- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Shawn wrote:
…
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. …:
What does this mean?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Shawn: The reason I don’t think Parker went too far at all is that she is talking as an LDS therapist, one who specifically treats LDS clients who have serious problems as a consequence of these types of talks. While Callister’s remarks may not have lasting damaging effect on me personally, I don’t suffer from OCD or scrupulosity like Natasha’s patients do. And unfortunately, those are mental problems that flourish in Mormonism. Let me say from the outset that I also found the Ensign article to be far too extreme. I couldn’t finish it and it left me frustrated. However, in reading the rebuttal, I felt like I was being yelled at. Perhaps the triple exclamation point to end one sentence contributed to that. I don’t know!!! I do believe that Parker took just as much of a “my way or bad things will happen” fear-based approach as Callister. Yes, she is a licensed MFT practitioner. Callister is a general authority. They are both experts in their field. She had a lot of good and intelligent things to say, and I agreed with most of it, but it reminded me of a recent statement by mackay11: “The tone of my voice will have meant that some people didn’t listen to my choice of words.” If I had to say which person more closely represents my views, it would be no contest… it would be Parker. I just wish the person representing my views was a little more tactful and conciliatory.
Callister’s article is the perfect opportunity to look for moderation… to examine if this is what we really believe… In that way it is like Prop 8. How many members of the Church are now much more accepting of SSA than they had been BECAUSE of Prop 8? I believe it is a lot. I think the recoiling from extremism of Prop 8 has already changed the culture of the Church. In that same way, meeting an extremist statement like Callister’s with moderation could have a huge tempering effect in our culture, but meeting it head-on with a just as much force, will only serve to entrench.
cwald wrote:Shawn wrote: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. …:
What does this mean?
I don’t believe “Callister singlehandedly wipes away all evidence-based ‘best practice’ methods or approaches…” Therapists can use best practices regardless of what he said, and I just don’t see how best practice methods in the medical/psychological world are factors when defining sexual morality. Of course, best practices should generally be used when treating those in therapy.Callister said:
Quote: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 don’t believe that “wipes away…any personal revelation for self or child…” God spoke regarding murder, saying, “Thou shalt not kill.” God’s word trumps lower authorities, but personal revelation is not negated. Nephi received revelation about slaying Laban, and people can receive personal revelation regarding sexual morality (probably not a very good example, but I tried).
Does that answer your question?
hawkgrrrl wrote:Shawn: The reason I don’t think Parker went too far at all is that she is talking as an LDS therapist, one who specifically treats LDS clients who have serious problems as a consequence of these types of talks. While Callister’s remarks may not have lasting damaging effect on me personally, I don’t suffer from OCD or scrupulosity like Natasha’s patients do. And unfortunately, those are mental problems that flourish in Mormonism.
I think it depends on how Callister’s words are interpreted. People have different views as to what constitutes something “that feeds the carnal man within.” Some people would like general authorities to be more specifics, but others prefer vagueness. I was once diagnosed with OCD – I was later told I do not have it, but I had some symptoms. I believe I had the symptoms of scrupulosity as well. I can see how someone with OCD or scrupulosity could be troubled (maybe tortured) by what Callister said because they are likely to adopt a strict interpretation. I really don’t know the solution is here.I do think Parker exaggerated 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.” I also believe Callister exaggerated by saying, “Any conscious thoughts or voluntary action that stimulate or result in the expression of the procreative power outside the marriage relationship are disapproved by the Lord.”
Overall, both Callister and Parker need to take a step back and moderate their words. I probably need to do the same.
🙂 On Own Now wrote:Let me say from the outset that I also found the Ensign article to be far too extreme. I couldn’t finish it and it left me frustrated. However, in reading the rebuttal, I felt like I was being yelled at. Perhaps the triple exclamation point to end one sentence contributed to that. I don’t know!!! I do believe that Parker took just as much of a “my way or bad things will happen” fear-based approach as Callister. Yes, she is a licensed MFT practitioner. Callister is a general authority. They are both experts in their field. She had a lot of good and intelligent things to say, and I agreed with most of it, but it reminded me of a recent statement by mackay11: “The tone of my voice will have meant that some people didn’t listen to my choice of words.”
