Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
crl21 wrote:Quote:
But I have to say that addiction, by its very nature, produces a whole host of thought distortions, self hatred, and shame all by itself. Even the best sentiment and support by an LDS leader could be distorted by someone who is stuck in an addictive cycle. So, the addicts have to take some of the responsibility here.
And its pretty sad when we let others judgments of us blind us to our own power and our own ability to find meaning in struggle. If one is listening to the spirit…or the universe…or the self voice within, there are always more gentle, loving options available. But, it takes courage to leave the shame dogma and think in behalf of oneself. It’s easier to blame the leaders, or the church people, or our evil selves than to embrace the lessens of love and personal responsibility.
I agree whole heartedly with this sentiment when it comes to adults. But we are taking about a 13 year old boy, who believes with all his heart that what his leaders say is the truth. Based on the statements that have been made publicly by leaders on this issue, what conclusion is a 13 year old boy to draw? Do leaders bare no responsibility?
Thanks for that clarification. I was speaking exclusively about adults.
In regards to young boys (girls too), I think that very few people really understand sexuality. Certainly with young people, we’ve got lots more curiosity happening than anything. And the mental health profession, depending on who you read, concedes that there is still so much we don’t know about human sexuality. I think we know more about men. Women are still a mystery, even to ourselves sometimes. And I think sexuality scares us. And that fear makes us over-reactive. I think it’s this over-reactivity that you are reacting to.
😆 (forgive me. I couldn’t help myself.)When you ask the question “Do leaders bare no responsibility?”, I struggle to answer that definitively because each case/person is complex and different. I do think LDS leaders/people/parents throw around the word “addiction” like Dr.’s throw out prescriptions. It’s excessive and uninformed and irresponsible. And I do think it’s damaging because it’s these very overreactions that condition our children into fear and self loathing. As you stated so well. Hopefully I’m understanding better here.
I think the answer to this problem is a nice jumbo dose of compassion all the way around. Compassion for leaders who don’t know better either because of ignorance or fear. Compassion for our young boys who have to navigate high octane sexual development in their bodies (and culture) before their emotional maturity catches up. And compassion for parents who don’t know how to teach sexuality AND the law of chastity at the same time.
What IS comforting to me, is that I as a parent have the ability to influence my child MORE than bishops. ANd that is a very satsifying realization. If I stay plugged in and if I am careful about my reactions to things, I know I can help my children meet their budding sexual feelings with wisdom, patience, and sound principles grounded in the idea of bridling passions rather than shaming or suppressing them. I also can control any tendencies towards black and white thinking about questionable behaviors and teach my kids the difference between Godly sorrow and repentance, and shame based condemnation. And that means being compassionate with my own panic reactions.
NOW, having said all of this. I will say that there is more and more evidence regarding the addictive nature of pornography and the detrimental effects it has on the developing teen brain. I think its wise in our sexually bombarded culture to be conscious of how a counter-culture bias can confuse our own judgments of sexual behaviors. If all we are doing is reacting to the “tight” at the mormon church, then we are kinda blind. Perhaps this is my bias and people will argue, but I think porn IS the new heroin. And I’m fine if others dispute this. But for me and mine, I see no reason porn enhances the sexual development of children. There is a time and a place for adult sexual behavior to happen. And it isn’t at age 13.
I appreciate your words, Brian. And I appreciate this thread. This seems to me the heart of my struggle with the church. It’s nice to hear it articulated in a way that resonates. Nice also to hear it framed in compassionate terms. This is one of those areas where the dogma running through my mind, and my experience with life, pain, and God don’t jive. In fact, I’ve found God to be both strict AND flexible. And I’ve found lots more freedom inside principled living (not blind, law of moses obedience) that has truly blessed and broadened my life and my view of life. I’m not sure exactly why it is I struggle so much given that insight. Perhaps I noticed I was stuck in rigid thinking patterns and that the straight-jacket of it all was causing me pain and wanted to divorce myself from all of it altogether. Maybe its because I decided to liberate myself, but needed others to “convert” my way in order for me to feel safe. I think both have happened with me as I’ve journeyed along.
Another piece isn’t about anyone else but God and my relationship with him. If I turn into a “cafeteria mormon”, what does that do to my covenant relationship with God? Do I turn “luke warm” and qualify to be “spewed out of his mouth”? I probably should say that I tend towards a strong testimony of the law of obedience and the law of sacrifice. So, as I attempt to make the church “my own” or make it work for me in my own way, I feel a sense of fear and guilt that tends to freeze me. Does that make sense to anybody? I worry people with judge that and say, “well, just get over the guilt!” Maybe I worry about that cause I say that to myself. But that doesn’t seem to work either, because sometimes I actually think the guilt has a purpose to teach me about how I’m out of bounds.
