Pride, Trust, Forgiveness, and Church Leaders

[Anonymous]

Interesting thing is that to many lds….especially women…a husband just having a desire to see pornography is addiction. Having looked at it more than once makes you a serious addict.

Many of us thought we were addicted because once or twice a month we would peek. That same group generally stated that the desire and frequency all went down or went mostly away once we found out we were normal and not Satan spawn. Shame is not productive. Use your own sense of the spirit and moral compass to guide you, listen to people you respect, measure internally, work on making changes you think are good…based on your desire to change…not because God hates you

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

To add to what johnh said (and I agree with him), try to measure as analytically as you can. Sometimes, it’s a fine line between addiction and non-addiction, and it’s just as easy for an addict to justify his addiction as it is for a non-addict to label non-addictive actions as addictive.

I use alcohol as an example:

1) Many alcoholics don’t admit they are alcoholics and justify their excessive drinking with any number of excuses. Their alcoholism is obvious to everyone around them, but they just don’t see it.

2) Many social drinkers are nowhere near alcoholics, even though our church culture leads many members to label them as alcoholics.

Frankly, if you want to do so, I would study the psychology of alcohol addiction and learn what factors lead people to be diagnosed clinically diagnoses as alcoholics. Most, if not all, of those factors are applicable to whether or not someone is a “social viewer of pornography” or a “porn addict”. Both are possibilities, so I would put theology aside if I were you (as well as you can) and try to reach as objective a conclusion as you can.

[Anonymous]

johnh wrote:

Interesting thing is that to many lds….especially women…a husband just having a desire to see pornography is addiction. Having looked at it more than once makes you a serious addict.

Yes, I’ve heard that standard. I’ve also heard some women that advocate installing monitoring software whether or not they suspect anything – a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach. Maybe it’s an underhanded agreement that “all men love boobs”.

I also know a couple of LDS women who admit they’ve looked along with their husbands. (Just watch … ten years down the road, they’ll claim they became lesbians because their husbands pushed them over the brink. :crazy: )

My bishop believes (I don’t know his source) that 90% of men have looked. I’d bet counts those who have looked once and only once.

johnh wrote:

Many of us thought we were addicted because once or twice a month we would peek. That same group generally stated that the desire and frequency all went down or went mostly away once we found out we were normal and not Satan spawn. Shame is not productive. Use your own sense of the spirit and moral compass to guide you, listen to people you respect, measure internally, work on making changes you think are good…based on your desire to change…not because God hates you.

I’m caught up in it more seriously than that and have been for 15 years, if not more. Despite that, inspiration has worked once or twice during that time period. So I guess that proves that I’m not the spawn of Satan. It’s rare, though – “only once or twice” isn’t much of an exaggeration. I have a very hard time talking to the Lord – mostly because of my differences with the leadership.

The perp, who is now in a ward that shares the building with ours, is hanging out at the church more and more – in his ward choir and things like that, and it ratchets me up when I see him. I don’t speak to him, but I’ve had a couple of shouting matches with leaders recently. So I guess that means I’m too prideful to repent. Seriously, I know I need to let it go somehow, but I just can’t see eye to eye with them on this one. I don’t dare assume that guy is less of a clear and present danger than he once was.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I don’t speak to him, but I’ve had a couple of shouting matches with leaders recently. So I guess that means I’m too prideful to repent.

This example might be exactly what you wrote – especially since you wrote it explicitly as untrue and in a sarcastic manner. Shouting matches certainly aren’t productive and have no chance of helping anyone understand. They just make walls higher and positions more intractable and defensive in nature – and they absolutely might be a sign of pride.

I’m saying that bluntly, because you might need to read it bluntly. If you have gotten into shouting matches (plural), you really do need to change (which is the core meaning of repent) and find a way not to go there.

[Anonymous]

I would also remember…sometimes we are offended and obsessed by others’ sins to distract us from our own.

I am not saying this is the case with you but just to watch out for it.

I believe when we truly want to change that we naturally feel compassion not rage, judgement and anger for others.

I speak from my own experience. When I was dealing with this it helped me not judge a man with troubles like the guy in your ward. He was trying to work it out with the law via therapy..

