- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
amateurparent wrote:Quote:
Rob4Hope wrote: if I am permitted to be rebaptised, I will ask that to happen immediately with only whoever my bishop will be, and the SP and one of his counselors. I do NOT want to have a meeting, a prayer, a talk,..and the whole deal.
We were recently involved in a rebaptism. A few close friends showed up, the bishop was there, two missionaries showed up. There was a prayer, the baptism, confirmation. Afterward, those closest to the guy .. We all went out for brunch at a local diner.
Re-baptisms are much different than the traditional baptism.
Hurray. I wouldn’t have it any other way. If I come back, I want it just simple and quick……excommunication is trauma,…lets not open wounds back up by making it a big deal when it is not wanted.
DarkJedi wrote:I am, in fact, of the opinion that even the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and the 9/11 terrorists will bow their knees and confess that Jesus is the Christ and will obtain a degree of glory – and that many good Mormons will be shocked at that (but shouldn’t be).
:thumbup: I have been involved in a few councils to restore membership, as well as a couple of re-baptisms. They were some of the highlights of my time in leadership callings. I believe the VAST majority of people involved in disciplinary councils truly desire, deeply, for those who are excommunicated to return and be re-baptized. The unfortunate aspect is that almost none of them have trod that path, so they simply don’t understand how incredibly difficult it can be – or that, in some cases, it actually is impossible. I believe if they truly understood, they would disfellowship more and excommunicate less – and I say that as someone who doesn’t oppose excommunication in and of itself.
I have a friend who had morality issues in college. She went to her bishop. Her bishop was a wise man. He told her that God had already forgiven her … The problem now was WHAT did she need to go through in order to forgive herself for her transgression. He would do whatever she needed to get past her sin. When she told me the story, it really made such an impression on me of what a truly Christian leader would do. The focus was on her progression — on grace, atonement, and progression.
Old-Timer wrote:I have been involved in a few councils to restore membership, as well as a couple of re-baptisms. They were some of the highlights of my time in leadership callings.
I believe the VAST majority of people involved in disciplinary councils truly desire, deeply, for those who are excommunicated to return and be re-baptized. The unfortunate aspect is that almost none of them have trod that path, so they simply don’t understand how incredibly difficult it can be – or that, in some cases, it actually is impossible. I believe if they truly understood, they would disfellowship more and excommunicate less – and I say that as someone who doesn’t oppose excommunication in and of itself.
It seems like excommunications are either personal (and so often sexual), or public doctrinal disagreements. Is one group more likely to return than the other?Ann wrote:Old-Timer wrote:I have been involved in a few councils to restore membership, as well as a couple of re-baptisms. They were some of the highlights of my time in leadership callings.
I believe the VAST majority of people involved in disciplinary councils truly desire, deeply, for those who are excommunicated to return and be re-baptized. The unfortunate aspect is that almost none of them have trod that path, so they simply don’t understand how incredibly difficult it can be – or that, in some cases, it actually is impossible. I believe if they truly understood, they would disfellowship more and excommunicate less – and I say that as someone who doesn’t oppose excommunication in and of itself.
It seems like excommunications are either personal (and so often sexual), or public doctrinal disagreements. Is one group more likely to return than the other?I think sexual would be more likely to return. Doctrinal differences can only be settled if if person comes to believe he/she is wrong and reason is unlikely to achieve that end. A change of heart is a tough change.
In my bishopric years I experienced two “returnees” (one was disfellowshipped, on ex’ed). Both were adulterers. In my experience there are far more DCs for sexual sin than for apostasy (or anything else). My general feeling is that adultery is best handled via disfellowshipping (at most) as opposed to excommunication, although like Ray I am not opposed to excommunication itself. amateurparent wrote:I have a friend who had morality issues in college. She went to her bishop. Her bishop was a wise man. He told her that God had already forgiven her … The problem now was WHAT did she need to go through in order to forgive herself for her transgression. He would do whatever she needed to get past her sin.
When she told me the story, it really made such an impression on me of what a truly Christian leader would do. The focus was on her progression — on grace, atonement, and progression.
I’m a little behind on this thread,…so catching up.
There was a report I read way-back-when that women in particular felt unheard if there WASN’T some action taken. So, when you mentioned this above AP, it makes some real sense to me…–rings true or “resonates” as many would say.
Discipline has 3 purposes: 1) save the sinner; 2) protect the innocent; 3) protect the name and image of the church. During a disciplinary council I am aware of, the focus of the bishopric was more on #3 in that list than the other 2. I know there were no innocent people (or any people at all) in danger in this particular case, and it didn’t make sense that a sledge hammer was being used rather than kindness.
