[DevilsAdvocate]

Old Timer wrote:

Fwiw, DA, your response to my comment really had little to do with my comment. You addressed a totally different issue than what I described.

…I will reiterate that anyone who references their strength as a reason to hurt others in the way they use porn is self-delusional. I am saying nothing about letting others tell us what to do – and nothing about viewing porn, in and of itself. I am talking about not being so selfish that you think you are strong and using that as a justification to hurt other people knowingly and intentionally.

Compromise can be a terrible thing – but it can be a tremendous thing, as well. Believing that being willing to compromise in areas that are important to others is bad and a sign of weakness is not a condition in which I want to live.

I don’t see the difference or how my response wasn’t directly related to your comment in several important ways. In fact, I still think my response cuts through some of the distractions (trying to make it about strength and moralistic judgments) and actually gets to the real heart of the matter in terms of what is really at stake here, namely that people are being asked and expected to basically sacrifice their lives (valuable time they will never get back) to some extent essentially being told what to do by others. Even if you don’t feel that way about it, that doesn’t mean that many Church members that have lost faith in the Church won’t feel more or less that way about it or that it isn’t a perfectly valid way of looking at the situation.

The main thing I take away from reading your comment is that it sounds like you think that if doing something (looking at boobs, drinking beer, etc.) will hurt someone’s feelings then the best thing to do is just bend over backwards to live up to what they want and expect. Never mind porn, consider the example of alcohol to see how this works in practice. If some disaffected members or ex-Mormons that don’t believe in the WoW anymore fear how their spouse will react if they admit they want to drink sometimes or else their spouse already threatened to divorce them if they do then based on this general approach they should supposedly just forget about it. And not only that but suppose they are on a business trip where there is practically zero chance their spouse will find out and actually get their feelings hurt, it sounds like in that case they should supposedly still abstain out of respect for their spouse’s feelings because having a few drinks in that case would be selfish and weak.

To me that doesn’t sound like any kind of reasonable compromise at all, it actually sounds like, “My way or the highway” and an arrangement that couldn’t be more one-sided where one partner is essentially being controlled by the questionable expectations of the other. What if someone masturbating once in a while would hurt their spouse’s feelings if they knew about it, does that mean they should just never do it? What about R-rated movies, garments, paying tithing, etc.? It might not seem like a big deal looking ahead a week at a time to just let it go mostly to avoid upsetting anyone but some of this can really start to add up over a lifetime so while I would definitely suggest being careful about situations like this because TBMs will quite often not react very well to any deviation from what they expect, I definitely wouldn’t tell other people what the best thing to do is in situations like this as if there is only one right answer that should apply equally well to everyone because they are the ones that will have to live with the results.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Old Timer wrote:

Just like so many things, we tend to see this issue through our own lens and assume that lens is correct for everyone else. This is true particularly with people who have high tolerances for something. They chafe at being/feeling restricted with regard to something that isn’t a problem for them – or that they think isn’t a problem for them. Sometimes, their self-perceptions are correct; sometimes, their self-perceptions are badly mistaken. An interesting thing to consider is Paul’s statement about not eating meat with those who abstain from meat – and the implications about self-control and true strength. I believe true strength is NOT found in one’s limits (in this case, how much porn someone can view without becoming addicted or causing harm) but rather in one’s ability to abstain due to respect for others of importance to them, if not abstaining would hurt those others. I believe if someone drinks or views porn while in a relationship with someone who would be hurt by knowing about it (individually or as a group), and if that person claims they are doing it because they are strong enough to handle it, that person is delusional about their strength. There is nothing strong about indulging in and hiding something that would harm others, if known. I am NOT saying all people who view porn are weak. I’m just saying viewing porn and hiding it while in a relationship that would be damaged if it was known is not a sign of strength.

