- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Rob4Hope wrote:
I’ve heard references to the second handbook of instructions,…but that wasn’t available to many people–and it if was, it certainly wasn’t known.
So, I maintain my position. That’s good, I don’t think anyone here is trying to get you to deny the experiences you’ve had. This isn’t a test of wills.
Rob4Hope wrote:And, to tie this off,…you are all saying that message of sexuality being good and wholesome in marriage, for things other than strict procreation, have been clearly communicated consistently, and in balance with messages that tend to cause shame or concern, even anxiety, in youth before marriage in the quest to protect them?
It’s my opinion that nothing in this life is ever communicated clearly and consistently. I also feel like we’ve got a long way to go before we reach a balance, I feel the scales are currently tipped toward attitudes that create sexual dysfunction.
I see the inconsistencies and inconsistencies mean that some people are going to end up thinking sex is forever seen as something gross and others are going to end up with a healthier attitude. I currently feel like most people end up somewhere in the middle of the “prudish” and “healthy” extremes. To put it another way, if the world is on a scale from 1 to 10 as representing the extremes of attitudes towards sex the church with their views on chastity lives somewhere in the 1 to 5 subset. That means people in the middle of the reduced spectrum still have attitudes that probably trend towards the unhealthy. I hope that makes sense.
I also don’t believe that the experiences a person has depends 100% on what a person hears. Some of the experience is governed by what we bring to the table. I might sit in the exact same meeting as someone else but we walk away with two entirely different opinions. Just another piece to the puzzle.
I don’t really think it matters what city or what valley you live in. I attend an extremely conservative ward, 20 minutes down the road there’s an extremely liberal ward. People that live 5 minutes from one another have vastly different experiences in church… even in SLC.
That’s really my only point. People have different experiences.
There was a handbook about sex education in the home published maybe 20-30 years ago called ?Parents Guide or something that was really excellent. I’ve not been able to find it but what it comes down to is materials being provided but not publicized or used. Maybe some older posters might remember. I remember that booklet. We might even have it somewhere. I’ll look around when I have some free time. Rob4Hope wrote:Just curious about something. Where are you all hailing from? In right in the middle of SLC…The other thing is that tactics have and were used to save youth from sexual sin before their marriage–this was mentioned above. But, what messages–and I am talking like 10 years ago–were given to couples who were past youth and getting married? IN my knowledge, nothing came from GAs…nothing. The message was universally taught in the context of protecting youth, and not transitioning or teaching that sexuality was good and approved in marriage for things other than children…We all have different opinions. I also think that things differ in SLC culturally than outside in many ways…However,
going back to the original thread–this article about Pornography claims (and I agree with it to an extent) that arousal itself is shamed as unholy…And, to tie this off,…you are all saying that message of sexuality being good and wholesome in marriage, for things other than strict procreation, have been clearly communicated consistently, and in balance with messages that tend to cause shame or concern, even anxiety, in youth before marriage in the quest to protect them?I have lived in Utah my entire life other than my mission (currently in a suburb not that far from Salt Lake City) and I have always understood that sex is perfectly acceptable in marriage and not just for having children as far as the Church is concerned. In my experience, chastity was always taught simply as sexual experiences outside of marriage being strictly forbidden. I don’t think the comment from Tad Callister referred to in the OP article was really saying that arousal is a problem in general; it was in the context of talking specifically about pornography which as far as I can tell the Church views as a problem mostly because it involves being aroused by something other than your legal spouse.
Now as far as the idea of needing to worry about sex supposedly being unholy and impure even within marriage I don’t think this is something being actively taught or pushed by the Church in an official way recently and if it still exists in some cases it is mostly certain families and/or leaders doing this on their own possibly because they still take something Spencer W. Kimball or other leaders said decades ago very seriously sort of like the way there are some families in the Church that think it’s important to never watch R-rated movies while there are others that watch R-rated movies all the time but the Church isn’t going to deny them a temple recommend over this.
