Rebuttal to Callister’s Ensign article

Thanks for sharing that. I also listened to the link below the rebuttal of LDS therapist Dr. Jennifer, and found that to be a good podcast if anyone is interested.

I started the Callister and other things thread. I have spent the past week or so processing why I feel they way I do. I will put my larger response on the thread – It’s the thread entitled I feel like Samuel the Lamanite. On this – I agree with Curtis, I am glad to see the public rebuttals, especially by LDS psychologists. The rebuttal even made the Salt Lake News, in which two other active LDS counselors spoke out against the damage the talk creates. http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_9739.shtml

What I learned about myself with this is it’s time to put on my big girl boots. A thousand licensed active LDS therapists could refute this, but those rebuttals will never be heard or found by local leaders, unless they know the counselor personally. Only if an LDS church leader writes or verbalizes a rebuttal in the Ensign, at Conference or in a church wide broadcast – Callister’s talk will continue on. I have realized that’s what I wanted and can not have. What I have to do is stand my own ground, with no LDS church leader support to my position, and go forward. It’s going to take practice to know how to properly respond. I will likely fail the first couple of times, but with each fall, you get back up and try again.

Here we go.

mom3:

What I learned about myself with this is it’s time to put on my big girl boots. A thousand licensed active LDS therapists could refute this, but those rebuttals will never be heard or found by local leaders, unless they know the counselor personally. Only if an LDS church leader writes or verbalizes a rebuttal in the Ensign, at Conference or in a church wide broadcast – Callister’s talk will continue on. I have realized that’s what I wanted and can not have. What I have to do is stand my own ground, with no LDS church leader support to my position, and go forward. It’s going to take practice to know how to properly respond. I will likely fail the first couple of times, but with each fall, you get back up and try again.

I like to think that’s what this site is for in part. We need to be here to support each other in making the church work for people like us. Part of that is doing things like this. We can have a voice, even if we are as a lone reed in the desert.

No wonder the men of this church are addicted to pornography. No wonder the women of this church are depressed.

And this was given as a devotional at BYU-I! My husband can’t understand why I don’t want my kids, especially the girls, in the BYU system. He still doesn’t see why this kind of attitude is so messed up but he’s agreed with me that we can go ahead and let our Ensign subscription lapse (between this and the shilling of Deseret News).

No wonder the men of this church are addicted to pornography.

Incidentally, the rebuttal itself decrys our obsession with framing pornography use as an addiction. We are not alone in talking about it this way. At an SDA meeting the pastor was sharing how he had started noticing pornography around puberty. He showed pictures of a young boy of about 11-13. He talked about his church and family participation and then for dramatic effect said that “underneath this sweet exterior lurked a porn addict.”

Afterwards I asked him if he would characterize any porn use as an addiction or is he talking about addiction as a more clinical term. He told me that any activity that makes you feel guilty, is not good for you, and that you have trouble stopping would be an addiction in his mind.

Unfortunately, by this definition, most of the men in the world either are now or have been “addicted” to pornography. Youthful curiosity and expiramentation just became a character flaw.

The Mormon Therapist also did a Christian book review in which she makes similar pionts. I liked it especially because it covers the same ground as in the Callister rebuttal but it is less controversial because it is one step removed from Mormonism itself. For me it can be helpful to remove the church from the morality/modesty equation to determine how I personally feel about it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2013/11/book-review-sex-and-the-single-christian-girl.html

I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. I apologize.

This is an interesting topic. Brother Callister said, “So it is with God our Father—He needs to speak only once on the issue of morality, and that one declaration trumps all the opinions of the lower courts, whether uttered by psychologists, counselors, politicians, friends, parents, or would-be moralists of the day.”

I agree with that statement by itself. I agree with what the Lord said: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ But I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Natasha Helfer Parker wrote, “Callister singlehandedly wipes away all evidence-based ‘best practice’ methods or approaches, as well as any personal revelation for self or child…” I don’t think the so-called “best practice methods” of today apply when defining morality. Also, Bro. Callister’s words do not negate personal revelation because God can “speak only once on the issue of morality” to an individual regarding a specific situation and His words will trump all. See Nephi’s slaying of Laban as an example.

The problem is that Brother Callister’s remarks go beyond what the Lord has said, in my opinion. Some of his points are essentially “the opinions of the lower courts.” I am bothered by the reference to Corianton’s lecture and I wish everyone would stop quoting it out of context. We have no revelation indicating “The Lord condemns self-abuse” and I agree that using the term “self-abuse” isn’t cool.

I think Parker goes too far by saying, “Callister allows for no level of arousal or sexual thought outside of a spouse as a natural part of being a mortal human.” His phrasing allows for subconscious/unconscious thoughts and involuntary actions that stimulate. He said, “any conscious thoughts or voluntary actions that stimulate or result in the expression of the procreative power outside the marriage relationship are disapproved by the Lord.” However, I think he also goes too far because there’s no way a teenage male is going to grow up without having “conscious thoughts…that stimulate” and that’s the way God made it. While I think it’s a very good idea to avoid stuff that is “pornographic in any way,” Callister probably defines that too narrowly. Or maybe “any picture or narrative that feeds the carnal man within” is quite broad?

Overall, both Callister and Parker need to take a step back and moderate their words. I probably need to do the same. 🙂