If some people think that the best thing to do is to basically sacrifice their own life to some extent for the sake of what other people want and expect out of them then I guess that’s their choice and their life to live. But to me it’s basically a question of control and being controlled. From that perspective, the strongest response I can think of would actually be for people to stand up for what they want or at least the fact that they are only human and basically say, “You don’t get to tell me what to do.” But there is also the question of what hill people are willing to die on or not and it seems like practically no one wants to be a martyr defending their right to view porn/nudity.

But does that really mean that whoever is more fanatic about something should always win and be able to impose their will on others so easily and without any resistance? And if people are only given one acceptable option that isn’t really what they want deep down or isn’t that easy and simple then why is it any surprise that they would say, “OK, have it your way” publicly and then turn around and do what they want anyway when no one is looking? (because in the worst case it is much easier to ask for forgiveness than permission under these conditions). To be fair I think many active LDS men actually go into marriage fully intending to not view porn/nudity because they believe that’s what they are supposed to do but after a while they give in to the temptation to sneak a peek and their old habits return. At that point, keeping it secret is quite often simply the most painless thing to do for everyone involved under the zero-tolerance environment that has been created.

To be honest, I feel like I have already let my wife win this battle; I already go out of my way to avoid viewing porn/nudity more than 99.99% of the time anyway mostly because it just isn’t worth the stress of having to lie if my wife asks me about it or worrying she will catch me and freak out. And I can live with this but what still bothers me about all the anti-porn hysteria and rhetoric is simply the intolerant zealotry of it especially in the case of soft-core porn/nudity where it just seems so overdramatic to make such a big deal out of it. The way I see it, if someone doesn’t like porn/nudity then they don’t need to watch it but that doesn’t mean they should be able to tell other people they can’t ever watch it either. If people don’t want to be in porn/naked pictures then they don’t need to, and if they feel coerced then that is something for governments to worry about, not something for consumers to be given a guilt-trip about when they just want to see some boobs without meaning any harm whatsoever.

The unreasonable demand that no alcohol should be allowed bothers me even more. On NOM and some ex-Mormon sites there have occasionally been people that want to drink but don’t know how to tell their TBM spouse this or else they already did and their spouse threatened to divorce them if they ever drink. To me, it just doesn’t seem fair or right that this kind of reaction should be rewarded by making people the unquestioned boss in the household. And having people basically forced to live the rest of their lives being controlled like this mostly makes me sad for them more than anything. I eventually told my wife I wanted to drink sometimes and it was definitely worth it even though it would have been much easier to forget about it to avoid any confrontation.

[DevilsAdvocate]

DancingCarrot wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Basically it looks like many LDS women just don’t want to believe that their own husband, father, brothers, sons, etc. are viewing porn/nudity on a regular basis. And it looks like many moral crusaders like to think that talking about how bad and bad for you that porn supposedly is will make a significant difference in stopping people from viewing it rather than largely being a case of preaching to the choir and spinning their wheels in a losing battle against human nature.

……

However, it is definitely risky to test the waters especially in the Church. For example, suppose you are dating someone and you tell them, “I try to avoid porn but haven’t been able to stop watching it completely and I can’t promise that I’ll never look at it again.” What do you think is likely to happen in that case?

This is definitely not true for me, and for other LDS women that I know. Personally, with every new guy I date (LDS or not) I know that porn is going to be a discussion point if we date for long enough. When we get to a certain point in dating, not if he happens to look at porn. I know that virtually all men look at or have looked at porn. How long we date is the determining factor for this discussion, not religion or anything else. Also, the man I dated who was affected the most by porn wasn’t LDS or religious. It affected his self-esteem, his desire and capability for consistent intimacy, and his ability to work through sexual difficulties between us. In my experience, porn has nothing to do with religion, but religions can make the issue more complicated than it needs to be…

OK, this is completely baffling to me; I don’t know how to make any sense of it. None of that sounds very LDS at all. I mean I could see some casual cafeteria Mormons that don’t really believe or care about the doctrines that much being more honest with themselves and others about porn/nudity than my off-the-cuff generalization. But I was thinking more in terms of bona fide believing and obedient Mormons that actually take the doctrines and what past and present leaders have said very seriously, get married in the temple (often fairly young and after only a few month engagement), accept every calling, wear garments, pay tithing, etc. Many of them don’t even watch R-rated movies. Do very many LDS women like that actually believe that their husbands are still viewing porn/nudity on a regular basis?

