Mormonism Manufactures Consequences for Sin

[_Runtu]

My wife is not comfortable with talking dirty, so I don't do it. Please, provide an example of the current first presidency making definitive statements about these two practices.

I don't have to. If it's been through correlation and not rescinded (neither of these statements has been), it's still considered doctrinally consistent with canonized scripture. TMI, but I'm not much a dirty talker, either.

Because each couple is supposed to figure that out for themselves.

Why? Can you give me any reasonably authoritative statement from anyone in the church that supports that position?

I found out on my own, but several bishops have been very helpful.

Exactly. The church provides no resources and no counsel that church leaders should recommend resources, but it's not the church's fault that members don't have resources.

[_maklelan]

I don't have to. If it's been through correlation and not rescinded (neither of these statements has been), it's still considered doctrinally consistent with canonized scripture.

I'm not familiar with that definition of doctrine.

Why? Can you give me any reasonably authoritative statement from anyone in the church that supports that position?

It's in the instructions for temple recommend interviews. It states quite plainly that what goes on in the bedroom is the business of the couple and the Lord, and we have no authority to tell them what they should and should not be doing.

Exactly. The church provides no resources and no counsel that church leaders should recommend resources, but it's not the church's fault that members don't have resources.

There's actually quite a lot of counsel. My wife suffered from abuse while she was a child and her bishop sent her to a counselor. BYU pays for any counseling that students want or need. Anyone who asks can find the resources, but you seem to demand that the church aggressively shove the resources down everyone's throat.

[cacheman]

I'm not familiar with that definition of doctrine.

I'm just telling you what I was told at the COB. How do you define doctrine?

It's in the instructions for temple recommend interviews. It states quite plainly that what goes on in the bedroom is the business of the couple and the Lord, and we have no authority to tell them what they should and should not be doing.

I'm glad to hear that.

There's actually quite a lot of counsel. My wife suffered from abuse while she was a child and her bishop sent her to a counselor. BYU pays for any counseling that students want or need. Anyone who asks can find the resources, but you seem to demand that the church aggressively shove the resources down everyone's throat.

Well, that's a bit of an overstatement. :-) I went to an LDS counselor last year when my wife was hospitalized for reasons similar to your wife's (I paid for it, though), so I know about that particular resource. I'm not asking for anything to be shoved down anyone's throat by any stretch, and I'm pretty sure you said that out of frustration, so I'll forgive you that small outburst. For me it seems that the only officially sanctioned resources you can come up with are counseling services, which are generally reserved for those who are already in crisis. As I've said before, I have no desire to effect any change in the church, as it's none of my business. This whole thing started because you said there were readily available resources to help families with these issues. That I disagree with you hardly seems reason to say I want things shoved down people's throats. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to say that the church has decided to avoid counseling its members in these areas except in moments of crisis, at which point professional counseling is available. That seems to be what the church is doing, isn't it?

[_guy sajer]

There's actually quite a lot of counsel. My wife suffered from abuse while she was a child and her bishop sent her to a counselor. BYU pays for any counseling that students want or need. Anyone who asks can find the resources, but you seem to demand that the church aggressively shove the resources down everyone's throat.

I wonder how common this is?

More, I wonder how common this is outside of North America, and particularly in developing countries?

[_KimberlyAnn]

Maklelan,

Firstly, I don't believe there is evidence sufficient to support your claims. The fact is, outside of Mormonism, many, if not most people have sex prior to marriage. I do not believe it "often" leads to relationships built too heavily on a physical foundation. Besides, aren't many Mormon marriages, at least initially, built on more of a physical foundation than those of non-Mormons? I can't tell you how many Mormons I know who married extremely young and after only a few months of dating. Some were engaged after only weeks of knowing one another, and I do not believe those are isolated cases. Exactly how much intellectual, social, emotional and communication compatibility can be determined in such a short time? Mormons are terrified of messing up and losing their virginity prior to marriage, yet the urge for sex is so strong, many are willing to marry practical strangers to whom they have an initial sexual attraction! I'd much prefer my children not marry quickly to avoid having premarital sex and instead focus more on assessing the important things you mentioned, intellectual, social and emotional compatibility, before making a lifelong committment. Those things can be determined sans a physical relationship, but it would take longer than most people are willing to wait for sex.

