[Rob4Hope]

Everyone is saying “Those experiences belong to them,…not you”.

So, are you all saying you have nothing to go on at all? Since God never gives you any experiences, you don’t believe in anything because to do so you have to listen to and accept some of the things others have had?

WOW! this is unexpected. Its like concluding things from lack of evidence, which is a serious false logical conclusion. Some hilarious yet accurate examples:

I have never seen your brain, therefore you have none.

I have never seen the dark side of the moon. Others have, but that experience is for them alone. Therefore, I can neither conclude one way or another if there is a dark side to the moon.

This type of logic is paralyzing. This is not quite what I expected from this thread, but it is what is happening….

[Rob4Hope]

Agnostic,…well, I think I mean it in a loose manner as someone who believes there is a higher power of something, but doesn’t want to qualify it as “God” necessarily, or “Heavenly Father”.

In context of my FC, my entire belief in God has been colored by LDS theology and teachings. As my FC has unfolded, my very foundation of “high power” has itself been shook. I struggle to believe there is a god as has been described,…but I believe there is something. I’m unsure.

So, that is my position on agnostic–there is something but unsure.

[Rob4Hope]

Gunna throw something controversial out there….

It appears they used divining rods during this time, and Oliver Cowdry, according to Quinn, had one and that is what JS said was “a gift from God”…

In today’s world, we would FREAK OUT if we knew someone was using divining rods. What about Ouija boards and things like that? If you ask me, it uses the exact same principles. Magic back then seemed to be part of their lives, and some of it, according to JS, was sanctioned and even gifted from God himself.

This is all very interesting stuff to me–it shows how the times in which we live have a profound influence on the narrative.

Would we reject the prophet if he went into his room, pulled out his divining rod and did some fancy incantations or whatever was required to get it all working, and then told us it was from God?

This stuff doesn’t shock me because I was forwarned and knew a lot of it before I started delving more. But, it certainly makes you think…and in some cases, even forces (at least on me) choices.

[Rob4Hope]

About 10% through.

Bushman says the BofM is more or less an enigma: the accounts of Martin Harris visit to the literary people and Charles Anton are mixed; the story of the push for people to steal the plates makes sense though because of the gold digging; but how the whole thing transpired with the Urim and Thummin is confusiong–at the beginning with the lost 116 pages he used the Urim and Thumin and had a curtain between him and Harris? Was he looking at the plates then, or something else?….

Bushman is not clear on these details, and why Joseph would then go back to sticking his head in a hat and looking at that other stone makes little sense: why would he do that if he could breath more freely and just look through the spectacles? I would think that having your head stuck down into a hat for hours and hours would get a little uncomfortable after a while.

So, these are some of the things that don’t make a lot of sense.

Also, I like how Bushman’s was pretty clear that JS kindof bridged the magic beliefs of the day and religion, and he never really crossed out of the magic side completely. The seer stone idea persisted throughout his life.

[Rob4Hope]

Roy…I understand and agree.

I do think it is inappropriate for some questions. I think the direct “M” one is wrong to ask adult males,…and frankly, if my son were in the bishops office, I would be uncomfortable with him asking my son that question directly as well.

I think there needs to be more: “Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves”.

[Rob4Hope]

Roy wrote:

Roy wrote:

So I ask myself, if M might be acceptable to help get through periods of a few months without my wife then why was it such a taboo in the first 25 years without my wife?

I really do appreciate any effort to help people with self-defeating behaviors (perhaps the inability to stick to a budget might be included in this) and/or addictions. On the other hand – if we are labeling normal sexual development an addiction/SDB then we can be causing pain and anguish were it needn’t exist.

One of the best articles that I have seen on this subject was discussed in the following thread: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6664&hilit=best+article+porn

I was thinking about this last night and had a bit of a breakthrough. It has to do with the concept of being an adult of God. There was a time in my youth and young adult years that the sexual standards of the church were helpful. As patronizing and infantilizing as they are sometimes, there was a time in my hormone flooded youth that such rules and guilt might have helped me to avoid some destructive choices (hooking up, teen pregnancy, STD’s, objectification of women, etc. etc.) I was a child of God then and the training wheels served a purpose.