If I had to say which person more closely represents my views, it would be no contest… it would be Parker. I just wish the person representing my views was a little more tactful and conciliatory.
Callister’s article is the perfect opportunity to look for moderation… to examine if this is what we really believe… In that way it is like Prop 8. How many members of the Church are now much more accepting of SSA than they had been BECAUSE of Prop 8? I believe it is a lot. I think the recoiling from extremism of Prop 8 has already changed the culture of the Church. In that same way, meeting an extremist statement like Callister’s with moderation could have a huge tempering effect in our culture, but meeting it head-on with a just as much force, will only serve to entrench.
Yep, in my response to the article I really tried to bear in mind that principle as much as possible. I wanted to make it open enough to invite others into the discussion.
Someone else posted the patheos link, but I chose not to for the exact reasons you mention.
Here’s my OP (for those of you not following mom3’s Samuel the Lamanite thread):
Quote:The March 2014 Ensign includes a devotional address given last year by Elder Tad R. Callister of Seventy. The article is, for me, an example of what Elder Uchtdorf was talking about when he said at the October 2013 General Conference:
“…to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.”
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng I hesitated to post the following but couldn’t let it pass without comment.
Elder Callister uses a communication approach to talk about morality that I don’t think is productive or positive.
The first thing he says that I want to address is:
“The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure. Men and women can look sharp and be fashionable, yet they can also be modest. Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own selfÂ-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.”
The last sentence is particularly upsetting. Please don’t use this approach with your daughters or the young women you teach. Please don’t teach this message to your sons or the young men you interact with.
We need to teach both young men and young women to respect themselves in the way they dress and respect other regardless of the way they dress. If a woman is in a negative relationship, her wardrobe choices don’t ever mean that she “deserved it.” There is never any justification for abuse or disrespect in a relationship and teaching that “women get the type of man they dress for” seems to suggest otherwise.
I’d imagine that this was not Elder Callister’s intent. We are all imperfect communicators. I include myself in that statement. In our imperfect communication we can sometimes say things that the hearer will take to mean something else. Please don’t perpetuate this message by repeating his inappropriate choice of words.
My second concern is this statement about addiction (specifically talking about pornography addiction, but it could apply to other addictions):
“If you are afflicted with this malady, you need to do all within your power to overcome it. It may require confession, intense prayer, fasting, immersion in the scriptures, replacing idle time with constructive time, putting strict boundaries on Internet usage, professional counseling, and the like, but you can overcome it. At some point will-power will be an indispensable ingredient—there is not a pill or counseling technique to solve every addiction.”
If you or a loved one is struggling with an addiction, please don’t believe that “will-power” is the solution and don’t tell yourself it’s because you’re not praying or reading the scriptures enough. Of course prayer, scripture study and will-power are important but not instead of the proven techniques for overcoming the illness of addiction.
The church’s Addiction Recovery Program follows a 12 step change process. It is based on gospel principles, using professional and proven approaches. In the program “will-power” is not one of the 12 steps.
If you (or a loved one) are wrestling with addiction, it is not because you (or they) are weak-willed. Don’t tell yourself or someone else with addiction that they just need more will-power.
The ARP section of LDS.org even says:
“Some people consider addictions to only be bad habits that can be conquered by willpower alone, but many people become so dependent on a behavior or a substance that they no longer see how to abstain from it. However, through Jesus Christ and His Atonement, you can recover and enjoy all the blessings of the gospel.”
http://addictionrecovery.lds.org/home?lang=eng The ARP is a practical and meaningful application of the atonement and the gospel. The ARP is effective and positive. It works. Don’t undermine it or reject it by instead relying on will-power alone.
