Mormonism Manufactures Consequences for Sin

[_Seven]

[

quote="Ray A"]

Sure, not everyone agrees Mormonism is a dangerous and cultish religion. I didn't when I was a Mormon. But I do believe it now that I know the truth about Joseph Smith and have had time and the help of a counselor to help me identify the damage done to me and many other folks raised as Mormons. And yes, my experience leads me to believe that everyone should know the truth about Mormonism and get out as fast as they can. And not because KA says so. They should flee becuase Mormonism's not a good place to be. It's not a good place to raise kids and it's all based on the lies of the duplicitious Joseph Smith. Also, I know others believe differently than I do, that's why I clearly began my post with, "IN MY VIEW" and stated in my first reply to you, "That's my opinion." You have yours. I have mine. It seems you don't believe the Mormon church is a cult. I do. A cult that damages women.

You are quite entitled to your opinion. It's a free discussions board with no censorship. But I'd like to see some credible research that Mormonism damages women. Not media hype. I'm not being insensitive to your situation, and your own personal experience, or trauma, for which you needed counselling. Every individual is different.

quote]

I know women who were damaged from this type of "licked cupcake" teaching. My father taught it to me but not with an analogy. He basically told me if I screwed up then when the right person came along, the guy wouldn't want to marry me.
That can be very damaging, and I think that's why the church should find a new approach to teaching this lesson.

This topic is very hard to discuss if one doesn't believe in the commandment to remain chaste. The teachings about guilt are sin related. We should feel guilty for committing sin and we should be warned of those dangers. If a person doesn't believe in sin, then all the teachings on it will appear like nothing but brain washing of innocent children.

[_maklelan]

I know women who were damaged from this type of "licked cupcake" teaching. My father taught it to me but not with an analogy. He basically told me if I screwed up then when the right person came along, the guy wouldn't want to marry me.
That can be very damaging, and I think that's why the church should find a new approach to teaching this lesson.

This topic is very hard to discuss if one doesn't believe in the commandment to remain chaste. The teachings about guilt are sin related. We should feel guilty for committing sin and we should be warned of those dangers. If a person doesn't believe in sin, then all the teachings on it will appear like nothing but brain washing of innocent children.

So where did this analogy come from?

[_KimberlyAnn]

Sure, not everyone agrees Mormonism is a dangerous and cultish religion. I didn't when I was a Mormon. But I do believe it now that I know the truth about Joseph Smith and have had time and the help of a counselor to help me identify the damage done to me and many other folks raised as Mormons. And yes, my experience leads me to believe that everyone should know the truth about Mormonism and get out as fast as they can. And not because KA says so. They should flee becuase Mormonism's not a good place to be. It's not a good place to raise kids and it's all based on the lies of the duplicitious Joseph Smith. Also, I know others believe differently than I do, that's why I clearly began my post with, "IN MY VIEW" and stated in my first reply to you, "That's my opinion." You have yours. I have mine. It seems you don't believe the Mormon church is a cult. I do. A cult that damages women.

You are quite entitled to your opinion. It's a free discussions board with no censorship. But I'd like to see some credible research that Mormonism damages women. Not media hype. I'm not being insensitive to your situation, and your own personal experience, or trauma, for which you needed counselling. Every individual is different.

You also say, "I do believe it now that I know the truth about Mormonism". Which is it? Do you believe it, or do you know it? Are you 100% sure that Mormonism is a fraud?

Mormonism damages women and men. I can only comment on what I know, which is from a female perspective, obviously. In my observations, the evidence I've seen shows overwhelmingly that Mormonism damages women. For some reason, Utah has an extremely large amount of their female population on Prozac. I clearly remember many women in my former ward discussing their anti-depressants. I can't offer studies right now, just my own experience.

Are there good things about Mormonism? A few happy moments? Sure. But the Mormon church doesn't have anything good about it or do any good for people that isn't done better by less damaging organizations. And any small amount of good the church does can't possibly justify the continuing damage done to people who sit week after week learning lies and being told they're never good enough.

I do know the church is false. There's no doubt in my mind. I know Mormonism was dangerous and damaging for me and many other women I know, and believe it is dangerous and damaging to all women, though I certainly do not know all the women in the church and cannont know with a certainty that it is dangerous and damaging to all of them, but again, I believe it is. I do know it's false and Jospeh Smith lied and none of us are going to be eventually scrweing like rabbits in celestial harems in order to populate the planets created by Priesthood holding Gods. That Mormonism isn't true is reason enough to abandon it, and that's exactly why I did.

You aren't a Mormon, are you Ray? Why did you leave the church? Possibly because it's not true? Do you believe Mormonism is healthy for women (or men for that matter)?

KA

[_KimberlyAnn]

Make no mistake, I’m not advocating irresponsible sexual activity and believe youth need to be taught the possible negative consequences of their actions. Those teachings should in no way be demeaning and damaging illustrations of loss of worth portrayed by the Licked Cupcake lesson. They should include the wonderful benefits and emotional attachments created by a healthy sexual relationship between two people who love one another. They should not instill guilt or shame on youth who have already chosen to become sexually active. Youngsters should be aware of all the physical aspects of sex and the possible emotional and physical risks and be left to make their own informed decisions, free from guilt or manufactured consequences dreamed up by controlling religious demigods.