Now I am an adult of God with more ability to reason and probably less flooded with hormones. I am now better able to make deliberate thoughtful decisions that take into consideration multiple stakeholders.

Interesting quote Roy. The disparity in the church is monumental on this particular topic. Some bishops/SP ask direct questions during worthiness interview: “When was the last time you masturbated?” I’ve sat in 3 interviews where this question was directly asked of me, and it has and is currently being asked of others. If you answer in ways that are not acceptable, you will be counseled, told to stop taking the sacrament, and your recommend (if you have one) may be taken UNTIL you are completely over this problem. That is how it is seen in those stakes.

Other stakes do NOT ask this.

On this site, many would say they would simply not tell the SP/bishop if asked this question. And, then you get into the whole discussion about lies and or hiding or whatever.

I am making NO judgement call in this in any way….it is just interesting to me because there is such diversity and variability in this topic depending on where you live and who is in charge at the time. The church has a fixation on sexuality, and what they classify or don’t as sinful.

[Rob4Hope]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

This is a good point; personally I would call it a puritanical obsession with trying to control and limit sexuality and cover women’s bodies. Here in Utah they will typically cover popular women’s magazines in stores so all you can see is the title because there are apparently too many people that will be offended if they see much skin or even form-fitting clothing. This is one area where it seems like many Church members are actually becoming even more uptight than they used to be.

I’m glad i’m not the only one who sees this happening.

EDIT: I want to qualify this–its about balance. When you introduce puritanical obsessions, you can cloud issues and even injure people. BKP would call this “over-inoculation”–like when the message is so strong, so forceful, it actually pushes the ideal further than it should be. An example would be a woman or man who will not uncover themselves ever, even when appropriate with their spouse or a medical doctor.

[Rob4Hope]

I see both sides on this, Ray and DA.

I tend to lean more toward DAs side on some of what he said. If you have a porn addiction,…or if you even look at it a little, you can’t confess it or openly discuss your struggle and get help–doing so gets you socially ostracized pretty quick. If you struggle with smoking, or occasionally drinking, you have less emotional fallout. That is my experience living in SL County right in the middle of a LOT of TBM.

I do believe the church is less concerned about certain forms of addiction than others. I don’t think they consider hording, overeating to extreme obesity, gaming to extremes, drinking energy drinks to extremes as serious “sinful” activities. They would be concerned about the overall health damage, but the sinning part? Looking at porn, even a little, is considered SERIOUS in at least 2 stakes I have been in. They don’t treat these other things even remotely the same.

[Rob4Hope]

Heber13 wrote:

Compulsive debt-free living

Compulsive reader of good books

Compulsive learner

Compulsive need to be on time to work

Compulsive tithing payer

Compulsive honesty

Compulsive smiling

Compulsive safety while manufacturing explosives

Compulsive listening

and, probably the one that cannot be argued…

compulsive ignoring Heber13.

Maybe the disagreement is over the degree of compulsivity or the word definition. I’m my mind, someone who is compulsive doesn’t have much of a choice…they are driven.

I chose one randomly from above….”compulsive need to be on time to work”. if you are a daddy, for example, and you have children who need help in the morning desperately and they are running late, you would be “compelled” to sacrifice the needs of your children so you can be to work on time.

It seems out of balanced to me–the ability to choose is withdrawn. Compulsive behaviors interfere with choice..IMO.

[Rob4Hope]

I think anything that is compulsive is usually bad. I don’t know of many exceptions:

compulsive eater — bad

compulsive exercise — bad

compulsive reader — (mixed,…because not necessarily balanced)

compulsive prayer — (mixed,…again, not necessarily balanced)

etc.

Are there exceptions where being compulsively driven can be good?

[Rob4Hope]

amateurparent wrote:

The church too often tells OCD peeps to change their obsession to religion and their compulsion to prayer and scripture. That is no healthier than MB.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

And I think it is sad that hyper-religiosity is held up as the model of piety and strength in so many TBM situations. It can ruin lives,…all in the name of God. How sad….