I also made a statement for the record at the sentencing of the man who got 33 years in jail for raping my daughter and 6 other teenage girls….and because I knew weakness I still felt some compassion amongst the anger…and my words were more like pleas for him to find change rather than telling him I hope he burns in hell..I was quite surprised by that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

OK, I’ll admit to a thick skull … I’m still quite caught up in black and white.

So let’s assume you’re right, Ray, and it is pride – and that the situation is all a matter of my perception and that none of the numbered points of view are absolute fact. What, then, is a non-prideful state of mind in the end? “(1) The leadership tried to handle a very dicey circumstance but still screwed up” doesn’t exactly sound that way, although it’s an improvement over “(2) the leadership looked the other way and/or ignored the danger”. Anything short of “(3) The leaders did everything perfectly” seems to retain false pride. (And though I’m sure it exists, I’m having a very hard time fathoming middle ground between (1) and (3)).

And if it’s not axiomatic that a leader will deal with me as arbitrarily as he did the other guy, is any level of mistrust just pride?

I suppose it is a slight improvement that (1) is a little bit conceivable now. I may not buy it in the end, but thanks to whoever suggested it in this thread.

Amazing what you did, John. I don’t think I’d ever be anything but polar opposite.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

and that the situation is all a matter of my perception and that none of the numbered points of view are absolute fact.

I didn’t say that and won’t say that. Seriously, if you are going to be able to deal with this constructively, you are going to have to work on removing the emotion a bit from the way you filter what others are saying. That is critical, since there might be examples in your personal, face-to-face interactions that mirror how you misread my comment.

Honestly, you are defining pride so expansively that there is nothing that doesn’t fall within it. Being human constitutes pride, according to the definition you are using. I understand you got it from the words of church leaders, but I really do recommend you read Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk about pride. It puts it into a very different and much healthier shape.

As usual, I am typing this with a smile on my face, not being upset. 🙂 Please understand that.

[Anonymous]

I just get so sick and tired of the game where the end result is that I’m always the bad guy. I’m not a good enough worker. I’m not a good enough father. I’m not devoted enough to the Lord. The beatdown comes from all sides, especially within the church. And so what’s the coup de gras? I, Mr-Living-Breathing-Subhuman-Counterexample, have a problem with pride.

It’s impossible to stand up to. To do so – to be assertive at all – you have to pick the right battle, and that’s a matter of luck. And picking one in and of itself is a prideful act.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

And picking one in and of itself is a prideful act.

No, it’s not, if you pick a different definition – but I will bow out for a little bit and let others respond. All I will say, again, is that I suggest you read Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk. It gives a VERY different message than Pres. Benson’s.

Here is an excerpt from that talk:

Quote:

I also remember one interesting side effect of President Benson’s influential talk. For a while it almost became taboo among Church members to say that they were “proud” of their children or their country or that they took “pride” in their work. The very word pride seemed to become an outcast in our vocabulary.

In the scriptures we find plenty of examples of good and righteous people who rejoice in righteousness and at the same time glory in the goodness of God. Our Heavenly Father Himself introduced His Beloved Son with the words “in whom I am well pleased.”

Alma gloried in the thought that he might “be an instrument in the hands of God.” The Apostle Paul gloried in the faithfulness of members of the Church. The great missionary Ammon gloried in the success he and his brothers had experienced as missionaries.

I believe there is a difference between being proud of certain things and being prideful. I am proud of many things. I am proud of my wife. I am proud of our children and grandchildren.

I am proud of the youth of the Church, and I rejoice in their goodness. I am proud of you, my dear and faithful brethren. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you as a bearer of the holy priesthood of God.

I have disagreed strongly with some of my Priesthood leaders and told them of my disagreement – and every one of them has thanked me for my input, even when they stuck with their views. Pride is much more about the “how” of our disagreements than it is about the “what” of our disagreements.

[Anonymous]

Hello Brother Insomnia. It’s good to see that there is another creature of the night lurking and posting in the forums.

I’ve been reading through the posts of this thread and I thought that I would let you know that you are not a bad guy.

You have a legitimate concern for the young children who could potentially fall victim to a pedophile.