I don’t see how that would even be possible without even more mass hysteria, divorces, etc. than we currently see. There was a poll about what people hate the most in each state and in Utah of course the answer was porn of all things. That didn’t come out of nowhere; the Church has clearly made many people absolutely obsessed with porn and trying to stamp it out for good at all costs. So what would there really be to talk about with the typical obedient believing Mormon other than, “Porn is bad and no good Mormon should ever look at it, period, end of discussion.” That’s what the Church teaches repeatedly, loud and clear, so it seems like it would be every bit as non-negotiable in practice as strictly obeying the Word of Wisdom. Of course one of the main differences from the WoW is that porn is much easier to hide without anyone noticing so that’s why we end up with so many active LDS men doing it anyway despite the Church’s best efforts to discourage it.

[DevilsAdvocate]

mom3 wrote:

Quote:

Basically it looks like many LDS women just don’t want to believe that their own husband, father, brothers, sons, etc. are viewing porn/nudity on a regular basis.

I disagree here. [list]

[DevilsAdvocate]

Beefster wrote:

I have come to believe that the worst damage done by pornography comes from secrecy. Yet church culture and policy tends to drive men who have the problem further into the shadows…

To be honest I think the exact opposite of this statement is actually true more often than not. In reality, for many LDS men viewing porn/nudity doesn’t cause any noticeable problems by itself as long as no one else that would disapprove knows about it and it is only when their wife, bishop, etc. know about it that it starts to do significant damage to their marriage, reputation, etc. Even then I would argue that in the majority of cases it looks like the primary source of any harm done is not actually the viewing of porn/nudity by itself but rather the Church setting the unrealistic expectation that this should never happen and is impossible to live with, that it makes men “unworthy”, etc.

I agree that it is less than ideal that the Church has created such an unforgiving environment dominated by so much fear, condemnation, and shame that puts so much pressure on men to pretend they don’t ever view porn/nudity when they really do but personally I don’t expect this to change significantly anytime soon. It reminds me of the following quote.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”

Basically it looks like many LDS women just don’t want to believe that their own husband, father, brothers, sons, etc. are viewing porn/nudity on a regular basis. And it looks like many moral crusaders like to think that talking about how bad and bad for you that porn supposedly is will make a significant difference in stopping people from viewing it rather than largely being a case of preaching to the choir and spinning their wheels in a losing battle against human nature.

Is there really that much harm in playing along with what people expect and telling them what they want to hear? I’m not sure that there is, and personally I wouldn’t blame anyone for taking the path of least resistance in this case. But if you really want to push back against the pressure to keep this secret then I can’t think of anyone in a better position to do so if you are still single and willing to question the Church’s approach to things. I know that there are at least some women that are not bothered by porn nearly as much as others if at all.

However, it is definitely risky to test the waters especially in the Church. For example, suppose you are dating someone and you tell them, “I try to avoid porn but haven’t been able to stop watching it completely and I can’t promise that I’ll never look at it again.” What do you think is likely to happen in that case? If she is an active and obedient Mormon then there’s a good chance that she will not only write you off immediately but also tell her friends and family and before you know it you will be viewed as the resident porn fiend in the neighborhood, singles ward, etc.