Your reply to me was rude. So was your reply to Runtu. I assure you none of the consequences Mormons manufacture go over my head. I was a faithful Mormon for almost thirty-two years and I guarantee you, Maklelan, I "get it". Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it or that anything sailed over my head. I'd say it's the other way around. In my opinion, people believing in Jaredite barges, elephants in America, Semitic American Indians, the Book of Abraham being magically translated from common Egyptian funerary papyri, and the Curse of Cain are more likely to have things sail over their heads than people who reject those ridiculous claims and are based in reality. Perhaps my original post sailed right over your head?

Are you taking lessons in manners from Wade?

KA

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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.

Your limited experience in the church is showing here. In the early 80s the church came out strongly against "unnatural" sex between man and wife, and by "unnatural" they meant oral sex. Special interviews were held on the subject. It became problematical and the teaching was discontinued after a while, but without any kind of announcement. My sister who was married in 1979 still believes that any kind of sex that can't result in pregnancy is wrong. Whether that is taught in the church nowadays I don't know.

During that time, I had a bishop who taught forcefully that children conceived when their parents were not wearing their garments were not BIC.

Going back a few more years, when I was a freshman at BYU we were required to take a semester of basic health. The textbook was written by a BYU health teacher. It had a one-page chapter on sex. The entire page was blackened out.

When I was a teenager, the analogy I remember learning was the "nail in the board." You can pull a nail out of a board, but you can't make the board whole again. As a teenager I had no clue how ugly and stupid that was.

I've personally had a very difficult time with sex, and I'm not intending to go into details, but I can testify to you that church teachings were not the least helpful and were in fact detrimental. Your "pie in the sky" attitude toward anything church is a little annoying, but I understand how it is to be young and earnest and literal about the church.

[_Ray A]

[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

I did not leave the church because I felt it was not true. I addressed this on FAIR many times. It was a combination of cog.diss and personal weakness, and just boredom with the routine, and some negative reactions by members to my quest for more knowledge on controversial matters in church history. I was also never able to come to terms with polygamy (I'm a lot like the Witnesses). When I left I was still a believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I still believe both, but in a much more "liberal" way. I'm not a literalist. My belief in the divine authenticity and spiritual message of the Book of Mormon remains quite strong. For this reason, perhaps, I don't "buck the system", though I am critical of some things. I do admit that leaving granted me much more freedom, and I felt happier being away from ritualistic living. Even Nibley admitted that "endless church meetings" and not enough mental/intellectual food can drive one nuts. I liked the intellectual freedom. I am not saying that the church, or church life, is faultless (and I do agree with some of the points being made), but I think there's another imbalance, and that's the other extreme with some exmos who demonise the church as some kind of unhealthy ogre. That's primarily why I respond to these imbalances, and skewed, broad-brush thinking. "If it's bad for me, it must be bad for everyone else." "A black fella beat me up, so all blacks are bad." I know World War II veterans who still have a morbid dislike of the Japanese, because of their war time experiences, but does this mean all Japanese are bad?

Do I believe Mormonism is healthy for men and women? That's like asking whether I think running six miles a day is healthy for men and women. Or whether doing yoga and meditation for an hour a day is healthy. Or whether Buddhism is healthy. It's an individual choice. I still have many Mormon friends who live very happy lives and experience strong family solidarity. I have occasionally returned to church over the past seven years, for brief visits, and each time I return I never fail to be moved by what the Book of Mormon calls "the happiness of the Saints". I have told these stories many times on boards. Like the story of brother "A", an alcoholic and smoker who was destined for the grave. The missionaries picked him up out of a gutter one night. He invited them to come back. They taught him and the "spirit overcame him". He immediately changed his life, gave up alcohol and smoking, joined the church, and rapidly moved through the ranks of leadership. He was 50 when the missionaries, as he said, "saved my life". He is now in his late seventies and maybe even 80. Thirty years later his face reflects serenity and peace, and an ever-present smile of approval. His spirit is compassionate and understanding. He is the sort of person people want to be around, because of his positive and healthy outlook on life. And, he is only one example of many I could give. For this reason I am unmoved by claims such as yours, that this is a "dangerous religion", because I have seen the practical results of what Mormonism can do, and I cannot deny that.