The full Elder Callister article is on page 44 (link below). It’s a shame that the talk has been given the credibility of publication in the Ensign. Let’s avoid perpetuating the ineffectively communicated message further by not using it in talks, firesides and lessons.
Like Elder Uchtdorf said, “There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine… (God) works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.”
http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-march-2014/2014-03-00-ensign-eng.pdf (P.S. This post has only been shared with LDS friends, not my full friends list)
One of the responses on my FB thread has come from a British member who is also a therapist. This is the type of “tone” that is constructive and conciliatory: Quote:In response to your post and not the full talk you reference (as I haven’t had the chance to read it yet) my initial response as a member and therapist, who has worked with addictions, sexual/emotional abuse cases etc in an outside of the church is that it raises a number of sensitive yet important issues to address. Firstly, as you point out, it’s difficult and often frowned upon to critique our leaders and their opinions yet, by the mere fact that they too, are imperfect, should mean that our agreement or disagreement of their opinion should be better tolerated. As Elder Uchdorf points out… Leaders make mistakes and we can be affected by those mistakes. I’m sure most of us, along side our positive experiences with leaders have also encountered negative, disappointing and upsetting experiences. It should always be acceptable to share feelings about the good and bad and what affects us. So, good for you for raising this and having the courage to challenge what you view as inappropriate.
We are a church that promotes modesty of dress and this tends to be aimed more toward the women than the men yet modesty of dress is subjective and contextual and we have varying opinions and standards within the general framework of ‘modesty’. We need to respect choice and we need to promote individual accountability and responsibility of choice and action instead of attributing our weaknesses of thought and action to others. We live in a world full of temptation and things that challenge our values but we still need to be a part of this world and deal with our challenges and temptations as best we can. We don’t need to revert to blaming girls/women and their natural bodies for the inappropriate thoughts and actions of men and I agree, we certainly don’t need to teach our young women that they are part of the problem or potentially the cause. There are plenty of cultures and societies around the world where a women’s body is not primarily seen as sexual or commonly treated as such. So, let’s rather be promoting personal responsibly of thought and action. I remember Elder Holland’s talk as very poignant and blunt and if anything, places more responsibility on the shoulders of the man/Priesthood holder in regard to inappropriate sexual thoughts and actions.
In regard to addictions – those tests that come in many guises – will power alone will not suffice but it is an essential component. I’ve worked with many types of addictions and I can honestly say that in my experience, the hardest addiction to overcome is that of pornography. I’ve seen better success rates in alcohol and drug addiction recovery than pornography. I’ve worked with some men who in desire, are determined to overcome yet somehow don’t manage it after years of trying. Addiction recovery for most is complicated, painful and often slow. However, for some, it’s not such a complex and time consuming process of recovery. We can throw in depression as another prevalent struggle of the LDS member (I’m not comparing it to addictions, just including it as a relevant issue) and ask What makes the difference between those who recover/ overcome and those who don’t? I’ve asked myself this time and again. I’ve analyzed client profiles, treatment patterns, theories etc and all I can conclude is that there is not a full-proof treatment plan. The combination of therapy and a positive therapeutic relationship, a good support system, prayer, communication with God, understanding and supportive church leaders, appropriate and correct medication where required are all useful and necessary tools but they are never a guarantee. I’ve seen success and I’ve seen failure and earnest desire alone is insufficient and willpower is certainly only simple in theory. If it were that simple then addiction wouldn’t be an issue.
Wow!!! What a pleasure to know someone like this.
