and see that their entire life exists on the web already?

“Ever since I was born, my mom has posted literally every aspect of my life on her Facebook … If we get in a fight, she’s on FB asking for advice,” the reddit post reads.

Though the poster says they asked their mom to stop, she continues. “ I can’t talk to my own mother for fear she’ll post it on social media. I’m her child, not her dog, and I’d like to be treated as a human being.”
...
Trevor, 25, from Westford, MA, knows what it’s like to have a mom that exploits his life for likes. “[Facebook] is like a blog to her. She’ll write walls of text all the time about anything that’s happening, rambling on and on,” he tells The Post. His mom has been posting one to two statuses a day like this for over a decade.

 

When he was in high school, Trevor tried to get his mom to stop. “She was like ‘Just get over it. It’s fine, who cares if people know?,’ ” Trevor says.

Now an adult, Trevor is still constantly untagging himself from his mom’s “embarrassing” posts and photos. He’s since become a “closed door” to his mom and doesn’t tell her anything personal. “If you give her anything, you’ll see a three-page post about it,” he says.

And here: What To Do When Your Parents Are Embarrassing You Online

Quote

A few years ago, a woman we’ll call Ashleigh, who requested that BuzzFeed News not use her real name, decided to have some intimate photos taken of her, intended for a private audience, her then-boyfriend. One of the photos, a headshot, was fairly innocuous, so Ashleigh made it her profile picture. Eventually, she removed the picture — but not before her mother saw it.

“She loves it and will make it part of almost any post about me. Every few weeks, she makes it her cover photo,” Ashleigh told BuzzFeed News. “What I know that she doesn’t know is that it was part of a boudoir shoot. It makes me so uncomfortable every time she puts it up there.” Her mom recently posted a status about one of Ashleigh’s Strava runs, with the sultry pic alongside it.

Instead of confronting her mother, Ashleigh said she would rather “just pretend she doesn’t exist online.”
...
Actor and Gooper Gwyneth Paltrow inadvertently sparked a debate about privacy when she posted a selfie together with her daughter, Apple Martin, to Instagram. “Mom we have discussed this. You may not post anything without my consent,” Apple commented on the pic. Paltrow defended herself by saying her daughter’s ski mask–obscured face couldn’t be seen, seemingly missing the point that, perhaps, Apple doesn’t want to live in the public eye in the same way her mom does. Blogger Christie Tate came under fire after her 9-year-old daughter discovered years of personal posts and pictures of her on Google, and asked Tate to remove the blogs. Tate ultimately refused, and then wrote a widely shared essay about the saga in the Washington Post.

And here: 32 Times Parents Shared TMI About Their Kids On Social Media

Quote

Parents can ignite embarrassment that burns our faces hotter than the summer sun, brings our heart rates near exploding, and makes us wish we were born with a genetic mutation to become invisible. And that's WITHOUT the internet.

Hand them a social media account or two — with hard-to-navigate privacy features and never-fully-explained social norms — and you're on red alert for disaster.

We asked the BuzzFeed Community to tell us about a time when their parents blew up their spot on social media. We got stories involving TMI, spying, and a cringe-inducing case of accidental liking. (Oh, and that's without the drama surrounding weddings.)

Here are 32 times when what your parents did online made you cringe.

• 1. My parents posted on Facebook that I would be missing school because I had diarrhea. —cheyfaye914
• 2. When I was in seventh grade, my mother told my family I was a lesbian. Not being a lesbian, I had to call my entire family to un–come out. —cbass2019
• 3. My mom posted on Facebook that I was pregnant.
• 4. My poor stepdaughter's biological mom made a cringeworthy post on Facebook that my stepdaughter “got her first period.”
• ...
• 13. I found out that my grandmother passed away because my father posted about it on Facebook.
• ...
• 15. I posted a pic with some cleavage and my mom commented, "Since when do u have boobs?" —@xmialgx
• ...
• 18. My mother posted about my miscarriage on Facebook, without my permission, two days after it occurred.
• 19. My father had posted a vile photoshopped picture that basically said, “All people of the Muslim faith should die.”
• ...
• 23. On my way back from deployment, my mom posted my flight time, where I was coming from, and how many people were with me. This is a huuuuuge violation.
• ...
• 31. I had just gotten a mastectomy, after grueling months of chemo. Literally four hours later, my mom took a picture of me sleeping in the torture device — I was wrapped in post-surgery with my drains on display — and posted it on Facebook.

