- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I know some of you are not big fans of mormondialogue. Some of the people there drive me up the wall. But one in particular is the epitome of the “new generation” of Mormon Apologists. A thread was opened recently on Miracle of Forgiveness. After several pages of sniping back and forth, Kevin did his usual trick of sharing an excellent and well thought out post. You might not agree with all of it, but it’s well worth reading. I hope he won’t mind me re-posting in full: Quote:
I’m the Addiction Recovery Representative in my Stake. For the past year, I’ve seen a very strong commitment to 12 Step recovery Principles being offered through the church. organization. Miracle of Forgiveness is not canon. It is just one book. If you don’t like it, read another book. Read 2 Nephi 5 or Alma 26, or Alma 29, or 3 Nephi. I also recommend Colleen Harrison’s He Did Deliver Me From Bondage. It is the first LDS 12 step book, and it shows that 12 Recovery is inherent in the Book of Mormon. The passages supporting the 12 Steps in the Book of Mormon strike me as better and clearer than those supporting it found in the Bible.Some impressions on why I do not recommend The Miracle of Forgiveness based on my reading a few years ago.
While I was determined to get something from it, I did have several issues with it. Things like, in interpreting the story of the woman brought for stoning, he leaves out the phrases, “Where are thine accusers?” and “neither do I condemn thee…” He lets fly some startlingly harsh language at times. Reading it while the Elizabeth Smart trial was going on, I could not help but feel that the radiant and inspiring Elizabeth and her family did not seem to exemplify the attitude in Miracle of Forgiveness of better dead than impure. Counseling a young couple, he tells them that he finds their actions “disgusting.” Not helpful. Shaming and secrecy are essential components of addictions. 12 step recovery requires an environment in which secrets can be shared without the shame.
He also misreads the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Joseph Smith said that his key to interpreting any parable is the question that drew it out, and in this case, in Luke 15, what draws it out is the comment by pharisees that Jesus is hanging out with publicans and sinners. Then comes the first try. The parable of the lost sheep, with the protagonist demonstrating a joy response. The hearers don’t get it. Okay, how about the woman with the lost coin, who also shows a joy response. Still don’t get it. Okay.. how about this one. The character who shows the joy response is the Father, who is, as a recent discussion I read points out, is prodigal with his love, spreading it freely. The first son tells his father that he wants his inheritance now. Which translated into family relationship terms means, I don’t want to wait till you are physically dead. You are dead to me now, and I want out. When he comes back, the father runs to meet him, gives a ring, a cloak, shoes (all of which say that is not a servant, but family), and a feast. The father is demonstrating the same joy response as the protagonists of the first two parables, which joy he wants to share with others, just as the shepherd and the woman do. Yet the other son sulks and says, it’s not fair. I have served you. (Which the recent article notes, is servant-master language, not son-to-father language.) He refers to “your son”, not to “my brother”, which also has implications for how the second son defines the relationships. The father invites the second son to feel joy, and the parables ends unresolved, not telling whether the second son “gets it”. In MoF, we get a defense of the second son, saying his pettiness and complaints are in no way comparable to the sins of the wandering son (and giving no reference to the previous chapter’s quotations on the spiritual dangers of withholding forgiveness) and claims that while forgiven, the first son has irredeemably lost his portion of the inheritance. There are economics to consider. If the father shares all he has with everyone, how could there be enough to go around? Does the creator have a limited bank account, limited possessions, only so much to give, and not more? That is a reading in which the found son is not really forgiven. Just tolerated and placed over there somewhere, so as not to be an embarressment. Never mind the symbolism of the ring, coat, and shoes, let alone, the feast, and above all, the joy of a father runs and embraces him, and who says that one who was lost and dead has been found. The father does not, glare down at the son, saying, “So you’ve come crawling back. Well, I suppose I could use a pig swiller.” After all, fair is fair. Mercy cannot rob justice. The parable should be read as about father with two sons who is prodigal with his love and joy. It challenges notions of fairness, trumping them with love. The parable is not about the lost son, but about the father. The parable is addressed directly to the attitude of the pharisees, as represented in the parable as the second son.