KA

I bolded a point that to me has natural consequences that have nothing to do with Mormonism. For many women (and some men), having sexual relations involves an emotional attachment that can be devestating when that relationship ends. That is something very difficult to protect your children from even at an age of maturity, and why I believe sexual relations between husband and wife are the ideal.

I agree that the church should find a better approach to teaching about chastity and avoid "licked cupcake" analogies that can be physchologically damaging to some. For myself, it's the analogies that stick with me and if they are good, can be great teaching tools. The Prophets use them all the time and so did Jesus. I shared an analogy my YW teacher used on the cupcake thread and it was positive. That lesson stuck with me more than any quote from a prophet or scripture, and it didn't induce any fears or guilt.

If you don't believe virtue is a gift to be shared with only your spouse or committed life companion, then what would you teach your chldren about sex? Do they have your blessing to have sexual relations before marriage as long as they use protection and love the person? I'm wondering how as a parent you teach a child the natural consequences about sex when there are all the tools to avoid any physical consequence along with a parental blessing "when they meet the right person", and no encouragement of saving their virginity for a future spouse.

Yes, my daughters have my permission to have sex with someone they love prior to marriage. I can't deny them that right. You can't deny your children that right, either. They will or they won't and you can't decide that for them. I've already mentioned what I teach my children about sex. I prefer they wait until their twenties but will provide protection for them if they ever request it. They can expect me to discourage them if they're still in high school and they know that. I do believe it's much worse to get married too young than have premarital sex. Your determination that your children marry virgins is frankly odd and disturbing to me. Why exactly is that your business? Even as a Mormon it never occurred to me to worry about if my daughters married virgins. I did want them to be temple worthy, but there are non-virgins who are temple worthy.

Don't worry about my four brilliant daughters. They'll be just fine. For the two old enough, I teach them all about sex and the pleasure and dangers involved. They will be well equipped to make their own informed decisions and they know I'm available and willing and wanting to listen to them and answer all their questions in a factual manner. Yes, I give them advice and if they want to remain virgins until they're married, I think that's a fine choice and I will support them. I will also support their decision to have premarital sex if they are mature enough and in a loving relationship and are careful to avoid possible STD's and pregnancy. I will not attempt to control their sexuality with guilt and shame.

KA

[_Seven]

.[

quote] Your determination that your children marry virgins is frankly odd and disturbing to me. Why exactly is that your business? Even as a Mormon it never occurred to me to worry about if my daughters married virgins.

I did want them to be temple worthy, but there are non-virgins who are temple worthy.

I don't know why it's "disturbing" that I prefer my children find spouses who hold their virtue as sacred and to be shared in marriage. I think it's a beautiful thing. You have also misunderstood my position on chastity and repentance. I am not "determined" they marry virgins, as you said. I prefer it for them. I would NEVER tell my children to not marry a person who had broken the commandment of chastity because that goes against repentance and forgiveness. It is none of my business what somebody else has repented of. That does not mean however, that there are not legitimate reasons to prefer your child marry somebody who has saved his virginity for marriage.

[_guy sajer]

Actually, there is a great deal of sociological evidence that premarital sex creates a warped perception of the identity of the partner in a marriage relationship. It often leads to a kind of fragmentation where the relationship builds its foundation too heavily on physical elements. The partner's perception of the other is then much more vulnerable when those physical elements change, as they inevitably will. If sex makes up a significant portion of the individual's perception of the other as a mate, their relationship crumbles when one gets fat/thin or changes sexual habits or desires. Rather than define the quality of a relationship on something as fickle as sex, a healthy relationship is defined by intellectual, social, emotional and communication compatibility. Masturbation also plays a role in this fragmentation. Pornography also plays a leading role in most masturbatory habits, and I hope you don't actually find pornography to be a worthwhile pursuit. The consequences you feel we "manufacture" are probably just sailing over your head, so please don't just a priori dismiss it because you don't get it. If it makes you happy then more power to you, but we're happy with what we've got.

Mak, this is useful information (although I have questions as to how strong or pervasive the causal relationships are at the margin--they could be, as we say, "statistically significant, but trivial). So why not share this information with youth and with members and construct a reasoned and empirically-based doctrine? Instead, Mormonism (and other traditional religions) invest teachings on sexual purity in the heavy guilt inducing framework of “sin?” (As an aside, I think that the concept of sin is a wholly religious concept whose primary function is to induce guilt as a mechanism of control.)

I’m not sure I buy into everything KA says, but my experience is similar in that Mormonism’s teaching on sexuality is, or can be, emotionally and spiritually destructive and/or dysfunctional. My guess is that if one did a similar sociological study on the effects of such teachings, we would also find evidence of “warped perceptions” of sexuality with significant impacts on emotional and other well-being.

I am not sure that an “everything goes” philosophy is the best one (I am willing to concede the possibility of negative side effects of “free sex”), but I am equally not sure that the guilt-laden sin approach is the best one either.