Learning how to find this new way of “being” in the church (in the church but not of the church) is a humbling thing, I think.
SamBee wrote:Quote:•The pattern of repentance/confession can often lead to serious damage of self-esteem when someone has a recurring issue – the doctrine that if you sin again all previous sins come back makes someone dealing with addiction or other compulsive sin feel they are destined for hell and nothing they do to attempt to improve has meaning.
I have lots of feelings on this subject and can agree with some of what is being said here. There is no doubt that LDS culture produces perfectionism, all or nothing thinking, and certainly shame. We don’t know how to deal with the opposition that is inherently inside of each of us. But we don’t have a corner on that market. I’m pretty sure the who judeo-christian tradition was generating all this long before Joseph and the plates. In any case, mormons tend to struggle with this kind of thinking. We think its righteousness and obedient and it certainly makes us feel “right” when we think this way. But, I think this kind of thinking means we are really misunderstanding the doctrine. Too often in the church, we judge instead of discern. And when we judge…others or self…we stop loving. And when we do that, we do a lot of damage.
In any case, I agree that this poses particular problems for those struggling with addictions and compulsive sexual issues. Too often people get freaked by sexual problems either cuz they feel shame or it triggers their own issues. But I have to say that addiction, by its very nature, produces a whole host of thought distortions, self hatred, and shame all by itself. Even the best sentiment and support by an LDS leader could be distorted by someone who is stuck in an addictive cycle. So, the addicts have to take some of the responsibility here.
And its pretty sad when we let others judgments of us blind us to our own power and our own ability to find meaning in struggle. If one is listening to the spirit…or the universe…or the self voice within, there are always more gentle, loving options available. But, it takes courage to leave the shame dogma and think in behalf of oneself. It’s easier to blame the leaders, or the church people, or our evil selves than to embrace the lessens of love and personal responsibility.
Orson wrote:Wow, too much to cover in my couple minutes. I think Joseph spoke “both ways” at times. In his 1838 account of the first vision we all know the words of how the other churches were not complete. I do like quotes like these, they seem the most Christlike.
Herodotus, I could be wrong but I don’t think the concept of Exaltation was developed by 1840. If that is the case most modern members would point to this statement in the context of the time and say the Terrestrial kingdom is “salvation” so what he said is absolutely technically correct — we just understand more today. I have a friend who says other religions will get exactly what they expect. They will be saved in “heaven”, they’re just missing out on the concept of Exaltation. I don’t know, I just have a hard time getting myself concerned at all about it.
Why do we like to feel that we have “more”? Ironically, and precariously, I think it can come very close to the “pride” that Pres. Benson used to warn us so much about. Pride is wanting to be above your neighbor – it’s a relational thing. Pride in this context is not “I really enjoy my car” – pride is: “my car is BETTER than my neighbors!” Humility and love are the opposite of pride, something for every human to remember.
Knowing more about a subject doesn’t necessarily make one prideful. And if someone does know more about particular subject, I am not sure they should be embarrassed about that or diminish the significance of that just so that everyone feels equal. Aren’t we all trying to gain more wisdom? Isn’t that the goal?
MapleLeaf wrote:
Hawkgrrrl, where can I find the quote about hell = no longer progressing?? I hadn’t heard that before.I thought this idea was in reference to damnation. The bible dictionary defines it as “the opposite to salvation”, and exists in various degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of Celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and hence be damned to that extent.” Hell is a temporary state where justice exacts its final due. Or it could be having dinner with my SIL.
After my “falling out”, I didn’t know if I believed in God anymore but never lost the knowledge really. It came back slowly and meaningfullly. But my knowing about Jesus? All bets were off. I remember sitting in the bishops office pointing to his picture on the wall telling him it all felt like a myth. And hours laboring over so many questions in my heart. My questions about Jesus were less philosophical though. They were very personal as I needed to understand the healing parts of the atonement. After lots of consideration, I decided to open my heart to the possibility of Jesus, trusting the words of the scriptures that once meant so much to me, and slowly my inner knowing about the reality of Jesus started to come to me. And now, I can’t say that I don’t know if Jesus is real. If I did it would be a defiant denial. So…..instead of questioning anymore, I am trying to build on it so that my testimony can increase in the best sorts of ways. I can’t tell you exactly how the knowledge came. It seems a little bit at a time and almost without me noticing when. But then I looked and it was there and then there was some measure of peace in my mind and trust in my thoughts. And at this point, I do believe in a literal person named Jesus who walked the earth and paid literally to free us from sin and death. I don’t find meaning in a figurative Jesus. I have tried to think about it that way and it just doesn’t work for me.