You know what? I am weary of the church’s obsession with sex. I am tired of their constant Victorian notions being applied in 2014. The church needs to grow up and act like an adult. They could do so much to help the youth enter into adulthood responsibly and intelligently. But no it is all about abstinence at all cost, even at the cost of great mental anguish and guilt. Real self abuse is what the church piles on when a young man is made to feel guilty all the time. Cadence wrote:You know what? I am weary of the church’s obsession with sex. I am tired of their constant Victorian notions being applied in 2014. The church needs to grow up and act like an adult. They could do so much to help the youth enter into adulthood responsibly and intelligently. But no it is all about abstinence at all cost, even at the cost of great mental anguish and guilt. Real self abuse is what the church piles on when a young man is made to feel guilty all the time.
-like-
And this is why folks like you and I get labeled “liberals.”
-sigh-
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Hurray! Im so happy to see that im not the only one really sad about the whole tone of the talk. Especilly the “self abuse” wording. Labelling Yousef as self abuser can only be a bad thing IMO. I live in Denmark and, given the size of the church (small!) we don’t have any media that is concerned with church news etc, so it’s just great knowing that this talk got some attention. My wife was translating the talk into the Danish Liahona and even she (pretty tbm but with a twist) was very negative about the talk. We talked a lot about how to translate the “self abuse part… Geez. But great that people notice it and open their mouths! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The controversy over the article is now being noticed by a wider audience, I’m now seeing a link to an article that is a rebuttal to the rebuttal in my fb feed. I’ve read it and I will not link to it here; it is very contentious, condescending, and full of straw man arguments. I didn’t find the content of the rebuttal to the rebuttal all that surprising, I still think Callister was just making a compendium of previously stated teachings. The rebuttal to the rebuttal attempts to change the argument from taking issue with the way the principles are taught to taking issue with the principles themselves. It’s evidenced by many of the comments to the article, the rebuttal is viewed as nothing more than an attack on god’s standards.
It has created dialogue though and it pushes the debate to a wider audience that it wouldn’t have otherwise reached. I believe when people on the extreme ends of the spectrum (the most vocal groups) engage in a debate like this they come out of it even further entrenched in the beliefs that they held going into the debate.
I also believe most of it comes down to the way people interpret what others say. In some of this I see people fighting bitterly over language used but in the end they are in some ways arguing on the same side. People are being very contentious in communicating their beliefs and frankly their methods of communication aren’t helping me feel the love of god that is supposed to be behind all of this. Personally I think I’ll sit this one out.
Me too Nibbler. The strong language makes me very sad. I would expect a true representative of God, if doing the best they could, to use kind truthful language against an “adversary” guarding against expressions that may come across as inflammatory. This was the biggest problem of some of the past apologetics. I have stayed out of this conversation so far because I haven’t read the article. I get the gist of it, though, from reading here. Here’s my two cents anyway: I see that Elder Callister is the speaker or writer and I do not view or read. Just the way it is. As I recall he gave the CES fireside in January, which was also discussed here. He’s an old school hardliner who is fortunately becoming part of the minority among the GAs. Cadence wrote:You know what? I am weary of the church’s obsession with sex. I am tired of their constant Victorian notions being applied in 2014. The church needs to grow up and act like an adult. They could do so much to help the youth enter into adulthood responsibly and intelligently. But no it is all about abstinence at all cost, even at the cost of great mental anguish and guilt. Real self abuse is what the church piles on when a young man is made to feel guilty all the time.
I don’t know what to make of it all. Maybe the absolute mockery heaped on the BYU-I anti-masturbation video will cause the powers that be to rethink their approach. My brother tracks the beginning of his disaffection back to being repeatedly questioned as a teenager. Sad.
cwald wrote:Cadence wrote:You know what? I am weary of the church’s obsession with sex. I am tired of their constant Victorian notions being applied in 2014. The church needs to grow up and act like an adult. They could do so much to help the youth enter into adulthood responsibly and intelligently. But no it is all about abstinence at all cost, even at the cost of great mental anguish and guilt. Real self abuse is what the church piles on when a young man is made to feel guilty all the time.
-like-
And this is why folks like you and I get labeled “liberals.”
-sigh-
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Count me in into this lot also. I am weary of much of all this stuff.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.