- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve heard these talks hundreds of times locally growing up, and this tone and wording and sternness. Not just on this issue either. I’m tired of it. Especially the any immodest thought is a sin catagory. I get it, I’ve heard it hundreds of times in sacrament and young men’s. Doesn’t needed to be repeated over and over and over again. The effects are devastating to certain and many personality types. Both women and men.
Even now I struggle with those words echoing in my mind and I read talks like this and they echo louder and depression sinks in harder as does Shame. I can tell myself not to, not to think in this. I can distracted myself, but these talks echo years afterward in you the way they are given. It has effected me even as an adult within marriage many years latter. I can’t turn off the shame taught when I’m intimate with my own wife. Even when married it doesn’t go away I have found. For that reason I strongly support therapist speaking out. Doctrine or not, it must yield to the bearing forth of good fruit”te will know them by the fruit if their labors”. This has imperial evidence now, doctor ingle issues or not, that this bears forth both bad and destructive fruit. Good fruit talks should be first and foremost above any other condition. Or what else will be our legacy? That we care more about doctrine them good fruit and mental health? That would be sad. Not something I would want the church remembered by in future generations read about this. Good fruit, we can do better then this. We need to, for our children’s sake.
Quote:Especially the any immodest thought is a sin category.
What bothers me most about that stupid statement is that multiple top leaders have said over and over and over again that it isn’t true – but it only takes one idiotic, hardline statement to over-ride multiple reasonable ones (like the Psychology 101 concept that one highly negative memory will over-ride 7-8 positive memories).
That sort of extreme statement needs to die – and I stab it every chance I get.
FC: I agree, these statements are much harder on certain personality types. Your posts are all too similar to my experience. The shame still effect me after 20 years. I have talked to several women who said we are just expected to shun shun shun sex, and then all of the sudden be sex tigers the day we get married. Not likely. Causes so much sexual dysfunction in men and women. Ann, my brother also feels the same. He traces it back to hurtful statements that caused immense shame. But for people like my husband, it doesn’t seem to effect him. Is it the way we were raised, different personalities?
On the topic of “unclean thoughts”, E. Callister made a statement with which I don’t agree: “Good and evil thoughts cannot coexist in our minds any more than light and dark can exist at the same time and in the same place.” I think this is kind of part of the problem with this sort of topic.
First, I don’t agree that good and bad can’t occupy the same mind. We are not that Black & White. We all have a mixture of positive and negative feelings, joy and sadness, charity and greed, greatness and weakness, love and hate. People trying to live a life of devotion to God are simply trying to tip the scales in one direction beyond where it might naturally settle. I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that we have both the capacity for godliness and human-ness within ourselves, and then simply striving for more godliness. IMO, we aren’t made closer to God by what we stop doing, but rather by what we start doing.
Second, physical attraction should not be viewed as an evil thought. It is a natural instinct. It can’t simply be turned off. It operates at a sub-conscious level. If an attractive 20-year-old woman walks by with a certain shape and wiggle, most every heterosexual guy will notice and find it pleasing without even thinking about it directly. It’s not necessarily sexual, it’s probably more akin to a contended feeling for most men. I’m sure there are corollaries for heterosexual women and for homosexual men and women. Now… I do agree with most religions that there is an imaginary point where nature turns to evil. Certainly if a guy is thinking about that specific girl, and imagining ripping her clothes off and raping her, I think even the most liberal minds would say that is ‘evil’ and should be considered out-of-bounds for people trying to approach godliness in their lives. I see nothing wrong with spiritually minded people trying to eradicate that level of sex/power lust from their collective thoughts. But somewhere in that vast chasm between noticing a physically attractive person and fantasizing about raping him/her is an imaginary line… and where it lies is impossible to define. So the Church has a tendency to avoid defining it and instead lumps all “unclean thoughts” into the “evil” category. Doing so is simple, but then creates unnecessary and unattainable restriction and guilt on thoughts and feelings that don’t come close to approaching anything evil. I can accept the Church’s position that there probably are some types of thoughts, sexual and otherwise, that we should avoid. But, IMO, we have to be able to accept that a teenage boy’s awareness of breasts is nowhere close to the ‘evil’ category.