One thing I love about the restored gospel is the way that it defines whose right about religion. I mean JSmith said to find truth wherever it is to be found. We invite people to bring their truth with them. He also explained that Mohommad and others were inspired. I also think its interesting that the three major religions (Judiasm, Christianity, and Muslim) came from the same little Abrahamic family. It’s also important that tribes were scattered. I wonder if they took peices of truth with them. I also think its important, not that I understand everything, that God did give lower laws because the Israelites, for example, weren’t ready for more. But in the restoration we learn that there is more….a lot more. And I think its a blessing that this gospel allows for us to bring truths in from lots of sources. And I love the peeks in the scriptures that tell us that there are more people who had a visit from Jesus (lost tribes of Israel, not just tribe of Judah) and wrote about it and that someday we will get their records.
And I love that we are taught to live by the spirit. Not just to follow cause someone says too or even because its who we are because of birth. I like living by the spirit this way. You can read anything and discern the truth of it. It’s a wonderful way to absorb the things presented by the earth and mysteries of God too.
embwbam wrote:
So, I’m trying to figure out what’s next, and one thing I’ve realized is that I’m afraid of making mistakes.For example, I can’t yet consider the idea of cutting my church attendance, not wearing garments, or anything like that, because if all the TBMs are actually right, it seems like I’m really losing my shot at afterlife blessings by going there.
I struggle with the fear of making mistakes too. I can still hear my TBM parents voices inside my head about the straight and narrow path and the LDS culture that sometimes mis defines what that path is.
And I do fear my standing with God. I never did take making covenants lightly and breaking them is sobering for me. So, in this way I don’t think the fear is unhealthy. I think it shows reverence and respect for the commitments that God asks us to make.
I actually have had to battle with this these last 7 days as my frustration hit an all time high and I was ready to walk away from the church completely. My husband and I decided to take a serious break from the church and I was so serious about that break that I thought of taking off the garments and buying a bottle of wine to celebrate my liberation. But then I stopped all that emotion and thought deeply about what I was actually doing and how far I was really prepared to go.
Sometimes I can’t decide if God is leading me back into the church or to rise above the church or be in the church but not of the church ( if that makes sense). I actually like the idea of rising above. This last bit feels good and right and liberating and more secure than all the “doings”. I was reading another thread where Bridget said something about attending church and only focusing on the Savior and how that made all the resentments go away. I think there is something to this and the importance of retaining the spirit of the law and the vision of why we do what we do in our hearts. But I am not sure living in the spirit of the law means we abandon the letter. The Lord, I still feel, asks us to make and keep covenants. All the rest…..I can chuck out the window. But not my covenants. Those I didn’t make with the church. I made them with my God. The one who supports me from moment to moment.
It seems that God has allowed me a little unorthodox latitude with my own journey. He knew I needed it. But I feel Him leading me back to what’s important in terms of my outer behaviors too. I don’t know if my path is for everyone. I tend to believe that if the covenants are true for one they are true for all. But that isn’t all I think.
My brain doesn’t know if the story is literal or figurative. When Justme says that we are all Adam and Eve, that makes a load of sense. It seems to be what the temple is trying to say. But I also understand that Adam was Michael and was a literal dude who was given the stewardship of being the first dad. Apparently Eve shares that with him only we don’t know the specifics about her which is a disappointment in my world.
But anyway, I guess I wonder if there its not both. Who knows about all the timelines, though. I think that is on my list of questions for God.
I think that the nature of God is one of the mysteries that many have tried to understand. Joseph Smith gave a few little peeks and I think many have tried with their limited earthly brains to explain it. As far as doctrine goes, I don’t believe the JofD is used to define the doctrine even though it is a place where many prophets are quoted. (whether quoted correctly….that is something that is a question). I guess that when I see quotes like that I think its important to understand that nature of what one is reading. Is it revelation or just dudes pondering outloud?
My understanding of doctrine is that God is not progressing. He is fully progressed and currently in a state of eternally increasing. Whatever that means.