I also noticed the passages in MoF that talked about how LDS should rather see their loved ones dead rather than excommunicated. How is that supposed to help anyone through the disciplinary process? Telling them they they are worse than dead?
In the same sex chapter, besides the harsh language, he also refers to a “successful treatment program,” which, to judge by the timeframe, would be the infamously unsuccessful reparative therapy, which attempted to treat addictive behavior by trying to point it at something else. (Don’t obsess about this gender. Obsess aboutthat one. Perhaps electric shocks will help. Very B. H. Skinner. In light of later experience, very wrong.) Of course, when he wrote the book, sex addiction had not been thought of, and the first sex addiction recovery group was not even formed until 1979. And it was decades before the medical community took notice and realized what was going on, and realized that the addicts were ahead of them in comprehending the nature of the problem.. Patrick Carnes did his work by going to the recovering addicts in such groups and asking them how they did it. Not by telling them that they shouldn’t try to change, and that they were born that way, and should accept themselves as they are with unconditional love. Love should be willing to state the conditions of life. Given that statistics in homosexual communities show that gay men average 500 partners during their life times, and that in the most stable long term male partnerships, there are an average of eight affairs a year, it’s reasonable to suggest that addiction and the widespread enabling of addictive behaviors are a major, if not dominant, feature of the Gay and Lesbian communities. A few years ago, I read through Steven Fales’ Confessions of a Mormon Boy in Sunstone. When this then wife, Emily asks him if he’s been acting out, he confesses. When she asks how many, he says, “Dozens.” When he leaves, he rationalizes that he’s doing her a favor, leaving her to find someone who will “ravish her.” Not love, notice. Lust. The benefits to children aren’t mentioned. And then the play depicts him going to New York City to work as a male escort, while yelling “Validate me!”. Addiction could not be more obvious to those who know how to recognize it, yet, the Confessions spends its time telling a horror story about Reparative therapy at BYU. It’s the shell game, 3 Card Monte, a technique of misdirection. Pointing at oppression, and a “born that way” message. Seeking an enabling culture (that is, one that protects him from the negative consequences of his behavior) when the real solution could be found should be found in a recovery culture.
A few more thoughts on what is wrong with MoF. There is a famous chapter on trying till you have bloody knuckles. At the U of U in the 70s I remember reading a long essay called “A Case of Bloody Knuckles.” The problem is not the durability of our knuckles, but not having a key that opens the door. MoF neither diagnoses, nor treats addiction. It means well, and tries, and has some of what we need, but not everything that makes a working key. The article on addiction on the LDS sponsored site says, after explaining the dopamine and seratonin and other chemical exchanges, and growth and shrinkage of different parts of the brain, showing in explicit terms how and why the addiction is a real disease involving observable damage to the brain, says, that “only be recognizing the behavior as an addiction can we treat it with the respect that it deserves.” MoF neither diagnoses, nor treats addiction. It points us at a wall. And it blames its failures on us for not being able to open a door on grounds that we didn’t torture ourselves long enough.
But there is is a key that works. It does not depend on torture, but 12 steps. The LDS church, via LDS social services, and a growing number of recovery support groups and resources, is fully committed to this approach. The past few years have provided the technology that shows that following the 12 steps actually heals the damage to the brain. Recovery isn’t about changing one’s orientation, but the obsession. Addiction is a disease that affects choice. The brain has been convinced that the object of obsession is equivalent to survival. Rather than weighing costs and benefits and rationally behaving, the mid brain instructs the shrunken area of the cortext to rationalize behavior. Addiction convinces a person that they cannot live without something, the object of addiction. Recovery restores the conciousness that a person can, and over time, heals the damage, delivering the captive from bondage.
FWIW
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61163-miracle-of-forgiveness/page__st__200#entry1209279964 Possible issues with some points aside, it’s good to see this type of statement from someone as respected in the “mainstream” of the Church as Kevin. I can’t get pass the concept this is on the MD website…that site has done more to destroy testimonies and hurt the church than NOM could ever dream of. Talk about wolves in sheep clothing.
KC was never nice or sympathetic to me…ever. I have no respect for the man. If he wants to come on staylds and visit, great. Want to apologize for his comments as I was getting banned on MD…great. Otherwise…I don’t care what he has to say.