I’m totally bummed that people are so down about this, especially those who have guilt about sex within marriage. FWIW, there are many LDS couples who have a great sexual relationship (yes, I talk to them about it). My parents taught me that sex is good – just wait for marriage. My wife and I think sex is great, awesome, healthy, and fun. We didn’t get a fear of sex through church teachings. I am really sorry for those who had a different experience growing up. While I disagree with some of Callister’s words and the way he said some things, I think the overall tone is not negative. I don’t think the church is obsessed with sex – there is a sincere concern about morality. At the same time, I can see how others are troubled. I wish everyone peace.
Shawn wrote:I’m totally bummed that people are so down about this, especially those who have guilt about sex within marriage. FWIW, there are many LDS couples who have a great sexual relationship (yes, I talk to them about it). My parents taught me that sex is good – just wait for marriage. My wife and I think sex is great, awesome, healthy, and fun. We didn’t get a fear of sex through church teachings. I am really sorry for those who had a different experience growing up.
While I disagree with some of Callister’s words and the way he said some things, I think the overall tone is not negative. I don’t think the church is obsessed with sex – there is a sincere concern about morality. At the same time, I can see how others are troubled. I wish everyone peace.
Cool.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I want to correct something I said before. I wrote on page 2, “I am bothered by the reference to Corianton’s lecture and I wish everyone would stop quoting it out of context.” Well, I was speed reading before and I assumed Callister included the phrase “yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood..” I’m glad he didn’t say that and I’m not bothered by that part of his talk.
On Own – I too struggle with this line Quote:“Good and evil thoughts cannot coexist in our minds any more than light and dark can exist at the same time and in the same place.”
I could write pages on it. People with depression or anxiety often have multiple coinciding thoughts – light and dark – fighting at the same time. That’s what makes depression and anxiety so hard. It isn’t simple.
My metaphor against this thinking comes from my front yard. I have old Maple tree smack dab in the middle of the lawn. In summer when the sun shines on my front yard, both light and dark appear at the same time, side by side together. The dark from the shadow of the tree, that is cast by the good and virtuous sunlight. The light also from the same glorious, life giving, energy producing sun shine. There they are a natural unfulfillment of the idea that light and dark cannot exist at the same time in the same place.
My final thought, and then I promise to get off my soap box, The Holocaust. Multiple are the stories and accounts of light and dark existing at the same time in the same place. Schindler’s list, The Hiding Place, Viktor Frankl, Jacques Lusseyran. The can, they do, they have done.
They exist so that we may choose, that we may grow, that we may ask ourselves mature questions and develop character.
Okay – that’s all.
mom3 wrote:On Own – I too struggle with this line
Quote:“Good and evil thoughts cannot coexist in our minds any more than light and dark can exist at the same time and in the same place.”
I could write pages on it. People with depression or anxiety often have multiple coinciding thoughts – light and dark – fighting at the same time. That’s what makes depression and anxiety so hard. It isn’t simple.
My metaphor against this thinking comes from my front yard. I have old Maple tree smack dab in the middle of the lawn. In summer when the sun shines on my front yard, both light and dark appear at the same time, side by side together. The dark from the shadow of the tree, that is cast by the good and virtuous sunlight. The light also from the same glorious, life giving, energy producing sun shine. There they are a natural unfulfillment of the idea that light and dark cannot exist at the same time in the same place.
My final thought, and then I promise to get off my soap box, The Holocaust. Multiple are the stories and accounts of light and dark existing at the same time in the same place. Schindler’s list, The Hiding Place, Viktor Frankl, Jacques Lusseyran. The can, they do, they have done.
They exist so that we may choose, that we may grow, that we may ask ourselves mature questions and develop character.