I would imagine the issue with this young man is a slight headache for all the local leaders. They are aware that something happened but this young man seems to have the desire to stay within the church. Unfortunately the local leaders are stuck with the potential of this kid falling out line while also trying to give him a warm welcoming hand of fellowship in the church.

Personally years ago I had an issue with a young man who handled himself in a disrespectful manner. This man had a habit of showing up to church activities under the strong influence of drugs and alcohol. Although certain local leaders in my singles ward would often ask this man to leave the Bishop at the time seemed to have a soft spot for him. Perhaps he felt that he could help him but this guy just did not want to be sober. Even when he was sober-ish he would harass the ladies verbally and was also physically pokey and grabby, which is something a religious girl isn’t really into.

One night this man showed up to an activity. This particular activity was poorly planned and put together at last minute. It seemed for the most part that only the people assigned to certain committees was there. I had enough of this drunken druggie so I took it upon myself to ask him to leave. When he refused I escorted him out of the building and locked the doors up. I had planned to wait 5 minutes and make sure that this guy left the parking lot. Unfortunately an overly tenderhearted person of the church let him back in and he was violently angry. he shoved me to the ground and I hit my head pretty good. The room seemed to spin for a moment. I got up and a long story short I escorted him out to the parking lot where we proceeded to have a fist fight. Technically no one wins a fight but it ended with him knocked out cold on the sidewalk. I checked his vitals and he was still alive. I went back inside and filled a plastic cup up with water and went back outside where I proceeded to dump it on this guys face. In a wet cough he was awake. I made sure he got up and I said ” This isn’t a place for drunks and druggies. Church isn’t for everyone and maybe it’s not for you or at least not right now. Do everyone a favor and go home and don’t come back here again.”

After that incident this man never really came back to church. He had been living a lifestyle that was contrary to the standards of the church and he fully submersed himself in that lifestyle more so as time went on.

Of course there was all kinds of gossip about this story. Everyone felt the need to take aside and everyone likes to add their own twist of flavor to the story. I had all kinds of people in the local stake ask me my side of the story on this event. Some people felt like I was in the wrong and I had no right to do what I did. Others understood where I was coming from but felt that I should have handled it differently. One or two individuals told me that I did what I felt was right at the time and that I shouldn’t worry about it.

I have my own fair share of disagreements with local church leadership and local church members. If I am a bad guy than so be it but let it be known that I had good intentions.

Even if you are marked as a prideful bad guy you have pride and concern with good intentions.

Take care and may sleep find you before sunrise.

GREEN[/color][/size] “>APPLES[/size]

[Anonymous]

Well, I’ve had 20 out of my allotted 30 minutes of sleep, so I now can think clearly again. :think:

I can’t really look at the church leaders and say keep the guy away. I get that. But if they’re so negligent as to not keep him as far away from children as possible, there are problems. And I don’t really trust them to do that.

After discussion on a different thread last night, a little something snapped into place. It doesn’t change wrongness or rightness, but it may mean I can re-compartmentalize parts of the experience a little within my own cynical framework. It might or might not take the edge off the outbursts. Maybe I’ll talk about it a little more later, or maybe not. My perception of the world within the church is fundamentally unhealthy, anyway, you see, and I’ve probably let out TMI about one side of it.

Thank you, greenapples, for your point of view. From this experience of mine, I can certainly relate as to how the frustration builds. Before mine, I was the sort that would let everyone else walk all over me – maybe even the one who would have let the guy back in (though technically on someone else’s orders, if so). Something tells me, though, that quite a few people wished they had the moxie to do what you did – or had done it – but couldn’t admit it publicly. I know plenty of people in the church who would still make a point to criticize you to your face even if they felt that way.

One further question, Ray – one that my cynicism is screaming at me at the moment. You say leaders who you have disagreed with have thanked you for your point of view, but it’s still common courtesy, if not habitual, to say “thank you” at the close of a conversation like that. What made you think there was more to it, at least in the cases where the priesthood leader held his ground? And did you get the sense anytime that the reply was “ ‘Thank you.’ ‘… for letting me know you’re a rabble rouser.’ “?