I do think some of the fear, shame, and ignorance surrounding sex in the Church does negatively impact many Church members even after they are married because it’s not necessarily an easy transition for some people to go from being such a scary taboo to even think about to suddenly being alright overnight. My guess is that the percentage of active LDS women that have rarely or never had an orgasm has to be significantly higher than average. For example, I heard an account of some LDS woman calling into Dr. Laura and her response to almost everything Dr. Laura suggested to try to improve her sex life was that it was against her religion and unfortunately I don’t think this kind of thing is that unusual in the Church at all.
My son summed it up this way on his marriage day: Quote:What was forbidden this morning is commanded tonight.
He said it with a laugh, but it illustrates the whole range of experience, I think.
It also is important to understand and acknowledge that this is nowhere close to an exclusively Mormon thing. No sex outside of marriage is the religious standard of the vast majority of religions and denominations in the world – and, compared to many others, the LDS framework is quite balanced. The presentation often gets unbalanced, but the framework and official teachings actually are more balanced than many.
Old-Timer wrote:It also is important to understand and acknowledge that this is nowhere close to an exclusively Mormon thing. No sex outside of marriage is the religious standard of the vast majority of religions and denominations in the world – and, compared to many others, the LDS framework is quite balanced. The presentation often gets unbalanced, but the framework and official teachings actually are more balanced than many.
The LDS church handles the infraction differently than many other churches. The LDS church throws you out if you violate it, and shuns you in other ways. Of course, there is the eastern way of stoning you or cutting your head off…so there is the argument that the LDS approach is certainly more balanced than that! But, with regards to other “Christian” churches, I don’t know many who ostracize people from their congregation, nor do I know many who shame and enforce rules if you occasionally masturbate….
Making someone who made a mistake feel like a piece of trash is not a good policy, and there are many wards that apply the “enforcement” rules in such a way they do in fact make you feel like a piece of trash.
The Jehovah’s witnesses do have formal shunning, but I don’t know for what infractions that kicks in on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LookingHard wrote:The Jehovah’s witnesses do have formal shunning, but I don’t know for what infractions that kicks in on.
Taught a JW in Australia who was “exed”. They treat you like you are not there….literally. You are NOT THERE. It is crazy.
Some people in the LDS faith feel that way, because from the time the meeting starts to the time it ends, you are to remain in complete silence. Had more than one friend who was given those restrictions. So, while you are in the meeting house, you are not there…
Doesn’t make you want to come back,…or (as in my case), you simply stop caring and live your life. Taught me to look outside the church for my answers.
Some people does not constitute the Church, and complete silence is nowhere near the norm. We have issues with these things (and some of them are serious and flat-out wrong), but they are not unique or even extreme, generally speaking, in comparison to many other religions and denominations.
Old-Timer wrote:Some people does not constitute the Church, and complete silence is nowhere near the norm.
Is it pretty normal for an exed or disfellowshipped individual to be required to remain in complete silence from the moment the meeting starts to when it ends. This is VERY common….with at least a dozen individuals I know who have been disciplined. Participation in meetings other than singing the hymns, and being allowed to attend other meetings, but remain in silence, is VERY common. In my experience this is the NORM,…and anything else is the anomaly.
Old-Timer wrote:We have issues with these things (and some of them are serious and flat-out wrong), but they are not unique or even extreme, generally speaking, in comparison to many other religions and denominations.
Perhaps not as extreme as other religions and denominations. But, I guess the only concern I have is the lack of help or “welcoming” being offer for people to repent. I was told by my bishop and also have read in GA explanations that there are 3 objectives in “discipline”: 1) save the soul of he sinner; 2) protect the innocent; 3) defend the name and reputation of the church. From my experience, #2 and #3 are emphasized, especially #3 when no fear of innocent violation is present or expected. The #1 part lacks.
I have been excommunicated for over 2 years. I have not had a single home teacher, a single request to visit with a bishop (though I was promised that and encouraged to respond to their offers), and the only communication I have received is to remain silent and not participate. No one came for me…the lost sheep.