[DevilsAdvocate]

SamBee wrote:

I believe Western Civilization is in terminal decline, and has been all my lifetime. In fact, I think WWI may have been the beginning of the end…American power has been taking longer to fall, but I believe it has been occurring since the 1970s. I believe Vietnam was the turning point, but that the decline of the Soviet bloc gave it a powerful second wind. However, by around 2000 or so, I believe America’s decline in power resumed in earnest

SamBee wrote:

I’m not actually convinced humans could survive a full scale nuclear war in the long run. They could bunker up for centuries, but it would remove most, maybe all higher lifeforms. Nuclear winter could destroy everything from plankton to rainforests…I’m also not completely convinced about fossil fuels. We’ve had decades to prepare but have done so too slowly. Maybe, but it could cause massive social disturbance. We saw a precursor to this in the seventies…As for the rest… I don’t see the decline purely in terms of morality and human rights. It is also about *power*…The Soviet Union actually went into decline when it became nicer to its citizens! Likewise, I think the USA was going into decline in the 1970s precisely when African Americans started to get a better deal. Britain and France went downhill after losing most of their colonies.

Nuclear winter sounds more like science fiction than a very realistic scenario to me because it is based on questionable assumptions about a certain number of large “firestorms” at the same time as well as what the overall impact of them would be. I think a much more likely scenario would be that some major cities and strategic military targets would be hit but eventually there wouldn’t be many worthwhile fixed targets left to aim for and then there would be some kind of cease fire and rebuilding. In any case, I’m not sure that the relative power of nations is necessarily that much of a factor in the overall quality of life of their average citizens. For example, Canada has never been a world superpower but I would rather live there than China or Russia any day.

I would actually call the fall of the USSR a victory for Western civilization because at this point Western civilization is largely about ideals like freedom and democracy and the USSR looked like the antithesis of that with all the heavy-handed control and fear it produced. And as far as the United States, maybe giving up on the Vietnam conflict was a blow to American pride compared to defeating Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII but I’m not sure the lives of average Americans are any worse now because of this development. In fact this could actually be one of the main reasons we don’t now have young men being involuntarily drafted to go to Iraq or Afghanistan; so in a way it could actually be considered more of a growing pain than any sign of terminal decline. Likewise if the economies of China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. have grown compared to the way it used to be in America I’m not sure that is necessarily such a bad thing for the average American.

As long as I can afford to buy stuff at Wal-mart, IKEA, etc. then as far as I’m concerned it is just as well if it wasn’t made in America. To me it looks like the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War were relative low points in terms of worldwide stability and things have mostly improved since then so that there aren’t as many truly scary threats to our current way of life. Sure there are still plenty of things that are less than ideal like crime, terrorism, poverty, substance abuse, mental illness, etc. but I doubt having the Church talking about how evil and wrong the world supposedly is will help do much to improve anything by itself. It’s almost as if they like having something or someone “bad” to point at because it is a way for Church leaders and members to tell themselves that they are better, more blessed, etc. than others. So same-sex attraction and porn are easy targets to scapegoat and complain about without really doing anything substantial to at least try to make much of a positive difference in the world.

[DevilsAdvocate]

SamBee wrote:

I believe Western Civilization is in terminal decline, and has been all my lifetime. In fact, I think WWI may have been the beginning of the end…American power has been taking longer to fall, but I believe it has been occurring since the 1970s. I believe Vietnam was the turning point, but that the decline of the Soviet bloc gave it a powerful second wind. However, by around 2000 or so, I believe America’s decline in power resumed in earnest

Terminal decline? Personally I don’t see any way that Western civilization will ever die on its own. There is no need for specific empires to remain at their peak in order for their remnants or replacements to survive quite well, possibly indefinitely. At this rate it looks like Western civilization/culture could survive a full-scale nuclear war, climate change melting the polar ice caps and flooding major cities at sea level, and running out of fossil fuels without a viable replacement for all the energy currently consumed. In other words, as long as there is any remaining civilization whatsoever to speak of then I would expect Western civilization to remain as at least one of the primary competing alternatives.

