[squarepeg]

I am 100% honest and open about the good and the bad.

[squarepeg]

nibbler wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

My theory is they have had a hard time getting in touch with nibbler as 1st counselor in the first presidency…so that is holding it up.

My first action would be to reduce church to 2 hours. No one wants that. Trust me.

😆 :clap:

[squarepeg]

Thank you for posting this. I can do better at bearing others’ joy.

[squarepeg]

nibbler wrote:

Which turned out to be a gateway drug to the harder stuff like gobstoppers.

😆

[squarepeg]

BeJoyful wrote:

“Avoiding the appearance of evil”, no glass root beer bottles or to-go cups for hot cocoa.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Good one, Joyful! My mom used to scold us for pretending to smoke various cigarette-shaped objects (pencils, pretzels, etc.) and we had a rule, no “Big League Chew.” 😆

[img]https://www.candywarehouse.com/assets/item/regular/big-league-chew-original-packs-125125.jpg[/img]

[squarepeg]

I’m for keeping the system as-is (even though I’m mildly terrified of the kinds of things that may happen with Nelson/Oaks/Ballard as Prophets over the next decade or two and would personally love to skip down to Holland and Uchtdorf). My reasoning: If you know you only have a few years to do this Prophet thang, and you know that this thing ends when you straight-up DIE, you’re more likely to make choices based on what you really believe is morally right. If you’re 45 and you’re serving a 5-year term as Prophet, you know that if you want to further your Church-career and maintain your reputation, and earn the approval of your colleagues and peers after your term as Prophet ends, and bask in your own glory for another four decades after you “retire”, you’d better please all the right people while you’re Prophet, make the decisions and say the things that make THEM happy. But if DEATH waits on the other side of the Prophet gig, suddenly you’re realizing “who cares about my reputation or my resume?”

What we have is not a perfect system, but I don’t think a perfect system exists unless Jesus is gonna come down here and run things. As someone born just recently enough to be called a “millenial” I still feel like if we let young people be prophets, things are gonna get real political real fast, and that’s the beginning of corruption in the ranks followed by a rapid downfall of the organization.

[squarepeg]

This is totally how I read the scriptures. Then, if something revelatory DOES happen while I’m reading, it’s just a bonus.

A few days ago, hubby and I were watching the George Harrison (the Beatle) documentary on Netflix, “Living in the Material World” and it talks about how he got heavily into Eastern religious ideas and adopted practices like transcendental meditation which uses a mantra that the person repeats over and over. George said once he repeated a mantra for three days straight while driving across Europe. That’s a lot like how some of us who’ve been raised in the Church are with the Book of Mormon…we know it like we know our own personal history, we can quote verses effortlessly as if they were famous movie quotes…but we’re told to keep reading. Some of us just feel like it no longer has anything to reveal to us. Well, maybe it doesn’t…DIRECTLY…but it does INDIRECTLY when we treat it like a mantra. It’s okay, and can even be good, to just let ourselves get lost in the repetition and the familiarity.

I think families like Joseph Smith’s in the 19th century who were poor and didn’t have much other literature at home, or entertainment options, read the Bible this way: the father or mother would pick up in the evening on whatever verse they’d left off with the previous day and just start slogging through Deuteronomy or whatever, while the family sat around the fire with the Bible as background to quiet activities like knitting, mending, whittling, etc. It’s actually this very thought that makes me doubt the Book of Mormon sometimes. People say, “How could a young guy with so little education produce this book?” and I think to myself, “Because the kid grew up with KJV Bible as his mantra. It was embedded into his subconscious more deeply than a 21st century person can even fathom.” But then I have to check my doubts because I read things like 2 Nephi 2:11 and I think, this is inspired…because where did Joseph Smith learn about Buddhism? (I haven’t Googled that. Maybe Joseph did read about Buddhism!)

Anyway…good thoughts, thanks. Makes me want to read the Book of Mormon…again.

[squarepeg]

Beefster wrote:

I don’t care what he does with HBE as long as he keeps DFU in the presidency. DHO and DAB wouldn’t be great, but I could probably deal with it.