[Rob4Hope]

Minyan Man wrote:

Rob4Hope, thanks for the TedTalk video. It was very interesting. It is one of those presentations I will have to think about for

a while to get the full impact. The talk seems to be based on academic research & study. When you are in the middle of your

alcohol or drug addition, all academics are gone or don’t make sense. Your whole goal was to continue with your lifestyle. I

thought it was working for me. I thought I was fooling everyone around me. Any suggestion I was an alcoholic kicked in my

reaction or strategy, to convince you I was not. I could accept that I may be depressed. But not a sick alcoholic. The stigma kicks

in with addition.

I’m not sure about creating a “rat paradise”. It is turning out that there are a lot of kids in the rich suburbs that are using alcohol or heroin now. Grantide they are damaged in other ways than just economically. I have to think more about that.

MM,…congrats on sobriety mate. That is really wonderful, and I mean that in the most sincere ways.

I recall the Doctor’s Opinion from the AA Big Book. He said there were 2 things that happened: a mental fixation, and the manifestation of an allergy that created craving when triggered. From the good Dr., the solution was a complete “psychic change”, and Bill W. and Dr. Bob both felt that the 12 steps would bring about that change. “12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps…..” So, the whole goal was to create a spiritual awakening. From this perspective, I can see the reasons why the church would emphasis so much the “read scriptures, say prayers….” type of thing. But for many, that spiritual awakening doesn’t quite happen,…and they flounder.

Its that floundering that makes such a mess.

I can only speak from a narrow perspective,…but it is accurate for some. If we are in a horrible environment that is devoid of love and affection, drugs or other addictions look pretty good. You might say: “Why would anyone want to throw away their life for a compulsive behavior or chemical addiction?” I would counter with: “What have they got better?”

Money or affluence doesn’t always fill the void inside. The position of the AA folks (who have the experience to back it–which I deeply respect) is that GOD CAN and WILL IF HE WERE ALLOWED. But for some, this doesn’t work because there is an underlying void that isn’t addressed.

I know, for example, that a small child will literally die,…as in stop living and have to be buried or otherwise have their body disposed of,…if they don’t receive physical touch. Dr. Sue Johnson, looking heavily at the work of John Bowlby found this to be absolutely true—and ignored for decades. Johnson has later found that the needs we have as children do NOT go away when we become adults: if you need touch as a child, …… <>….you need touch as an adult.

In the case of those who often turn to physical forms of addiction, like sexual addictions, there is a psychological hook–no doubt about that. But is the answer to isolate those people, making sure they abstain from affection and all other forms of physical contact (like sex) so they can dry out and “get control” of their lives? Nope. It ignores the fundamental needs they have as well. Physical touch is NOT always a sin.

I suggest in some of these 12 steps meetings that perhaps there should be a supervised exchange of hugs given. Wanna see a grown man weep like a child and tremble because someone FINALLY gave him a hug?…without freaking out about being a “fag” or a “pervert” or whatever derogatory terms fly around? Give the guy a hug.

I have given more than one grown person, male and female, a hug and felt them crumble in my arms and soul weep. Ever felt that happen? You know what it is like to feel another human being sucking in affection as though they are starving alive,….because they are,…for just being held and touched?

I know what that feels like. It isn’t funny. It isn’t pretty. Its heart breaking. And,…it is sacred grown more than any other I have ever seen or believe exists.

As a people, I believe North Americans are literally starving for human touch. I also believe that unless and until society acknowledges there are legitimate needs that “reading scriptures and saying prayers” will NOT satisfy, the problem will never fully be addressable….

An alcoholic who is in the DTs doesn’t need to be taken to an AA meeting; they need to be taken to a hospital.

A sex addict who is struggling because his body aches for dopamine and the other fill good drugs isn’t going to get those needs filled by reading more scriptures and Miracle of Forgiveness and all of that. Has anyone ever considered that maybe they need to be given a hug?

AHHHHHHH NO!!!!!!! THEY ARE ADDICTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My $0.02.