In fact, I don’t believe it is fair to even call it an overall decline in the first place and I think a better description would simply be that cultures and civilizations evolve over time and people adjust to whatever environment they find themselves in, no matter how good or bad. But just because cultures and civilizations change over time that doesn’t mean most of these changes have been for the worse. I look at things like slavery, racism, relative ignorance, etc. and there’s no question that at least some things are easily better now than they were just 50-200 years ago. Is it any worse now overall than the Wild West? Basically if some people think they can get away with highway robbery, murder, etc. then they will try to do so and this is really nothing new. And even in the most moral of all societies that have ever existed all it takes is a few narcissists, sociopaths, etc. that think the rules don’t apply to them to really throw a wrench in things and do a lot of damage regardless of what the majority think and do.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Beefster wrote:

In many church conversations, we mention that society is deteriorating morally…But perhaps, as a whole, despite these problems, humanity is ascending into greater truth, knowledge, understanding, and love. We have better technology and medical understanding. There is more acceptance for LGBT+ people. There is (arguably) more tolerance of people from many different faiths and beliefs. We don’t label people as heretics or burn people at the stake for being who they are.

SamBee wrote:

The mistake to make is to link it to sex. Look at all the other stuff – people are self obsessed.

I think that’s precisely why we repeatedly hear about how the world is supposedly so bad and getting worse, because Church leaders are focused so much on other people’s sex habits compared to everything else. Imagine what most people would think is an ideal society with no crime, war, poverty, disease, etc. but with some people having sex that are not married and/or straight. Would Church leaders tone down their rhetoric about supposed moral decline much in that case? I doubt it; my guess is that to them that would still be a filthy, wrong, and completely unacceptable state of affairs. So of course Church leaders see moral degradation compared to the supposed pinnacle of moral societies: 1950s America (based on the way Church leaders talk). It is a self-fulfilling prophecy based on the unrealistic and impractical way they have defined what success is supposed to look like when most of the rest of the world already have more pressing concerns to worry about than sex between consenting adults.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Roy wrote:

I am seeing this particular company/private practice fairly regularly in my Facebook feed…It appears to be established in large part to help YM “addicted” to P and M…it seems to overly use battle metaphors. It seems to describe tactics that Satan uses to make YM fail and how to counter/overcome those tactics…This is interesting for several reasons. They seem to bill themselves as licensed therapists but I find it unusual for therapists to talk like this e.g. “fight the battle against Satan’s tactics.” Honestly, it reminds me of the type of business that might have practiced conversion therapy in an earlier day and age. They are independent of the LDS church yet are VERY Mormon – even gearing their services to pre and post missionary service…I am interested to know your thoughts on this organization.

On another forum I heard that some bishops were sending people to these programs for treatment and in some cases actually paying for it with money from the Church. I guess it was only a matter of time before some people tried to profit from all the porn hysteria in the Church. It reminds me of the Book of Mormon tours to see Mayan ruins. Basically the Church itself creates a market for this kind of thing because there are young men that think they need to stop all the porn and masturbation once and for all in order to be “worthy” to go on missions, get married in the temple, etc. and there are LDS men with their wife threatening to divorce them that could also use something like this to try to show that they are really serious about stopping. So the battle metaphors actually fit fairly well with their goals and target customers because it is all part of playing along with the idea that all of this is supposedly so serious as if it is practically more important than life or death (of any one individual).

[DevilsAdvocate]

Roy wrote:

DA, I believe there is a point where people in a society are considered to be fully participating adults. For the LDS it seems that marriage is that line. We send our RMs to single adult wards where they play juvenile games supervised by adult chaperones…I remember one night my older sister caught my fiancée and me watching a movie and making out late at night (when everyone else was supposed to be asleep). My sister threatened to call my fiancée’s parents. My fiancée was incensed. We were both about 24. RM’s and seniors in college. My fiancée had not lived under her parents’ roof for more than 5 years…When was the last time someone threatened to call your parents DA?

