[doug]

red1988 wrote:

As long as you feel like it doesn’t take away from the day for you I wouldn’t worry.

Yes. And by the way, spending money on Sunday, or pursuing any other lawful activity for that matter, does not necessarily equate to not “keeping the Sabbath”.

[doug]

DBMormon wrote:

Good point, now how do I use that… I am just not that smart. Smoke was coming out of my ears as I read… lol

There’s a decent book on the topic: Please Understand Me by Kiersey. In some ways it can be a little tedious, but I highly recommend it. I think it would be particularly useful for a bishop.

[doug]

turinturambar wrote:

Why won’t they aggressively address it over the pulpit?

Good question. My wife used those exact words just today. What do they have to lose? I don’t get it.

Quote:

My bishop listened very carefully and kindly to all of this, and finally said “These are all tough issues, Turin. I just don’t have any answers. What can I do for you?”

Sounds like you won in the bishop lottery. What a good guy he sounds like.

Quote:

What to do?

It sounds like you know what to do. Try different things. Follow your inner light and see where it leads you. Don’t feel guilty about it. What could go wrong? 🙂

[doug]

DBMormon wrote:

INFJ

Thanks for sharing, DB (and turinturambar). I constantly have to remind myself not to pigeonhole people, but that’s what I would have guessed for you. My wife is also an INFJ, so I know how you think!

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I will simply offer the following. At one time I believe you said that one of your reasons for being involved in online discussion forums such as this one was to give you insight to help you deal with your responsibilities as a bishop (a really good and laudable motivation, BTW) in dealing with individuals that may have questions, are disaffected, or whatever. I think it would be good to remember your reaction to others’ reactions to the talk that is the topic of this thread. What seems perfectly clear and something of immense value to you may elicit only a “Hmm” and a scratching of the head from someone else, for no other reason than that they are wired differently (not better or worse) than you, and just plain see things differently. Most people involved on this site will be either Idealists (NF) such as yourself, or Rationals (NT) such as myself, and I think you will find that the Idealists have a much easier time living with the quandaries and contradictions that we all have to deal with, for reasons that I can only guess at. While most of the members of your ward will be neither Idealists nor Rationals, these are the people that are going to be more likely to need a listening ear.

[doug]

If it were me, I would rank the three BYUs in the following order.

1 – BYU

2 – BYU Hawaii

3 – BYU Idaho

I believe that in most majors you can get a top-notch education at BYU. And if you are a church member, the costs, at least compared to what one would have to pay at a public university in California, are extremely reasonable, if not cheap. I think that one can find whatever one is looking for at BYU. If you want to lead a sheltered existence, you can certainly find that there, but I think there is enough diversity of opinion that you can also have a fairly open, honest, and stimulating academic experience.

I have no personal experience with 2 and 3, but from what little I do know (I have at least visited both campuses), BYU Hawaii is roughly equivalent to a good community college in a really cool place. At one time the intended purpose was to provide a place for higher education for locals and Pacific islanders, but I don’t know if that’s still the emphasis in recruiting. For various reasons, primarily the culture (which I think infects everything else) there is no way I would ever set foot on BYU-Idaho as a student, and I strongly discourage my children from considering going there. But it works for a lot of people.

I have very little insight into LDS Business College, but I believe it is a well-respected institution if that’s the kind of education one is looking for.

[doug]

1) I agree that for most people, “normal people”, there is not too much pressure to be “perfect” simply because most people are equipped to realize that perfection is unattainable, and we therefore simply try to do the best we reasonably can. However, there are individuals, one of which is very close to me, that are deeply harmed by the rhetoric of perfection. Anyone with a tendency toward scrupulosity (a form of OCD) takes these admonitions at face value — that is to say very seriously — and can basically get pretty screwed up by them.

2) It’s always been urban legend that leader’s children are under the microscope, and it seems like this would be true. We put unrealistic expectations on our leaders, so why not their kids and pets?

3) Yes, the chuch has a poor history of dealing constructively with sexuality. IMO, it’s really not their prerogative to insert themselves at anywhere near the level that they do in this arena. No pun intended. I think the church can and perhaps should make general guidelines and expectations of uprightness and morality, but it is the arena of and responsibility for the family to discuss details of sexuality, what may and may not be appropriate, etc. The church/church leaders have a particularly annoying habit of making bold declarations of one kind or another, those dealing with specific sexual behaviour conspicuous among them, and then when they find the times have passed them by, or when there is a backlash against their perceived meddlesomeness, they will quietly withdraw the teaching, or simply stop repeating and/or publishing it, thus creating confusion and sometimes dissension in the ranks.

[doug]

DBMormon wrote:

I saw 0% wrong with it. again not upset just find it interesting

I have been making the same observation … both on and off this site. It’s really a great reminder that different people really do see things differently. I tend to draw additional conclusions from this observation, such as that truth is, in the end, subjective, but that’s another matter entirely.

While we’re on the topic, DBM, I’d be interested in knowing your MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), as well as that of other new posters here. Are you familiar with MBTI, and do you know what yours is? There’s a rather lengthy thread about it here, and a place to test yourself here.

[doug]

The guy is either really clueless or really disingenuous. It’s easy to see why he isn’t practicing journalism any longer.

[doug]

Good comments, Heber. Thanks for posting the link DBM (… and Orson, was it, in another thread?). These are the kind of people that, while I may not see eye-to-eye with them, at least having a conversation with them can be a rewarding experience.

Heber13 wrote:

The next step is for a courageous church leader to openly admit, “Sometimes people in this church don’t get these clear revelations, and we do know some people in other religions do get that experience for them. And those are just as valid for them.”