Are people who are sharing (oversharing) online giving these sorts of considerations sufficient attention?

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is that cultural stigma/embarrassment that reinforces the problem by keeping people in isolation instead of reaching out for support.  Understanding that "there is no sin that is uncommon among men (1 Corinth 10:13)", is in a way healing.  More openness reinforces that healing idea and brings people out of isolation.

I will give some consideration to what you are saying.  

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

For me, it's less about the age than the position he was in. 

That was my point, I agree.  The fact that age was even included, and the word "icky" associated with it, I thought people were commenting more on the fact that an 18-year-old made out with a 16-year-old.  I could be misreading that. 

I'm not sure why the age keeps being emphasized unless it is about the age.

They were teenagers, 2 years apart.  They did what is completely normal and non-transgressive among teenagers in any other setting.   Dating or kissing isn't really a sin for teenagers to do - it is a policy violation for missionaries only.  It is only a rule to help keep kids focused on their mission.  He lost his focus, that is all.  He made a mistake; it sounds like he recognizes that.  Nothing to be embarrassed about.

I think it was pretty serious error.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Times must have changed, I have known several couples who have bragged about it, including my in-laws who met in Australia.  She used to say she chased him halfway around the world until he caught her.  I can’t, however, remember when they actually started having a relationship, if before she immigrated or afterwards.

I also know quite a few who met on their missions.

I also personally know someone who became pregnant soon after she was baptized, by the missionary who baptized her while he was still serving in her area.  They went on to get married (last I heard they were still together but that was more than a decade ago so I couldn't say for sure) but that doesn't mean the initial act wasn't more about urges than love.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That's true.  He could have been 19 or 20.  

I haven't listened to that part yet.  From what is being shared it sounds like it was in the context of unnecessary shame for violations.  I agree with him on that, if that is the case.  Sure, it was a mistake.  But the stigma and shame of that kind of violation on a mission stick with a person.  I know several people who have been embarrassed to tell me that they met on their missions - they didn't even do anything on their missions to violate the rules, but there is that stigma.  It is all too much to me and I agree that these kinds of cultural/policy "sins" need not be shame inducing.   The fact that they ended up marrying shows that it wasn't just some casual "gratify his urges" type of thing.   It was a distraction from what he should have been doing/focusing on, but it wasn't all superficial it seems. 

That they got married eventually doesn't mean anything about how it started out (not saying that to be snooty, just speaking from personal experience of a few people who got together based solely on hormones but decided they actually liked each other after the fact and stayed together).

I agree with you that sins should not be about shame.  But they should very much be about regret, and humility, and godly sorrow, and brokenheartedness.  Feeling bad about messing up is a good thing.

(We'll have to agree to disagree that making out while on your mission is just a transgression of a cultural/policy)

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do we know how old he was at the time?  If he's around my age then he wouldn't have been serving as an 18 year old, but maybe he's a lot younger than I am.  I can't really tell from the pictures I've seen.  I know they changed the age in 2012.

I don't think the age difference is the yuck part personally (but if he was over 20 then the age difference is definitely on the creepy side).  Doing it while a missionary is more than a violation of guidelines to me.  That makes it sound like he didn't go to bed at 10:30 or played full court basketball.  Making out with someone on your mission is a violation of the calling. 

But if he was sharing it as an example of him having sinned and then repented, it's not a bad story.  It doesn't sound like that was why he was sharing it though.  What are your thoughts on why he shared it?  I haven't listened to him explain it in person.

Listening now and they discuss this around the 51 minute mark. He had been out 21 months when he started visiting her home on "p" days. And his companion broke the rules and wasn't with him 24/7 at their home I guess, and that's when he'd maybe make out or give her a kiss.

He got extra close to her parents because at 21 months in his dad wrote and told him he and his mom were divorcing with hardly an explanation. So I think he was vulnerable and felt like her family was like family to him. He even told her he would come back and marry her. I believe he was probably 20 or so. Thinking he probably went on his mission before the 2012 age change, so he may have been 21. 