There are situations where disfellowship would work instead of excommunication, and where formal or informal probation would work instead of disfellowship. I don’t understand why LOVE is not the first option.
Again, in this particular case I am mentioning, i know that this person desparetely wanted to have regular meetings with the leader, but after 17 missed appointments and broken promises, gave up. When that happens, you wonder why the bleeding “lost sheep” has to be the one to return, because there was no shepherd finding that lost sheep.
I feel horrible when I learn that MANY don’t return. I often wonder, who is out there trying to find those lost sheep?
In my case, the first thing I learned years ago was to NOT rely on the church for support or help–they had none to give. I was the one who, on my own, had to find the strength and desire to return. I am fortunate in one regard,…I am the social person who connects with people, and I am not a member.
AP,…this bishop thing you mentioned above is unique from my perspective. To that bishop,..i have one things to say…ROCK ON!
DarkJedi wrote:In my bishopric years I experienced two “returnees” (one was disfellowshipped, on ex’ed). Both were adulterers. In my experience there are far more DCs for sexual sin than for apostasy (or anything else). My general feeling is that adultery is best handled via disfellowshipping (at most) as opposed to excommunication, although like Ray I am not opposed to excommunication itself.
OK…gunna stir it here probably.
This whole adultery thing is sooooo one sided it use to make me angry. Well, I am no longer angry actually–just no longer listening to the rhetoric I have heard in this portion of the LDS vineyard in SLC. The church is vehemently opposed to divorce. The church is also addicted to paranoia about sexual misconduct. Don’t look at porn, for example, because you might get addicted. I think the church is addicted to THAT WARNING!,..and have created a different type of addiction. Sex for the safety and pleasure (Oooo,..I used a naughty word here…pleasure. Slap me now!) it affords
marriedpeople is at best indirectly attacked, and at worst is ignored and marginalized. The church does a very poor job of handling sexual dissatisfaction inside of marriage, and IMHO, have created some of the problem themselves. Then they slap people down because they succumb to temptations which are given NO LEGITIMATE OUTLET.
Quote:Rob4Hope wrote :”The church does a very poor job of handling sexual dissatisfaction inside of marriage, and IMHO, have created some of the problem themselves. Then they slap people down because they succumb to temptations which are given NO LEGITIMATE OUTLET.”
So much of church culture is focus on self control. Control your schedule, plan your day. Have set times for prayer, scriptures, family time, work, school, date night. Structure is very important within the church. There isn’t really a place for people to say, “This isn’t working for me.” Whatever the topic: an over-structured life, a boring life, poor communication within the family or sexual disatisfaction. The standard answer within the culture is to further structure your life in order to better manage the issue. IMHO, sometimes, a little less structure is the better answer.
Quote:Rob4Hope wrote :”The church does a very poor job of handling sexual dissatisfaction inside of marriage, and IMHO, have created some of the problem themselves.”
r4h, I looked back at your comment, and I would love you to expand on it. How has the church created some of the problem? Is it church or culture?
I grew up in the church knowing that virginity until marriage was the expectation, but after that anything was fair game within the relationship .. As long as both parties agreed and no one was injured.
BUT .. I have met women who were told “only missionary position” was allowed and that temple garments were supposed to be worn at ALL times. I consider that weird. I have met women who demanded their children be delivered while garments were worn. More weirdness. I have heard stories of women who felt guilt about sexual pleasure. That one just flies in the face of the long history of polygamy in the church. I don’t know where these things originate.
I like to think it came from some “SNL Church Lady Convert”.
amateurparent wrote:Quote:Rob4Hope wrote :”The church does a very poor job of handling sexual dissatisfaction inside of marriage, and IMHO, have created some of the problem themselves.”
r4h, I looked back at your comment, and I would love you to expand on it. How has the church created some of the problem? Is it church or culture?
I grew up in the church knowing that virginity until marriage was the expectation, but after that anything was fair game within the relationship .. As long as both parties agreed and no one was injured.
BUT .. I have met women who were told “only missionary position” was allowed and that temple garments were supposed to be worn at ALL times. I consider that weird. I have met women who demanded their children be delivered while garments were worn. More weirdness. I have heard stories of women who felt guilt about sexual pleasure. That one just flies in the face of the long history of polygamy in the church. I don’t know where these things originate.
I like to think it came from some “SNL Church Lady Convert”.