It’s been a long time since anyone told my parents about any of my supposed misdeeds, but I would attribute that mostly to the fact that I don’t live very close to anyone that knows them anymore. If someone that knew my parents saw me drinking beer or something like that then it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they told my parents even now that I have been married for years.

I agree that in the LDS culture people typically aren’t really seen as fully adult until they are married but even then they are typically only expected to make independent adult decisions as far as it doesn’t conflict with many LDS norms and teachings so that’s why I think it’s fair to say the Church tends to infantilize adults in general, not just singles. Basically it is like an overprotective mother trying to make many decisions for her children as if it is for their own good instead of letting them live their own life.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Old Timer wrote:

The Church infantilizes single adults. It’s silly and wrong. No reason BYU would be any different.

To me it looks like the Church tends to infantilize adults in general that will let them and Church leaders also meddle in politics to try to restrict typical adult decisions even for non-Mormons and inactive members, married or not. But who is more likely to never drink alcohol, only watch movies or TV shows primarily targeted for PG-13 and younger audiences such as Disney movies, Harry Potter, etc., LDS single adults or LDS adults that are married to another active Church member? Some of the most child-like adults I know are typical married TBM neighbors and relatives. In fact, I think many Church leaders and members would try to argue that this is actually a good thing and a worthwhile goal to aim for (they don’t see it as wrong at all).

It doesn’t surprise me that the Church would treat single adults differently than married people but I think the main reason for this is that LDS single adults actually are significantly more likely to exercise their freedom of choice in ways that defy LDS traditions than those that are married to another active Church member simply because it is typically easier for them to do so whereas those that are married to another active member often have to worry about what their spouse will think about it if they do anything that doesn’t conform to the typical LDS expectations, and furthermore things like drinking, pre-marital sex, porn, wearing “immodest” clothing, etc. will only make it less likely that single adults will get married to another active Mormon because it makes them “unworthy” unless they repent according to the Church. So to me it looks like this kind of thing is not necessarily out of disrespect or maliciousness as much as simply playing the odds and a reflection of Church leaders typically worrying more about LDS single adults than those that are already married.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Modesty is one of several words that have taken on a completely different meaning for Mormons than what they typically mean to everyone else. To most people modest would simply mean something like not extravagant. And many non-Mormons that would certainly feel uncomfortable about their teenage daughters wearing relatively provocative clothing would find nothing wrong with many clothes that would still be considered “immodest” by LDS standards. That’s because in the LDS subculture “modest” has come to mostly mean clothing that would cover garments which is apparently especially important for women for whatever reasons.

To me it looks very similar to the Word of Wisdom in that it basically functions as a loyalty test to see who will do what they are told to basically separate the in-group from the out-group as a form of externally visible virtue signalling. So to most of the world there is nothing wrong with drinking coffee or tea but in the LDS Church it is treated as a deliberate show of disobedience and therefore heavily frowned upon and it is the same way with sleeveless dresses, short shorts, tattoos, crosses, and whatever other current LDS taboos. The interesting thing about this to me is that this one (covering shoulders and legs practically down to the knees) is a relatively new development at least as far as being expected of members that have not gone through the temple yet.

[DevilsAdvocate]

SilentDawning wrote:

I was wondering if anyone knows the motivations of the church to provide such low cost tuition to our young adults and adults who need to upgrade their education…I heard GBH indicate they were not going to expand the university system because it is so expensive — this was in conference or in a priesthood meeting years ago. So cost is a big concern for the church, and consistent with my past dealings with them…GBH did mention in conference that the church is a proponent of education because it “increases members’ capacity to serve in the Church”. There is also the safe haven of providing a place where members can send their children to avoid the drinking, sex and wild oats associated with secular university life…Any more comments on why the church displays such commitment?