Okay – that’s all.
I love your thoughts on this!!! Have you read Debbie Fords book “Dark Side of the LIght Chasers”. She talks about embracing every part of ourselves, including the dark side. We all have them. “What you can’t be with, won’t let you be.” The things you deny about yourself will keep popping-up in your life, until you finally understand and accept them. Another quote I love is “The world is a mirror of our internal selves. When we can accept ourselves, we automatically accept and forgive others.”
I love the analogy of your tree.
science_saint, this is the thread I mentioned in your introduction post. Curtis wrote:science_saint, this is the thread I mentioned in your introduction post.
Thanks Curtis!
The discussion here ranges so much, I hardly know where to jump in.
I think one way in which this topic could be helped along is by emphasizing “normalcy”. What do I mean?
- It is normal to have sex.
It is normal to want sex.
(I want to have sex !!
It is normal to realize that sex is powerful and desirable.
We believe in setting high standards for ourselves, which we can achieve with effort and careful practice.
In that process we may make mistakes.
Making mistakes is also normal.
Even making sexual mistakes does not make you immoral.
We can get better.
I feel like this type of candor is what is lacking in the Church – our standards don’t need to change, we just need to deliver the doctrine correctly. Also, given that masturbation is completely absent in the scriptures, we should probably not even visit it in Chuch…unless we want to start providing
actualsex education at Church, which I think makes a lot of people squeamish. The line about scientists and professionals gets very testy; the church has “updated” its views many times in its history, especially when a generation better versed in a new way of seeing the world gets into power. What? Dare I suggest that changes in the Church follow generational shifts? Yes. Doctrine is not as set-in-stone as is sometimes implied.
Ultimately, I think changing the Church’s position to reflect every discovery of the psychological sciences is expecting too much. There is simply too much at stake for the leadership to risk staking a claim in scientific territory; knowledge there updates far too quickly for any religious organization to keep pace.
science_saint posted the following in another thread, not sure where to cross-post it, but it really is pertinent to this discussion, so I’ll quote it here… science_saint wrote:I have to begin by admitting that my mistake was to share with “friends” on Facebook what is probably reserved for Friends in private. That was my mistake and I’m willing to accept it.
I had read Elder Tad R Callister’s recent talk: The Lord’s Standard of Morality
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html I attempted to convince the Bishop that this did not constitute “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”, he did not appear convinced. I later spoke with a friend who counseled me that the parents of the youth had a right to decide what their children were and were not exposed to and by whom, so I wrote back to the Bishop informing him that I would be more careful in the future. I also requested that per D&C 42:88, I be permitted to discuss such matters with the aggrieved parties and I am still awaiting his judgement.
Not sure where to cross-post this if it is necessary…
science_saint wrote:I attempted to convince the Bishop that this did not constitute “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”, he did not appear convinced.
This is a perfect illustration of why I didn’t really like the rebuttal, and I think there is an important take-away that people like us can learn from this experience.Is the rebuttal “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”? I would say, it depends on who you ask. I don’t think it quite reaches that point, but the rebuttal is basically an
Ad Hominemattack. Parker mentions Callister, by name, 12 times in the article. The one time she finds agreement with him, she feels the need to qualify her agreement by saying, “Ironically, I agree with Calister’s following quote”, but after quoting Callister, she uses that quote against him with, “It’s unfortunate his approach didn’t follow suit.” Elsewhere in the article, she decries Calilister’s use of “fear-based language” and calls his statements “sexist and offensive”. In other words, she spends the majority of her time attacking Callister and his approach, leaving the more important issues of doctrine about sexuality hidden on the back of the shelf. I can understand why your bishop didn’t appear convinced. The fact that you even had to try to defend the article as NOT “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed” is probably evidence that the Parker article is not a good approach for the issue. She had so many insightful things to say, but I don’t see a lot of truly-believing members of the Church being able to get past the presentation.