I hope we get a Black African Apostle and an Asian Apostle. It’s a little surfacy, but I think the church needs an international/globalist perspective right now. It also doesn’t hurt to have a little extra diversity for the critics of the church.

I’m right there with you. I hope for women to be given the Priesthood, although I feel like that may still be a ways off. I feel like I already have It, personally. I used the Lord’s power last night to heal my son’s fever. 😯 :silent: But it would be nice to have it officially acknowledged.

I echo your hope of retaining Uchtdorf in the First Presidency!!

I hope, too, for more international representation in the Q12, but I’m also wondering if there’s resistance to it because last time the Church put an Asian person in a General Presidency she said beautiful, dangerous things like this:

[img]http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-be-spiritually-independent-enough-that-your-relationship-with-the-savior-doesn-t-depend-chieko-n-okazaki-89-36-72.jpg[/img]

[squarepeg]

Heber13 wrote:

squarepeg wrote:

As frustrating as it was to STILL not have answers, I respected that so highly. I thought, ok, I can go back to church with this guy as my bishop.

Thanks for correcting me on this…my sweeping statement was not fair to all those good leaders out there that are strong enough to say they don’t know when they don’t know. There are good leaders that just want to help and are trying…and some just don’t know what they don’t know…and so I shouldn’t make it sound like discussing it with leaders is always going to go wrong. It’s the leadership roulette.

This particular bishop was a rare gem. He was called to be bishop after going through treatment for non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, when had just been laid off after working for the same large company for 25+ years, and had just been diagnosed with prostate cancer and was going through radiation. Fabulous timing for being called as bishop, no? But seriously, he knew what real suffering was like and he wasn’t going to downplay it in order to maintain credibility as this all-knowing, wise priesthood leader. He had the deeper wisdom and deep humility that comes from being put through the ringer and staring death in the face daily for years on end. Most bishops have had personal challenges, but often not on that level. Our current Bishop is different. I’m not sure what he would say about this issue in this thread. I’m still working up the courage to speak to him about mine and my husband’s decision not to allow our kids to answer detailed questions about the LoC in interviews, and I kinda hope masturbation doesn’t even come up, heh.

[squarepeg]

BeJoyful, welcome! You and I are similar in some ways. I’m a 30-something mother of three. My husband and I have been married 14 years. My husband and I both were raised in TBM families. We used to be TBM in the early years of our marriage but we both have had doubts surface, and not all of those concerns are the same ones. These days we go to church most weeks, but hubby leaves with our toddler after Sac Mtg because church runs 11-2 and nap time is 12, and we’ve decided nap time is important. Also, hubby is NOT interested in attending 2nd/3rd hours.

I kinda wonder if the emphasis of our families (the ones we grew up in) on all the “don’ts” rather than the “do’s” might be because, from what I have read of President Kimball’s teachings, there was a heavy emphasis on the “don’ts”. My parents were at BYU and married in the late 70s/early 80s, Kimball Era. I believe the “No R-rated movies” is a Kimball thing. I HATED my family’s rule that we couldn’t play outside or with friends on Sundays…felt like I was dying…and that was a Kimballism (no riding bikes on Sunday I think was said specifically), also “no going to restaurants on Sundays” was in my parents’ memory as a Kimball teaching. We were GREAT at “don’ts” and less great at “do’s” also.

Glad you are here. This is a wonderful group of people.

[squarepeg]

Heber13 wrote:

Don’t ask for direction on it from leaders, or you will get their opinion as if doctrine.

Thanks, Heber. I think that’s generally true. 😆 My previous bishop was one reason I felt I might be able to come back to church after several years of not attending, because he was exceptional for saying, “I don’t know. There are a lot of things I really don’t understand.” When I presented my concerns to him explaining that I’d had experiences that I’d not been able to fit into Restored Gospel theology, he, remarkably, didn’t give me his opinion as doctrine; he just admitted ignorance. As frustrating as it was to STILL not have answers, I respected that so highly. I thought, ok, I can go back to church with this guy as my bishop.