This topic is a troubling one for me, but I am making progress. I have posted on other sites–ad nausium–about this topic. I will say this much,….(and I saw a comment on this in another thread here). I believe there is a Calvinistic thread about mortifying the flesh and the passions of it that has woven its way through LDS culture, and I think it came primarily in SLC where the conservative culture was so pronounced. I don’t know if it was everywhere, but it was where I was, and others I’ve spoken to were also hurt.
Let me give you 2 examples,…and then some data to support it.
1) In the book Mormon Doctrine (that one I know wrankles many), in the section “Sexual Desires”…there is no information, but the reader is directed in the notes to see “Sexual Immorality”. The general idea is that sexual desires are always immoral. The church has followed that up with a recent (THANK GOODNESS IT CAME OUT) FHE lesson where they indicate that so much is said
by the churchabout sexual immorality, that the message is often understood that sexuality is itself wrong. Just the basic desire. I’m surprised but heartened that the church would admit that the emphasis almost exclusively on the negative aspects of sexuality might actually cause problems about people thinking sex is bad in the first place. It has had affect on many.
2) On the 5th Sunday lesson, several years ago, a local therapist visited many of the churches in the SLC area as authorized by the Area Authorities. I was there. This guy’s mission was to talk about the sexual messages we were giving our children. In a moment of candor, he explained that we teach our children like this: “Sex is bad, it is disgusting, it is wrong, it is nasty….you need to save those things for someone you love.” In the quest to “protect”, we send a cultural message about how bad and evil sexual sin is,…to the point we actually kill the natural desires in the first place, poisoning them, and then all of the sudden, we somehow expect these people to heal and becomew hole in marriage. Many of the messages carry over, and the damage sets in.
OK…now some hard data. Many know Jennifer Finlayson-Fife. I heard a pod-cast with her and Bill Reel. I also purchased her dissertation and read it pretty carefully. She found examples over and over within female members of the LDS church where spirituality and sexuality were actually placed in variance against each other. If you are spiritual, you are not sexual; and if you are sexual, you can’t be spiritual. This thread “resonates” as absolutely true in the culture where I grew up, and it has affected many.
I’ve asked others here, and most simply say: “The Church is totally messed up about sex”. Hunh? I’m not making this up. Many I have talked to, my age, say the same thing. The SWK days really did something to many here.
It seems that the damage isn’t as strong outside of the SLC valley, but damage there is.
I don’t want to go much further than this. There are other examples that are VERY clear, but ask yourself this question. Have you heard GAs in talks or writings explain that we as parents should warn our children about the dangers of pornography use at age appropriate times? Yes. I’ve heard this counsel.
Have you heard GAs encourage parents that they should teach their children about the goodness of sexuality in marriage? The only time I heard this message was the VERY recent FHE lesson published.
Many families deferred teaching things like sexuality to their children because they deferred to the Church. We are to “Follow the prophet”.
Have any of you asked yourself this question: If we are to follow the prophet and do what he says we should do,…does that not imply we are to NOT do the things he says nothing about? This message about not thinking for yourself has affected generations, and it is not just doctrinal, it has become cultural, woven right into the very fabric of families and generations.
Anyway,..nuff said. I am working on forgiving and moving on. I was hurt by that culture. Only thing positive for me is to let it go.
Quote:Rob4Hope wrote: ” She found examples over and over within female members of the LDS church where spirituality and sexuality were actually placed in variance against each other. If you are spiritual, you are not sexual; and if you are sexual, you can’t be spiritual. This thread “resonates” as absolutely true in the culture where I grew up, and it has affected many. “
Rob4Hope, It sounds like the old Madonna vs Whore dilemma that many religious men have struggled with for decades. Too often men are unable to view women as being capable of the duality of spirituality and sexuality.
I know that we each approach this from our own experience, and I have to assume that your experience was as bad as you express it to be. But I don’t know many of these women. I hear stories that they exist ..every now and then I meet one, but they are so rare. They are rare enough that they are almost Urban Legends ..
Two things:
1. How can you paint the women of SLC with such a broad brush and assume the men are somehow untouched by the same system? Do you see any components of the Madonna vs Whore dilemma within the male population? If not, why do you think the men of SLC are unaffected by something that you think has so heavily afflicted the women?
2. My experience has just been so completely different. I didn’t grow up in Utah, but some of my really close friends did. When the girls go out for dinner and the bawdy talk gets going, there is no doubt in my mind that these LDS ladies are living very happy married lives in all aspects. They are the RS president. The bishop’s wife. The primary pianist. The compassionate service leader. Each is a very spiritual person .. And very sexual too. Girls do talk a bit .. And I’ve known this group a very long time. They seem like a very balanced bunch of ladies.
amateurparent wrote:
1. How can you paint the women of SLC with such a broad brush and assume the men are somehow untouched by the same system? Do you see any components of the Madonna vs Whore dilemma within the male population? If not, why do you think the men of SLC are unaffected by something that you think has so heavily afflicted the women?