I’ll ignore this thread starting now.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:I can’t get pass the concept this is on the MD website…that site has done more to destroy testimonies and hurt the church than NOM could ever dream of.
Talk about wolves in sheep clothing.
KC was never nice or sympathetic to me…ever. I have no respect for the man. If he wants to come on staylds and visit, great. Want to apologize for his comments as I was getting banned on MD…great. Otherwise…I don’t care what he has to say.
I’ll ignore this thread starting now.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I understand what you’re saying. MDDB has many bad points. It has also been an influence in my faith transition.
Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with KC.
I feel we must give credit here when a good post has been written, no matter the past history of the writer in question. When truth is spoken, we at stay LDS stand up and recognize it (or at least an honest attempt at as such). Otherwise, we risk being like much of the rest of bloggershere, narrow definitions of Mormonism with blinders of hate once someone has offended one of our own (God only knows what the old gaurd at MDDB put Cwald through, and I completely give you that right, I would feel the same with those wounds…I personally read some gross intollerance inflicted on our green Mars man before they kicked him off). A small point that is slight unrelated is Mr. Christensen’s “Pittsburgh” signoff. I served in Pittsburgh some dozen years ago and still have regular contacts there, and was quite familiar with virtually every Ward/Branch within 30 min of the city (Downtown, Greentree, Washington, Beaver Co. etc) …never heard of this man. A quick internet search shows Kevin is as expected a product of 70’s Utah upbringing (with some Cali education before a few stops back East)Like my older brothers from that era, it was the most intollerant of cultural millue. The only thing I take offense to is his attempt to attach himself to the roots of Pittsburgh membership, these are members given the choice, by large percentage, that would join Stay LDS before MDDB given the tough TBM decision on a good day. Case in point, Western PA is a place where they revere the likes of Thomas L. Kane who as a non-member nearly gave his life for Mormon in early history, an erected historical site there describes Kane a s the only non-member with a patriarchal blessing ever in the church if memory serves me correct.
I have an easier solution to the “Miracle of Forgiveness” problem; basically Church leaders are only human and not necessarily inspired much of the time. It sounds like he is trying to say that same-sex attraction is an addiction that can supposedly be cured by 12-step programs which I don’t believe for a second. That’s what I don’t like about this explanation the most, it seems like he is basically starting with the answer that whatever the Church currently calls serious sins absolutely need to be stopped somehow and then he acts like SWK just went about it the wrong way but there is supposedly another way that will work better. To change your behavior it seems that first and foremost you need to actually want to change it and often the reason that people really do want to stop with real addictions is because it is doing real damage in their lives. However, some of the things that are treated as completely unacceptable and impossible to live with in the Church are actually less harmful than sugar on average as far as the natural and unavoidable consequences; but because they have already been labeled as serious sins the Church keeps amping up the pressure to achieve complete abstinence for everyone when there is no real problem in many cases other than the one they have created and blown out of proportion to begin with.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I have an easier solution to the “Miracle of Forgiveness” problem; basically Church leaders are only human and not necessarily inspired much of the time. It sounds like he is trying to say that same-sex attraction is an addiction that can supposedly be cured by 12-step programs which I don’t believe for a second. That’s what I don’t like about this explanation the most, it seems like he is basically starting with the answer that whatever the Church currently calls serious sins absolutely need to be stopped somehow and then he acts like SWK just went about it the wrong way but there is supposedly another way that will work better.
To change your behavior it seems that first and foremost you need to actually want to change it and often the reason that people really do want to stop with real addictions is because it is doing real damage in their lives. However, some of the things that are treated as completely unacceptable and impossible to live with in the Church are actually less harmful than sugar on average as far as the natural and unavoidable consequences; but because they have already been labeled as serious sins the Church keeps amping up the pressure to achieve complete abstinence for everyone when there is no real problem in many cases other than the one they have created and blown out of proportion to begin with.
I think he clarifies later in the thread. He wasn’t saying at all that being gay can be fixed with the ARP nor that being gay was addictive. What he meant that the gay community has a higher level of promiscuity and, as a result, sex addiction has a higher frequency. He agrees that it is just as likely for straight people in a similar community.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.