I think you’re spot-on saying that the Law-of-Moses-esque rules are a compromise for the purpose of running the Organization. I really feel like all hell wouldn’t break loose if our temples were like Hindu, Buddhist, and Daoist temples where no “recommend” is required. Most people whose hearts aren’t in a spiritual place with righteous desires are not going to bother going to the temple; I mean, it’s like church on steroids. Maybe we’re worried about people stealing the furniture? But that’s another topic.

[squarepeg]

Roy wrote:

After several years of being married DW and I began to be able to talk about M in small doses. Would it be acceptable if we were apart for a long period of time? We also talked some about my pre-marriage struggle and feelings. As time progressed and I have been able to be more and more open about myself. I am not a “deviant or pervert”. I do not pressure DW into things she is not comfortable with. I am a loving husband and father. I am fulfilled in the relationship. Those fear (and fear mongering) turned out to be unfounded.

I think we might be better off in the Church teaching everyone to do what you and your wife have done, Roy, rather than having black-and-white rules about what is and isn’t acceptable when people are in their own bedrooms. Isn’t it more important to do what strengthens your particular marriage relationship, and your particular relationship with Heavenly Father, than following a list of prescribed and prohibited behaviors? What happened to, “I teach them correct principles and the people govern themselves”?

We pride ourselves on living the “higher law” and rising above the old rigid rules of the Children of Israel in the Old Testament. But then we seem have a tendency to want to add some of those black and white rules back into the Gospel. Why do we do that? Are we living the higher law, or aren’t we?

[squarepeg]

Dande48 wrote:

Quote:

I never had a bishop or church leader ask me anything beyond “Do you keep the LoC”. I was never asked if I had touched myself. I was never asked about mastrubation.

Me, neither. I think we lucked out in the ward leadership department, though, because my husband, my mom, my dad, and several other people I know have been asked probing questions that go into far more detail than they were ready for. That interview was the place they first heard about several sexual behaviors that people engage in.

BeJoyful wrote:

I understand you not wanting to make a leader feel as though you don’t trust them, but I think this could open a very needed discussion in the church on not trusting men/women blindly and on appropriate interview discussions.

Here’s my solution so far:

Talk to your kids about what questions might be asked, and give them options for answers, i.e., “I’d rather not discuss that with you, but I don’t feel it impacts my worthiness”, “I’d like to bring my parents in for the rest of the interview” “I don’t need to go into detail”, etc.

Talk to your bishop about what you feel could be inappropriate questions, and ask what takes place in interviews. Ask if it’s standardized throughout the bishopric, and if not, ask them to standardize it.

Talk to your kids about what you feel is appropriate behavior in interview question responses. Is caffeine breaking the WoW? masturbating breaking LoC? etc., and ask them to get their own answers so they can set and answer to standards of behavior that they understand and agree to long before an interview.

Talk to your kids about consent. In my situation, I strongly feel that I did not break the LoC because of another person’s behavior, and now I wouldn’t feel the need to divulge that information to a bishop unless I felt the need for counsel or healing. I carried a lot of guilt and hurt for a long time about that.

Thanks for this assessment. I think you’re right that it’s important to open up a discussion in the church generally about this.

I actually settled on having my kids memorize the statement, “My parents say I’m not allowed to answer any specific questions about the Law of Chastity,” in the event that a leader asks anything beyond the simple, “Do you obey the Law of Chastity?” But my next step needs to be to talk to the bishop and get them to standardize their procedure. I have asked him what questions are asked in the interview for boys to become Deacons and he didn’t answer…he said that interview is more about helping the boy to understand his responsibilities and what it means to be a Deacon…so that wasn’t very helpful. I’ll have to ask again about youth interviews and the LoC specifically.

I also definitely need to talk to the kids about these questions individually and have them come up with their own answers. Thank you for that suggestion. I’m so sorry for your experience with being guilt-tripped after being assaulted. My mom feels that there is often a double standard as far as Church discipline and the LoC where women are often made to feel guilty when the fault lies with the male party. My dad cheated on my mom when I was in high school and the bishop treated the situation as one where both my parents were equally in need of going through the repentance process. That was very hard on my mom. If we can get the discussion going, if I can be assertive enough with my own bishopric, we can hopefully help experiences like yours and my mom’s to be handled better moving forward.