On the other hand…
science_saint wrote:I think one way in which this topic could be helped along is by emphasizing “normalcy”. What do I mean?
- It is normal to have sex.
It is normal to want sex.
(I want to have sex !!
It is normal to realize that sex is powerful and desirable.
We believe in setting high standards for ourselves, which we can achieve with effort and careful practice.
In that process we may make mistakes.
Making mistakes is also normal.
Even making sexual mistakes does not make you immoral.
We can get better.
I feel like this type of candor is what is lacking in the Church – our standards don’t need to change, we just need to deliver the doctrine correctly.
I think this is brilliant. This is the kind of dialog we need. IMO, it’s too bad you didn’t start with this instead of the Parker “Rebuttal”. You said it much better than she did.Science_saint – we have two or three different threads that touch on Callister’s piece. I don’t remember which one I wrote this in, but one of my frustrations with his address, was the lack of rebuttal material. I am going to try to explain it here. Every human being chooses their own authority figure or conviction. For one person it’s Dear Abby, for another a news channel, and others look to their church leaders. For two people to have a discussion or dialogue of any productivity, the person countering the article needs to use sourcing from the authority of the other person. If I don’t believe your authority source, I will simply discredit you right off. Yeah we may verbally spar and try to persuade but nothing will happen, except a heated argument. Neither of us will change our minds or consider with sincerity the other persons point of view. Your experience with Dr. Parker’s rebuttal is the perfect example.
If Dr. Parker, were on the General Young Women’s Presidency, then he might listen, no matter how she wrote it or delivered it. But she is not, neither is anyone else who wrote a rebuttal. Not the Salt Lake Tribune, KSL news, Jana Reiss or anyone else. The only rebuttal that will open a dialogue will have to come from the top church leadership. That’s the Q15, Seventies, General Auxiliary Presidencies. Until then, Callister’s conversation stands supreme.
That authority struggle is what bit the most on this. For most every other topic you can find other responses to bring in your point and have it be considered. I can counter Elder Oaks last GC talk with his words found on the Mormon and Gays site. I can use quotes from Chieko Okazaki about loving our LGBT brothers and sisters, and their families. I can do this for just about every topic in Mormon discussion, except modesty.
We get to decide how we wish to pursue this without that piece in the life puzzle. I haven’t come to any conclusion yet, but I am learning to seek wisdom in my conversations, not to get people to like me, but to keep healthy thinking and dialogue available. I think it’s key to a Zion society to seek wisdom and perform our lives according to it, but we first have to learn how to seek it, then how to process it, and then how to perform it. It’s a great lesson, it just takes awhile.
Good luck. It’s what we are all learning.
Read this on another forum and those it might make us all smile: From BYU Daily Universe back in 2009 or 2010 (this is written as a bit of satire… but is well worth the read):
Quote:
“Every month, The Daily Universe publishes a handful of letters urging female students to do their part in keeping the male mind pure. As a married woman, I do my best to avoid shirts that show figure and eschew the cross-the-chest messenger bag. But I must ask our male counterparts to show us the same respect.To put it delicately, men must realize that their constant public displays of kindness make it extremely difficult for women to keep their thoughts in line.
When visiting campus, I often keep my head down and sing a hymn in my mind to avoid seeing the gratuitous acts of goodness that are everywhere — men holding doors for strangers, escorting sisters home at night, returning library books on time. If I unwittingly happen upon a gentleman holding the elevator for a latecomer, please remember this image can be seared into my mind for days.
Men, keep in mind that the female brain does not work in the same way as yours. What seems like a casual “good deed” to you can have a devastating effect on an otherwise innocent woman’s desire to control her thoughts. We need your help. So please limit your acts of kindness to interactions with your family members and all-male roommates. If you cannot keep your good deeds concealed, realize that you are holding a giant, chocolate cupcake in front of your fellow co-eds. Can women really be blamed if it gets a lick?”
Jamie Littlefield
Los Angeles, Calif.
- It is normal to have sex.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.