It’s a slippery slope. What’s next … that there’s not a one-and-only-true-church?

Quote:

I see this SPs message confusing and problematic in some ways, and inspiring and courageous in other ways.

Yes.

[doug]

church-

Welcome! I’m so sorry to hear about your daughter’s suicide, and of course about your experiences that lead to PTSD, but happy that you found us here, and I hope just knowing that you’re not alone will make it all easier somehow. I know it does for me.

Crafting honest yet “true to the faith” SM talks can be a real trick. I learned to make sort of a game of it. Not that I became intentionally disingenuous or deceptive, but it was sort of fun to find something, somewhere — even if it was just one word — that reminded me of somthing that I was passionate about … and that would pass for staying on topic. Good luck with that.

It seems there are a lot of parallels between how we can see church and country. Certainly, it makes it a lot easier to make the huge sacrifices that are sometimes required, in both contexts, when everything is clearly black and white … not so much when it fades to gray.

Quote:

I’m guessing this is normal, but right now I don’t really know what normal really is.

Sounds pretty normal to me.

[doug]

rebeccad wrote:

Quote:

change the message rules to automatically forward any messages from the bishop’s/counselors/teacher’s email addresses to yours

This is a great idea. I’ll figure out how to do it.

There are two issues here. The primary one is the safety of your children and your peace of mind. The other is that there is a principle involved having to do with what constitutes acceptable relationships between children and adults who are not in the same family. Arguably, this is also an important concern, and if you have a strong opinion on the matter, which you clearly do, I think it is incumbent on you to make a big deal about it, if necessary, to get the message across. Maybe some parents don’t care, but the fact that you have an issue is a good indication that other parents might as well.

You can address the first issue with technology, but not the second. I think continuing the dialogue with the bishop so that he and, hopefully, everyone else in the ward that interacts with youth, will get the message loud and clear.

[doug]

On Own Now wrote:

… but if it really just comes down to the Bishop being insensitive about a family practice of yours, and you are annoyed that he’s not honoring your request, then you might reconsider.

OON, I think your advice is good, level-headed, and well-considered. But I know that for me, personally, level-headed doesn’t apply where my kids are concerned, and I am unapologetic about that. Yes, if someone ignores a direct request from me, even though it’s an annoyance I will forebear pretty much indefinitely … UNLESS it has something to do with my kids and my perception of their well-being. At that point the gloves come off. I am not saying that is right or wrong, it’s just the way I am.

[doug]

rebeccad wrote:

Maybe when I have calmed down a little I’ll send a email to the SP.

Yes, contact your SP. And if that doesn’t work, keep going. Yes, these people are volunteers, and they didn’t ask for the job, but the way we are all thrown together creates an intimacy that most of us also didn’t ask for, and that intimacy sometimes needs to be managed. Your opinion in this matter must be respected.

[doug]

I agree as well … it seems a bit creepy to me. First of all, nobody should feel guilty about being too protective of their own children. The bishop should go along with your requests regarding communication with your children, no matter how unreasonable they might seem to him, no questions asked, period, end of discussion.

On the other hand, it’s a new world out there, and I am a bit of a Luddite on these matters. So maybe I just don’t get where these people are coming from. I am amazed at how often my children receive “friend” facebook requests from adults in the stake with whom they have had only superficial contact, and with the requests I get from people of the opposite sex. It all seems so strange to me. Bottom line, no need to start imagining nefarious intent. It’s just a different culture, I guess.

Regarding rearranging your family’s cell and email contacts, I suppose that would be a workable solution, and you ought to pursue that if you are so inclined, but if it involves undue expense or inconvenience, you should feel no responsibility to conform to someone else’s idea of what constitutes acceptable communication with your children. They’re your children. The rest of the world can conform to your model.

[doug]

Heber13 wrote:

doug wrote:

I hate to say it, but not really. I can name at least a dozen other books that I get way more inspiration from.

How does it compare to the New Testament for you?

I find I get more inspiration from the NT. That probably says more about me than it does about the BoM or the NT. There have always been issues with the BoM that have concerned me, but until recently I felt an obligation to ignore or discount my reservations and push them away. While that may work for some people, in the long run it didn’t work very well for me. Also, the fact that the NT is the kind of document that can spawn a scholarly critical analysis makes it interesting to me, and thus capable of inspiring me, in a way that a work that cannot spawn such a dialogue cannot do.

As sort of an aside, I’ve been wanting to raise the following points. In another thread it was hypothesized that the BoM does not claim to be a historical work, and further, that the “these things” referred to by Moroni in his promise do not necessarily encompass the entire book.

Apart from Nephi conceding that there might be mistakes in the book, I am unaware of anything in the BoM that would give anyone reason to make the claim that the book itself does not claim to be historical. Certainly the introduction, chapter headings, and other appendages (all arguably part of the BoM) as well as a reasonably straighforward reading of the text of the book itsself seem to aver that it is, in fact, historical. This is how it is and has been presented by the organization that owns the copyright to the book. This is what “the members” believe (or in some cases “have faith in”, I suppose). To my knowledge, this has never been a bargaining point with the church. Same goes for Moroni’s promise … “these things” means “these things” … all of them without exception.

Maybe it’s just part of middle-way-ness that I still don’t get, but what I’m hearing here is that I when I find myself at odds with the church’s teachings on any given topic, I can maintain a pretense that there’s not really a problem by claiming that “the church” doesn’t teach or didn’t really say that thing. I agree that in a lot of areas this approach works wonderfully, but not for this one. Wouldn’t it be better to simply agree to disagree?

[Author]

Posts