ETA: The heavy make-out session was after his mission when he moved to Mississippi and lived at her parents. Kept listening and he mentions this around 59 minutes in. They didn't have sex until after marriage, but felt shame that they fooled around before their temple marriage. Then after they were married, they had a daughter that died at birth, they knew about 5 months in the pregnancy that she had a birth defect that could cause death. And they say that they felt guilt and shame, thinking that fooling around caused this to happen. But I think listening is much better than my poor skills of remembering/writing about it. Also, he mentions his mission was over in 2003.

Edited February 6, 2024 by Tacenda

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's true.  He could have been 19 or 20.  

I haven't listened to that part yet.  From what is being shared it sounds like it was in the context of unnecessary shame for violations.  I agree with him on that, if that is the case.  Sure, it was a mistake.  But the stigma and shame of that kind of violation on a mission stick with a person. 

How much of this "shame" was self-inflicted?  I suspect pretty much all of it.  The Church isn't into public shaming or shunning.  The bishop does not announce so-and-so's confessed-to transgressions from the pulpit.

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know several people who have been embarrassed to tell me that they met on their missions - they didn't even do anything on their missions to violate the rules, but there is that stigma. 

That's news to me.  This is a fairly common narrative, with the proviso that the couple did not do . . . what the couple in Mississippi did.

For example, one of my wife's favorite stories about her grandfather, Arthur, was when he was serving as a missionary in West Virginia just after World War II.  He entered the chapel on his first Sunday in a new area, and was observed by several girls, all siblings, in their late teens.  One of the girls, Betty, turned to her sisters and said "Hands off, girls.  He's mine."  She thereafter started to write to him after he moved to a new area, and continued to do so until he returned and proposed to her.  It's a sweet and charming story, with nary a hint of licentious impropriety by a young man honorably serving as a missionary and representative of his faith.

When I was in the MTC, two of our instructors were dating each other (they had met on their missions in Taiwan).  One day the sister dropped a hint to us that the brother was dragging his feet and nervous about proposing to her.  We all dove into our scriptures.  When the brother came to teach us later that day, and when he asked us to share scriptures that we thought were worthwhile, we were prepared with offerings of a particular bent: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24), "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Cor. 7:9), "Marriage is honourable in all."  (Hebrews 13:4).  We had a grand time, and the brother took it in good humor (and he later married the sister).

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is all too much to me and I agree that these kinds of cultural/policy "sins" need not be shame inducing.

I agree.  Much shame is self-inflicted.  And oversharing of private information to the entire world creates a host of potential problems, for the individual and his family.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Is this a ubiquitous rule?  Is there any misconduct that is, or is likely to be construed as, "'embarrassing' or shame inducing"?

There is no rule.  I am responding to your comment about how you wish people would keep their past transgressions private.  Of course, one should use discretion knowing that making oneself vulnerable makes oneself...vulnerable, but I don't think it is generally good advice to hush people from sharing. 

It is unfortunate that there are people out there who take advantage of that vulnerability to shame.  Little by little, I think culture can change as we open up more as a society.  Stigmas will start to fall and there will be fewer people who are triggered to attack people who are more open.  That is my belief and personal experience through addiction recovery. 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2024 by pogi

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Listening now and they discuss this around the 51 minute mark. He had been out 21 months when he started visiting her home on "p" days. And his companion broke the rules and wasn't with him 24/7 at their home I guess, and that's when he'd maybe make out or give her a kiss.

He got extra close to her parents because at 21 months in his dad wrote and told him he and his mom were divorcing with hardly an explanation. So I think he was vulnerable and felt like her family was like family to him. He even told her he would come back and marry her. I believe he was probably 20 or so. Thinking he probably went on his mission before the 2012 age change, so he may have been 21. 

ETA: The heavy make-out session was after his mission when he moved to Mississippi and lived at her parents. Kept listening and he mentions this around 59 minutes in. They didn't have sex until after marriage, but felt shame that they fooled around before their temple marriage. Then after they were married, they had a daughter that died at birth, they knew about 5 months in the pregnancy that she had a birth defect that could cause death. And they say that they felt guilt and shame, thinking that fooling around caused this to happen. But I think listening is much better than my poor skills of remembering/writing about it. Also, he mentions his mission was over in 2003.