I think you already answered your own question and it really isn’t much more complicated than that. Sure, Church leaders will give some lip service to the importance of education, intelligence, etc. but even if they are completely serious that still wouldn’t mean that there is any real need for BYU to exist for that reason alone because they could just as easily continue to preach these ideals but then just let LDS students go to some of the other existing schools instead. Think about it, if regular high schools are good enough for most Mormons at this point then why aren’t regular colleges and universities already good enough as well? Obviously many other schools already are good enough for many LDS students nowadays but what BYU provides above and beyond basic education is essentially a relatively controlled environment where LDS students will typically feel constant pressure to go along with the Church’s expected standards and beliefs.

In fact, BYU goes even further than general LDS standards with the strict rules about no beards allowed, no caffeinated soda, strict honor code enforcement, etc. Basically it looks like it is mostly about trying to retain young adults at all costs through strict enforced discipline (a la boot camp) at an age in life when so many end up falling away from the Church and what they don’t want to happen beyond all the drinking and sex that go on at other schools is simply things like LDS students dating non-Mormons or less active members, being converted to atheism as soon as they take a Philosophy class, Biology 101, etc. So that’s why I think Church leaders are content to spend so much money on BYU mostly because they want to maintain what they see as a “safer” spiritual environment separate from the supposedly evil and scary outside world.

[DevilsAdvocate]

DoubtingTom wrote:

…We often talk about becoming like our Savior, striving to emulate him, doing what He would do if on earth, and even asking ourselves the question, “what would Jesus do?” (WWJD)…Where does this sense of what it means to be Christ-like come from? Is it from a thorough study of the scriptures and history to understand the life of Jesus? I would posit no to that since we actually know very little about him. I propose that our sense of knowing “WWJD” comes mostly from our culture and an innate sense of right vs wrong. We know what it means to be loving and we can project that sense when striving to be like Him. But it actually has very little to do with understanding the actual man Jesus… When we say the goal is to be more Christ-like, what do we mean?

The gospels actually have quite a few very specific examples of what Jesus reportedly said and did in many different situations, certainly more than we have even for many much more recent historical figures. For example, if we take these accounts at face value then Jesus openly criticized the Pharisees, drove the money changers out of the temple, picked grain on the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-2), basically told Martha there were more important things than working all the time, etc. So it’s really not all that mysterious to get a fairly good idea of what Jesus was like based on these accounts even to the point of guessing at how he would probably react in specific cases nowadays.

The interesting thing about this to me is that it looks like if there was one thing Jesus was not he definitely wasn’t all about conformity, always playing it safe, and just going along with what other people around him were doing. In fact it makes perfect sense, in context, why some of the local authorities would have seen him as a troublemaker even to the point of having him executed as if he was a common criminal but I guess that’s the main reason we hear about him today because he was revolutionary and didn’t just keep quiet about ideas that challenged the conventional wisdom at the time. That’s why I think it’s safe to say that worrying about things like white shirts, facial hair, how many earrings women are wearing, etc. would be way out of character for Jesus as he is described in the New Testament but certainly concerns like this are very much in character for typical old men from a relatively corporate/bureaucratic background.

[DevilsAdvocate]

To be honest I was skeptical after reading the title; to me it sounded almost like, “Secrets of achieving financial success from people that declared bankruptcy.” I mean there are statistics that have been reported that 2nd and 3rd marriages are even more likely to end in divorce than first marrages and I know some people that have been married 3 or 4 times.

So that’s why I wondered how much many of these people that get divorced have really learned their lesson the hard way versus how much they are likely to remain victims of the same patterns of thinking and behavior that didn’t work very well for them the first time around. For example, how well are they typically able to see what they could have done differently, or do they tend to mostly blame their ex and act as if their only mistake was choosing the wrong marriage partner? But after reading this list I thought some of the points like “the grass is not always greener”, not expecting perfection, etc. were actually spot on as far as at least trying to avoid some fairly common threats to marriage.

[Author]

Posts