Old-Timer wrote:This is going to be one of those “direct” comments:
I’m as “out” as it is possible to get when it comes to my beliefs – but I’m firmly “in” the Church.I don’t hesitate to share my opinions, as anyone in the entire Bloggernacle knows 😆 – but eveyone knows I’m fully committed to the Church. I don’t lie; I don’t hide my beliefs; I don’t mince words; I don’t let stupid things go unchallenged; I constantly express my view in public and privately with individuals. Some people are “out” – while I am “way out there”. I also am “in”.It doesn’t have to be one or the other – “in” or “out”.That’s part of the black and white wolrdview that causes so much of the dissonance experienced by those entering Stage 4. Let me try to put it this way:
Why could Elder Wirthlin serve in the same quorum as Elder McConkie and Elder Packer? Why can Elder Packer serve in the same quorum as Elder Andersen and Elder Cook? Do you really think that they pull punches with each other about their beliefs on topics they discuss? Believe me, it doesn’t happen that way. They hash it all out openly and honestly – and generally don’t move forward until there is a consensus.
What’s the difference in a ward? Primarily, people who are less willing to grant that others can disagree and still be fine, faithful, dedicated members of the Church. When Elder Wirthlin begged that we allow ALL instruments in the orchestra to be heard, he was saying that it’s OK to be different in the way one thinks and sees lots of things (and even “sounds” to others) – to be “out” of the normal range, if you will. The key is being “in” the orchestra – actively playing your own instrument – not sitting on the sidelines worried about sounding different.
This simply isn’t about how others view you; it’s about how you view yourself. Nothing is going to change until recognition of that occurs.
K. This is really meaningful to me. Especially the last bit. I feel like I’m 50% there. I am sure about my beliefs. I have gone through the wreckage and salvaged and reestablished the stuff that feels true and means most to me. And I am open for God to help me understand more. But its orienting to others that causes me trouble. Being “out” and “in” seems problematic because its hard for people to include people who feel or look or act differently than they do. You suddenly become a threat when you never meant to be. And it hurts when someone rejects you based upon your inability to do “it” like they do. I too feel the need to challenge stupdity or to break the mormon bubble as I am sure its not made by God. But at the same time, I just wanna peacefully grow at my pace and let others grow at theirs. I can’t see it all or understand it all today. Not even when I desperately want to. It would be nice to be in and out without feeling like a scarlet A is on your forehead. Be nice if I could just be Poppy and be appreciated for where I am today.
Cadence, wow……I just want to thank you for posting this today. Two days ago I was ready to completely walk away from the church. After one event with my VTing companion this week, my husband is now ready to take a serious break from church. Too much for too long I guess. We both talked this morning about how hard it is to keep bitterness out of our hearts. But as we have pondered our feelings these last 48 hours, neither of us feel that we can leave the church. There is too much of the doctrine written inside the core of who we are. I don’t know how to get where you are…..with finding a new way to enjoy participating in the church. That part is a real struggle for me right now. I am angry and hurt and frustrated while what I really want to feel is peace and understanding and hope. It’s like I can see the picture of how I want to be, but getting there is not a reality yet and that makes me frustrated with myself. How did you arrive at that place of peace? Did it just come to you? Did you pray for it? Was it a conscious decision?
Anyway, thank you, Cadence.
Rix wrote:Poppyseed wrote:If Jesus wasnt’ a real person, then that would end my internal stuggle right then and there. I find no satisfaction in believing in the idea of a Jesus or any other mythical character. And if just believing the concepts he taught were the only important thing, then frankly it seems that I could get them from a wide variety of sources.
I believe that Jesus was a real person. And for now I feel that the LDS explanation for who Jesus is feels truer than any other I have found in mainstream Christianity. If its not true, then I can’t see myself staying a Christian. I think I would believe in a supreme being and that I would continue to communicate and learn thru spiritual means. I would most likely stay away from organized religion and only seek for truths that make me a better person and help to explain earth life.
Now you’re seeing the transition many of us have gone through…and even though you may see the approach above as a “bad” thing, I find it to be a very good, freeing, and logical approach. If “God” is “all that is good,” and “love,” it changes things, but not in a bad way (IMO). Personally, I find when studying history, and particularly the history of religion, it makes complete sense that the “dogma” that is assigned to religions was instituted by political/religious leaders for control of the members.
The concept of unconditional love is much more consistent with what Jesus most likely taught, and simply feels better than the cog-dis of “God loves you as long as you do such and such…” That “such-and-such” is man-made, IMHO.
Today has been a really sucky day with the mormon church. And I come here and read this. How do you know how I feel, Rix? How do you know that I see the “above approach” as a bad thing? Thank you for judging me and ending with a smile. Its so…..mormon.
swimordie wrote:What if Jesus was a real person but he didn’t do or say any of the things in the NT? What if he was a real person but everything we know about him was made up?
My reaction would be the same.