That would be such a difficult thing to go through.  

[Tacenda]

My husband and Nick have two things in common. One is they both went to the same high school, Alta High. And they both went to the Jackson Mississippi mission.  But their age difference is about 21 years apart. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How much of this "shame" was self-inflicted?  I suspect pretty much all of it.  The Church isn't into public shaming or shunning.  The bishop does not announce so-and-so's confessed-to transgressions from the pulpit.

They will not call a person out by name, but shaming has been common practice in the church...pushing people into isolation.  Especially noted in priesthood sessions.   Some may be more resilient than others to such messages, but it is still an external source that did the shaming.  The church has corrected their shaming behavior some, but I still see it.   Drawing the line is one thing, but shaming is a whole other thing that leaders were known to do.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That's news to me.  This is a fairly common narrative, with the proviso that the couple did not do . . . what the couple in Mississippi did.

Seriously?  That surprises me.  All of the talk about "locking your heart" and "if you look once, you're a man; if you look twice, you're not a missionary" messages has culturally led to much unnecessary embarrassment and feeling that a couple needs to explain themselves if they met on the mission in order to avoid speculation about what kind of a missionary they were.  

It honestly just happened to me yesterday. Not joking.  A couple came in for travel consultation and it was discovered that the couple both served in the country/mission they were going back to visit.  It was also the country I served in, but different mission.  The husband responded in a very abashed way that "yes...we met on our mission...", but then he emphasized emphatically that they never even served in the same area together and that nothing happened on the mission.  It was as if he felt compelled to assure me so that I wouldn't think badly about what kind of missionary (or non-missionary, if he looked twice!) he was.   I assured him that I wouldn't judge him either way and thought it was great how they met. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For example, one of my wife's favorite stories about her grandfather, Arthur, was when he was serving as a missionary in West Virginia just after World War II.  He entered the chapel on his first Sunday in a new area, and was observed by several girls, all siblings, in their late teens.  One of the girls, Betty, turned to her sisters and said "Hands off, girls.  He's mine."  She thereafter started to write to him after he moved to a new area, and continued to do so until he returned and proposed to her.  It's a sweet and charming story, with nary a hint of licentious impropriety by a young man honorably serving as a missionary and representative of his faith.

So, it's ok to carry on a romantic relationship while on the mission through letter, but if a simple kiss is exchanged it somehow tarnishes an otherwise charming love story and turns it into an embarrassment?  I think the embarrassment is largely cultural in these cases.   There are historically so many unhealthy expectations of missionaries that lead to unnecessary shame.  

 

Edited February 6, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

(We'll have to agree to disagree that making out while on your mission is just a transgression of a cultural/policy)

I know that agreeing to disagree usually signals an intent to end discussion, but if you are willing to answer I am curious to hear your perspective on this.  Is there some doctrine or revelatory commandment against it?  I am only aware of a  policy from the ol' missionary white book.  I am not saying that I disagree with the policy, but is it really categorically more than that?  

Edited February 7, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Times must have changed, I have known several couples who have bragged about it, including my in-laws who met in Australia.  She used to say she chased him halfway around the world until he caught her.  I can’t, however, remember when they actually started having a relationship, if before she immigrated or afterwards.

I guess so, I always remember it being taboo growing up.  

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am curious about this response.  If Mr. Jones published this admission while still identifying as a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint and current bishop, would you call what he has apparently admitted doing a missionary ("though he didn't 'go all the way' he did make out with his now wife WHILE he was a missionary, and WHILE she was 16") "a bit icky"?

Or would you call is something more serious?

I rather wish people were less inclined to go about publicly airing their private lives and inviting commentary and critique and judgment.  Perhaps 'twould be better to privately repent, reconcile, make amends, etc.  Or, if the individual feels no "repentance" is necessary, to simply proceed in life and generally keep their private lives private.

Thanks,

-Smac

My response would be the same either way.  A 20 year old missionary making out with a 16 year old member sounds kind of icky.  That is all.  Course I met my wife on my mission.  But I am not going to talk about anything related to that as far as details go in a public forum.  So I found that part sort of icky as well.  I don't think whether he is an exiting bishop or an active bishop.  I find it only a bit icky.  I don't find it extremely offensive or some serious sin.