[Anonymous]

insomniac wrote:

Except of course that cutting the Internet also cuts off the chance to ask this question. I already know the canned answer that very active devoted members will give, and I know the answer that disgruntled members or non-members will give. The net is the one place that somebody ever would admit ambivalence.

I admit that this site has been very helpful to me and there are many other good things about the internet – but if it was interfering with my relationship with DW or children or with my ability to work or otherwise live my life offline the way I wish to live it then it would have to be sacrificed.

I am no expert and my experience is valid for me and may not apply very well to others.

greenapples wrote:

I checked his vitals and he was still alive.

One example of my personal perspective is that I never want to be checking someone’s vitals with the possible outcome of not finding any being that I might be defending a charge of manslaughter. In my limited experience I have been privilidged to be able to resolve most conflicts with words. This may put me at a disadvantage if intruders break into my home with the intent of harming my family – I hope that I never find myself in that sort of situation.

[Anonymous]

You are a better man than me Roy. If I could do it all over again I would have allowed the police to take this man to the holding tank. If they found drugs or drug paraphernalia they would have gladly held him for longer than the standard 8 hours.

insomniac wrote:

Thank you, greenapples, for your point of view. From this experience of mine, I can certainly relate as to how the frustration builds. Before mine, I was the sort that would let everyone else walk all over me – maybe even the one who would have let the guy back in (though technically on someone else’s orders, if so). Something tells me, though, that quite a few people wished they had the moxie to do what you did – or had done it – but couldn’t admit it publicly. I know plenty of people in the church who would still make a point to criticize you to your face even if they felt that way.

Well this was before the age of 25 which = pre frontal brain lobes. I acted with emotion more so than logic. If something like this were to happen again I will handle it differently. I also think that the overall membership of my current ward has enough of a backbone to escort a drunken druggie away from the general group and find away for this person to leave even if it meant to be in the safe custody of the police.

You are right though people have enjoyed criticizing. I think some people in the church really enjoy drama and making sure that they voice their opinion as away to “punish” Greenapples. They aren’t my bishop and they are not God so I don’t worry about their criticisms too much.

[Anonymous]

Do you ever think that when criticism and infighting go around and around within the church, there’s an aspect of “if this is said often enough it becomes true” beneath it from the leadership’s point of view? That they feel it does their job for them? Not that it’s their job to be referees, but they can certainly quash big enough things before they get out of hand within a quorum/ward/stake.

[Anonymous]

A little follow-up …

It occurred to me out of the blue this past week that there was someone I might be able to talk to about this – strangely enough, the man who was bishop when it all took place. I don’t know what possessed me to do so.

He was surprisingly forthcoming about things. Perhaps one of the reasons I felt nothing was done is that the church waited for the legal system to act, and that took a while. I don’t know that the handbook says that’s absolutely how it works, but if not, I suppose a leader could decide to do that. (Even so, though, I guess it’s still the church’s prerogative to mete out punishment for sexual assault rather than injury to a child, if the consequence is different? That still casts a little doubt for me about the proceedings.)

I did have a bit of a breakthrough, though, when I asked him if he had assigned anybody to hound me about the point of view I loudly expressed to him at time time. He was shocked that I asked the question – and I don’t think he was acting. He said he didn’t.

This might mean some blame can be transferred to the elders quorum president who did the hounding. He had made a point during the next couple of months, every time he saw me, to tell me to let it all go because the incident didn’t happen (contrary to what the victim’s family, who were friends with us, said). Initially, he said he had talked to “neighbors” about what had happened. I think one “neighbor” who filled him in is a friend of the perp’s family who still thinks everything is made up.

I have no perspective about what gets batted around in Sunday PEC meetings and what does not, but my former bishop told me stuff like this did not in his meetings. He said the elders quorum president shouldn’t have known. So maybe it’s correct to place the blame for the failed Jedi mind trick on the elders quorum president specifically rather than the entire institution. I still have to contemplate that some more.

Questions of pride notwithstanding, I don’t think I’ll ever see that EQP as anything other than an egocentric jerk. Then again, I will probably never see him again … unless he’s one of the people that my recovery programs dictate that I seek out. (But what do I say to him? “Please forgive me for thinking of you as an egocentric jerk, but it’s still true.” Now that’s true recovery.)

[Author]

Posts