I feel sorry for all of the religions out there who are suppose to bring people to Christ, including the LDS faith. You see, if they are “not unique or even extreme” as you claim, then the worth of souls is worth less than their time, worth less than their effort, worth less than their concern,…perhaps the worth of souls is
worthless…. I forgive the church for their neglect in my life and for their false teachings that contributed to my problems. But I don’t look to the church for answers or support because they flat out suck at it.
We seem to be getting a little off track here. Lets try to steer this back to the thread topic. I am very sorry for your experience Rob. I did not know that complete silence is expected. (I assume that this means silence in group discussions and not a prohibition against greeting old friends).
I understand that excommunication in regards to “save the soul of the sinner” is to jar them into an awareness of the eternal consequences of their actions. Almost as if to say, “This is a little taste of the damnation you can expect if you continue down that path.”
That must be very difficult to hold on and it helps to explain why we have such a terrible return rate for excommunicated members.
Perhaps a different thread about shunning and excommunication would be in order.
Roy wrote:We seem to be getting a little off track here. Lets try to steer this back to the thread topic.
I am very sorry for your experience Rob. I did not know that complete silence is expected. (I assume that this means silence in group discussions rather and not a prohibition against greeting old friends).
I understand that excommunication in regards to “save the soul of the sinner” is to jar them into an awareness of the eternal consequences of their actions. Almost as if to say, “This is a little taste of the damnation you can expect if you continue down that path.”
That must be very difficult to hold on and it helps to explain why we have such a terrible return rate for excommunicated members.
Perhaps a different thread about shunning and excommunication would be in order.
Thanks for pulling it back Roy. You are right on this….got off a little.
:wtf: Back on topic,…the article was about Callister making arousal wrong,…not just from porn but generally wrong….if I recall correctly. Rob4Hope wrote:Back on topic,…the article was about Callister making arousal wrong,…not just from porn but generally wrong….if I recall correctly.
he did mention that.
Quote:Elder Callister just told you, and your friends, and your youth group leaders, that anything that turns you on is pornographic. Porn is a problem, and being aroused is porn. His message? Arousal is a problem.
I believe that this is why we have such a problem with modesty – because we sometimes try to fight a battle against arousal and women are arousing to men.
But I believe the heart of the article is about separating how we choose to self-soothe (some look at porn) from shame. The negative emotions associated with shame and self loathing can drive us right back to the self-soothing behavior that we feel ashamed about – thus causing a shame and self soothing feedback loop. This can also be the case with emotional eating or any other shame inducing self soothing behavior. The late night binge causes shame and actually increases the likelihood of a relapse into more or the shameful behavior.
:crazy: Arousal is not the problem. Shame is the problem because it distorts other issues and makes them harder to deal with in a constructive and healthy fashion.
If we can just accept that arousal is normal and healthy and definitely does not reduce your individual self worth
Roy wrote:If we can just accept that arousal is normal and healthy and definitely does not reduce your individual self worth
I know some people who are starting to question the entire “addiction” idea that is promulgated over and over. If I recall, addiction is where you loose the ability to choose something–you are basically compelled. (I know this is overly simplistic…but for the post…)
Often people pick up the nasty magazine, click the bad web-page…not because they feel compelled with a hunger (though hunger may be present), but often because they are bored, lonely, or feel horrible about themselves, and they want something–anything–to cope with those other less-desirable feelings. The pron becomes a coping drug.
I can see, however, a big problem when we say that arousal and loneliness that would perhaps be best resolved with a loving relationship that allowed for the expression of arousal is wrong. When someone is made to feel bad because they have arousal in the first place?…and the shame drives them into coping behaviors that work for the moment, but break moral rules, you have a pretty big problem.
Unfortunately, I see the focus on stopping the coping behaviors as the focus–NOT on the underlying deficits that fuel the problem in the first place. Its like we are fanning the smoke away while ignoring the underlying fire.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.