I don’t recall making any such assumption about the men not being affected. I do know, for example, that Finalyson-Fife mentioned the message taught to men and women is quite different. Woman are often considered the “gate-keepers” of sexuality, and as such, undo pressure is placed on them in many respects to control things. Now, unless I am misquoting, she (and I agree) think this is rather unfair–but it has happened in a lot of places, not just pockets of LDS areas.
I think many men are frustrated and hurt to. In fact, just on this staylds web-site, there was a reference to an article here:
https://medium.com/@ungewissen/the-naked-people-in-your-ipod-f770a27fdb59 The comments by and about Callister were rather interesting.
amateurparent wrote:
2. My experience has just been so completely different. I didn’t grow up in Utah, but some of my really close friends did. When the girls go out for dinner and the bawdy talk gets going, there is no doubt in my mind that these LDS ladies are living very happy married lives in all aspects. They are the RS president. The bishop’s wife. The primary pianist. The compassionate service leader. Each is a very spiritual person .. And very sexual too. Girls do talk a bit .. And I’ve known this group a very long time. They seem like a very balanced bunch of ladies.GOOD FOR YOU that your experience was different. Wonderful.
I have a friend who works at the temple, as in the Jordan River. She talks with her friends who are angry because they have husbands who want to have sex with them, and they want to be left alone to do more “important” things. She has delved, and it is a “good girl” thing going on.
I know a former Stake President who adores his wife, and she doesn’t want to touch or be around him, because “good girls” don’t do those things. It is a “duty”…(as in duty sex), but it isn’t something she has to like. And, how could she enjoy such an experience when there are other more “important” things to do?…like planning a RS lesson. The marriage is hanging by a thread.
Some of the writers who are aware of this problem are Laura Brothers who calls it “good girl syndrome”, Lori Schade PhD from BYU who I’ve spoken with and asked personally about this cultural phenomena and her experience down in the family center there for training therapists, Finlayson-Fife who is a name more recognized, and others.
I have no desire to paint with a broad brush as you mentioned. I think this happened more in pockets, but it appears more common in SLC. And, you bet men were affected.
AP,…because you have only “heard” of this problem and never really met anyone dealing with it, do you then assume it doesn’t or has never existed? Good girl syndrome and “good boy syndrome” both exist. Are you saying that they don’t?… Please help me understand your perspective here….
PS…I don’t want to hijack this thread, so perhaps a new thread might be in order. Anyway,…like I said before, I’ve hashed this one out a lot in other places. I believe damage was done, I have met others who corroborate both sides–the lack of damage that you have found AP, and the side that I have encountered with damage. I still hold onto the idea that sometimes religious groups are influenced culturally and at deeper levels with Calvinistic ideals about mortifying the flesh and killing all pleasure. Because sex can be .. er…rather pleasurable, it certainly makes sense that it could, for whatever reason, be attacked. GGS and GBS are one possible outcome.
This has been an interesting thread for sure. I met a man on my mission who had been ex’d but still attended church. He wanted to get his membership back but the FP kept saying no. He was ex’d for teaching really false doctrine and unfortunately he still taught it, so I can see why they said No. The bishop did try to work with him on it though.Thanks R4H for sharing part of your story. I do know someone who was disfellowshipped for fornication for 6 months after a nasty divorce. This was a very close friend of mine, and at the time I had different thoughts on the repentance process. Now I very much feel it is between God and I and I really don’t need to involve another person (Bishop) to receive forgiveness for ANY sin. However that is not what is taught unfortunately. I do think excommunication should be reserved for extreme circumstances, perhaps only teaching false doctrine. I personally don’t think adultery or any other sexual sin is a reason to ex someone. There are so many other ways to help the person with love and forgiveness than saying, oh you committed adultery too bad you’re ex’d. I know adultery doesn’t always end in excommunication but it still feels extreme to me. I know another friend of mine who’s husband was ex’d because of adultery, but he was mainly ex’d because he didn’t come clean at the time, instead he kept it for several years and served in PH roles, gave blessings ext. They said if he had come clean when it happened then he probably would have been disfellowshiped, but since he did all those things he was mocking his PH. For those of you who have served in leadership roles would you have ex’d this man?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.