I guess what I’d look for from a thoughtful person like you is a concession that there might, in fact, be some dysfunctional side effects of Mormonism’s approach to human sexuality and an honest discussion of what they might be and why.

[_maklelan]

I guess what I’d look for from a thoughtful person like you is a concession that there might, in fact, be some dysfunctional side effects of Mormonism’s approach to human sexuality and an honest discussion of what they might be and why.

I think some poor choices by people teaching the church's principles and poor understanding of those principles by those learning them (including lack of further research) can contribute to these dysfunctions. Most of the sexual dysfunction I have seen in the church comes as a result of mistakes made by parents regarding addressing sexuality. I also think many members of the church shy away from talking about it, and this damages the sexual identities of the people developing them, but it's not the church's fault by any means. The church teaches that the responsibility of addressing sexuality lies with the parents, and I firmly believe that learning about sex and sexuality from a parent is much better than learning about it at Young Women's or Sunday School. There are resources out there to help them, but most people don't bother looking.

[_Runtu]

I think some poor choices by people teaching the church's principles and poor understanding of those principles by those learning them (including lack of further research) can contribute to these dysfunctions. Most of the sexual dysfunction I have seen in the church comes as a result of mistakes made by parents regarding addressing sexuality. I also think many members of the church shy away from talking about it, and this damages the sexual identities of the people developing them, but it's not the church's fault by any means. The church teaches that the responsibility of addressing sexuality lies with the parents, and I firmly believe that learning about sex and sexuality from a parent is much better than learning about it at Young Women's or Sunday School. There are resources out there to help them, but most people don't bother looking.

mak, when I worked for the church, I was helping with the original For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. When it came back from the 12, a lot of the specifics were stripped out, with a notation in the margin "BKP."

In discussing the revisions, which I thought were unhelpful, my colleague told me of her involvement in the production of the Parents Guide manual, which was to have helped parents teach their kids about sexuality from a gospel perspective. She said they assembled a committee of experts and came up with a guide that everyone was satisfied. When it went to the quorum of the twelve for approval, 11 of them approved, while the 12th said that the church had no business telling parents how to teach their kids about sex, that it was inappropriate to even discuss such things. Needless to say, the manual as it exists today is pretty useless, filled with generic advice but nothing that would be a resource for helping parents teach their children.

Again, my biggest issue toward the church with regard to sexuality is the complete silence when it comes to counsel about developing wholesome and secure intimate relationships. There are lots licked cupcake analogies, but little that would dispell my belief that the dysfunction is largely a result of the deafening silence about sex.

[_maklelan]

mak, when I worked for the church, I was helping with the original For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. When it came back from the 12, a lot of the specifics were stripped out, with a notation in the margin "BKP."

In discussing the revisions, which I thought were unhelpful, my colleague told me of her involvement in the production of the Parents Guide manual, which was to have helped parents teach their kids about sexuality from a gospel perspective. She said they assembled a committee of experts and came up with a guide that everyone was satisfied. When it went to the quorum of the twelve for approval, 11 of them approved, while the 12th said that the church had no business telling parents how to teach their kids about sex, that it was inappropriate to even discuss such things. Needless to say, the manual as it exists today is pretty useless, filled with generic advice but nothing that would be a resource for helping parents teach their children.

Again, my biggest issue toward the church with regard to sexuality is the complete silence when it comes to counsel about developing wholesome and secure intimate relationships. There are lots licked cupcake analogies, but little that would dispell my belief that the dysfunction is largely a result of the deafening silence about sex.

The church has made it clear that what goes on between a husband and wife in the bedroom is no one's business but their own. Bishops are not supposed to even address the issue or answer questions for couples. Rather than walk the tightrope between giving council about healthy sexual relationships and telling people what they should and should not be doing in the bedroom, the church opted for silence in that area. How many more people would we have in this thread complaining about being told what's appropriate and what's not if the church had come out and said "This is what you should be doing to have a healthy sexual relationship"? People are going to come here to bitch about the church either way. There are still resources, however. Many good books about sexuality have been written by LDS doctors and therapists. Human Intimacy, by Victor Brown, for instance, is an excellent resource.

[_Runtu]

The church has made it clear that what goes on between a husband and wife in the bedroom is no one's business but their own. Bishops are not supposed to even address the issue or answer questions for couples. Rather than walk the tightrope between giving council about healthy sexual relationships and telling people what they should and should not be doing in the bedroom, the church opted for silence in that area. How many more people would we have in this thread complaining about being told what's appropriate and what's not if the church had come out and said "This is what you should be doing to have a healthy sexual relationship"? People are going to come here to bitch about the church either way. There are still resources, however. Many good books about sexuality have been written by LDS doctors and therapists. Human Intimacy, by Victor Brown, for instance, is an excellent resource.

I'm not bitching, mak, but I am calling you on the idea that the church has provided resources to help parents. That's just not true. To suggest that I'd be complaining either way is not only irrelevant but highly insulting. As a parent, I would have loved to have had access to some church-approved materials regarding sexuality. But there are none, despite your earlier post.

Sure, there are unofficial resources, but given what you stated above, that the church prefers silence, is it surprising at all that parents also prefer silence?