[Rob4Hope]

Roadrunner wrote:

Two mission presidents I’ve known told me that they thought a good 90%+ of male missionaries M. regularly. One told me that missionaries viewing pornography on the mission is pretty common too, although I didn’t ask him how that happens. I wouldn’t be surprised if missionaries can find a way around any filters on their tablets. For these two MPs porn and M were expected and they didn’t really seem to lay on the guilt because of it.

I’ve heard bishops in my stake say that if porn and M were big sins there would be literally nobody to pass the sacrament.

I don’t know what it means for the definition of “addiction” if 80%+ of men are addicted to anything. Don’t get me wrong – I think porn is bad and I think M is natural (e.g. not bad) and I am against it – but I don’t think we as a church or as a country (US) know how to address it.

If missionaries are viewing porn and “M” regularly, that is pretty wild, considering the stake I came from. Prior to going on a mission, YM were asked VERY direct questions. How they could get past that interview would require some pretty interesting mental gymnastics,…or perhaps the interviews differ wildly depending on which stake you are coming from.

And, perhaps they have also lapsed back into the practice.

But, lest we all all forget, according to the church, “M” is sinful, and at one time, enough to keep a missionary off of his mission. I know of a YM, for example, who couldn’t seem to get past it and be clean for the required 90 day period (for whatever reason that was the period of time). This YM was a wonderful and honest YM,…and he didn’t go on a mission because he had a too many slips in there he gave up on the option. Oh well. One is honest and stays home, many others are not honest and go.

Go figure….

[Rob4Hope]

On Own Now wrote:

Thanks, Minyan Man.

One thing I often think about regarding Emma is how we tend to give her more the benefit of the doubt than JS. We sort of think of her as a victim (not hard to arrive at that by reading D&C 132). Yet, many years later, when William Law gave his interview to the SLTrib raking JS over the coals, he pulled no punches with Emma:

Quote:

Emma was a full accomplice of Joseph’s crimes. She was a large, coarse woman, as deep a woman as there was, always full of schemes and smooth as oil. They were worthy of each other, she was not a particle better than he.

What I find so fascinating is that WL was disparaging of both in very unflattering terms, but one of them, JS, we tend to burn in effigy, believing all that WL had to say, while the other, ES, we tend to forgive, almost accepting that WL must not be a fair witness of her character. I think it’s a great example of what Don Miguel Ruiz said:

Quote:

We only see what we want to see; we only hear what we want to hear. Our belief system is just like a mirror that only shows us what we believe.

I read the SL Trib article. I remember hearing talks from Truman Madsen where he absolutely proclaimed that William Law was a son of perdition, as wicked as Judas Iscariot or Cain. I was REALLY surprised that someone like that would have even been allowed into Utah (I say this only half sarcastically). At this point, I find myself just again flabbergasted.

My heart goes out to Emma,…but I have no idea what to believe. And, I’m getting to the point where I don’t really care. It is interesting however….

[Rob4Hope]

Heber13 wrote:

Rob4Hope wrote:

2) they omit the whole idea of the “cage” problem.

I’m not sure if I’ve missed it…I didn’t go through the whole talk and materials…

but can you elaborate on what the “cage problem” refers to?

Thanks

You will have to watch the whole TedTalk thing. The guy doing the talk doesn’t preach–he asks some pretty interesting questions. The original studies about addiction used rats and cages. The rat was put into a sterile cage, given 2 bottles to drink from, and overdosed on the cocaine one. Later on, another researcher created “rat heaven” cage–toys, gadgets, and all kinds of crap that rats LOVE to play with,…and put in a bunch of rats. There were the same 2 bottles, ones with cocaine in it. All the rats tried the cocaine bottle, but NON used it. The conclusion of the researchers was there was too much other fun stuff in the cage the rats wanted to engaged in, so they didn’t use the drugs to escape, they wanted to be present.

The parallel of the TedTalk guy?…maybe the problem isn’t the drug, maybe its the cage (or environment). The conclusion is the more enriching the environment AND THE CONNECTIONS WE HAVE to those around us, generally speaking the less pull addiction has.

I recognize there are exceptions–but I think this guy is really onto something. I really really do…….

[Author]

Posts