[squarepeg]

dande48 wrote:

I do renenver a specific written material I was given as a Young Man, which covered the aspects of the Law of Chastity. In fact, I think it was titled “To Young Men Only”. All about that “little factory”…

I wish the Church had better resources for women’s sexual health. And men’s too, I guess.

Nice! Nope, there’s no equivalent for the YW, unfortunately. We had (They have) “For the Strength of Youth” and that’s it, as far as I know.

[squarepeg]

Some prepubescent kids, even really young ones, like 2- to 4-year-olds, masturbate or otherwise stimulate themselves in a way that would be considered sexual. They’ll not be engaged in any fantasies or visualization involving another person because they lack a context for that (assuming they’re not victims of abuse). It is a purely biological, self-oriented activity, but no one would say it’s harming their relationships with God or their ability to love others, or putting in jeopardy their future marriage. So, at what point does the behavior become harmful?

It seems the FAIR post is saying it’s important that they (and youth, and adults) learn not to do this because it’s selfish. Seems to me that’s like saying my son shouldn’t read comics (something he does purely for his own pleasure) because he COULD be reading comics aloud with others and bonding with them. What if the rest of the family is tired of hearing about superheroes, or just not interested? What if others are too often busy doing other things? What if he were by himself for an extended period of time? What if we note that when he doesn’t read comics he becomes increasingly preoccupied with the idea of comics to the point that he thinks about comics almost all the time and it negatively impacts his academic and social life? Do we just deny him comics, or guilt-trip him for reading them? I’m only going to be concerned about his comic book reading if it becomes excessive to the point that it’s affecting his ability to serve or bond with others, or otherwise preventing him from reaching his fullest potential. Poor metaphor?

Is there any evidence that masturbation actually impairs relations with a spouse, or impairs an individual’s motivation to find a spouse? The FAIR post makes a lot of claims about harms caused by this practice without providing evidence. I searched the Church’s website last week, as I’ve been trying to decide what/how to teach my kids about this issue, for the term “masturbation” recently and found only older (1980s and prior) references, one of which discouraged it because it could lead to exhibitionism or homosexuality. That claim seems highly improbable to me. It seems important to figure out whether these are legitimate claims or just speculative ones produced solely to back up the original assertion that masturbation is harmful. The whisperings I receive in my own personal prayers about this say that the Spirit will tell each person whether this is harmful for them or not, and can direct them in how to proceed, and that I can teach my kids about it that way: “Leaders at church might teach you that masturbation is a sin, but your parents feel that it might be different for each person, and that you can listen for what the Holy Ghost tells you about it and decide for yourself.”

The CS Lewis passage as well as the scripture quoted in the post seem to assume that during masturbation is never independent of lust. But that can’t be, because see my first paragraph. I’m female, so I can only wonder if it’s really difficult for men to masturbate without mentally bringing another person into it. If so, I could see it potentially harming a marriage relationship if the imaginary person was someone other than one’s spouse. For those not married, it seems like if one MUST visualize another person, it would be best if it were someone nondescript, and if one cannot NOT visualize an actual person then maybe he is one of those cases where it’s best if he doesn’t masturbate. It does seem to me like a violation of respect for others to mentally bring them into one’s sexual behavior. And of course, if one is masturbating in conjunction with porn use, that seems clearly wrong. But in the right context it seems like it could be a very healthy thing that could even strengthen one’s relationship with one’s spouse. It seems like it’s necessarily judged on a case-by-case basis, and since it’s not really kosher to go into the specifics of potential scenarios during church lessons, it’s something best left for individuals and couples to decide (kinda like how birth control used to be condemned and now it’s left to couples). It’s good that GC has been silent on it for a few decades. Hopefully the last vestiges of it will be absent from the next edition of “For the Strength of Youth” and other printed materials.

[Author]

Posts