You never know. One day I might do an "Oliver Cowdery". I don't have to accept everything, but there is enough truth for me to endure the "difficulties" B.H. Roberts talked about. As the old saying goes, "two men looked out from prison bars, one saw mud, the other saw stars". I prefer to look at the stars, and the unimagined possibilities for the future, instead of the mud, or the past.

[_grampa75]

In my view, many consequences for perceived sin in the Mormon church are not necessarily natural consequences, but manufactured consequences. Consequences created by a dangerous cultish religion and designed to keep the flock in line.

For example: prerital sex. Most people have sex before they’re married. Most of them do not have children out of wedlock or STD’s. There are multitudes of people who have safe premarital sex which does not result in any negative natural consequences, or at least none as damaging as the consequences manufactured by Mormonism. Also, masturbation. Who is naturally damaged by that and what are the negative natural consequences? I can’t think of any for either situation except the consequences manufactured for Mormons by their controlling religion and the guilt they manufacture themselves because of the indoctrination provided by numerous, dangerous lessons given to them in Mormon youth programs.

A non-Mormon girl who has safe sex her first year of college with her steady boyfriend, whom she loves, has practically no negative consequences for her behavior and in fact, may have positive benefits from the experience. A Mormon girl making the same choice of safe sex with her steady boyfriend, even once, has a multitude of negative consequences all brought upon her by the Mormon church alone, all of which are created to instill guilt and shame and exert control over every aspect of her life. She will feel a tremendous sense of guilt and shame, all caused by her Mormon conditioning and the Licked Cupcake, crushed rose, chewed gum lessons she had in Young Women’s. She will have to go to a Bishop, possibly whom she barely knows, and confess the intimate details of her sexual experience and then be disciplined in spite of her already overwhelming sense of guilt and failure. Most likely, she will be unable to partake of the sacrament, the symbol of the atonement, of which the Mormon church has taught her she’s so desperately in need. Ironically, the person most in need of forgiveness is denied the very symbols of it.

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.

For those who believe, for religious reasons, that premarital sex is a sin, all teachings concerning sex should be tempered by a message of complete love and acceptance and forgiveness by a God who can be approached in prayer, in private, and can forgive in private, also. No embarrassing Bishop’s confessions necessary. No barring from the very symbols of the atonement which alone provides the forgiveness necessary for many religious people.

Mormonism manufactures consequences where there naturally may not be any and acts as an injured party that must grant forgiveness although there may in actuality be no injured party at all! If there were injured parties, the church certainly wouldn't be one of them. If by chance, there are natural consequences and injured parties, the church doesn't console and forgive. They heap more guilt and shame on top of what is already being experienced by the suffering sinner. In many instances Mormons manufacture guilt where they should experience none. They're trained to believe they'll never be good enough. There's rarley a good Mormon who doesn't feel a healthy dose of guilt for something. Mormonism is a vicious and punitive religious system which is best fled in the manner one would flee a burning building. It’s that damaging.

KA

I believe you are way out in left field. Adultery and fornication is one of the big ten, and it's next to murder. However, through repentence and sustaining you can find forgiveness for either of those sins, but only once. Think for a moment if you date in college and find a sweet partner that you engage in pre-marital sex and then your partner leaves you to find another partner for one reason or another. How would that make you feel, when you do find your perfect soul mate and have to tell him of your indiscreation.

Personally, I never had pre-marital sex with anyone, but my reason for that may be extreem for anyone. I posted here before that I was kidnapped, and sexually and physically abused and nearly had my life taken from me. I am so glad that I found my soul mate that was the same as I was in her attitude on the subject of sex. Now, of course being 75, I have not had sex in over a year. However, our relationship has turned to more in traveling around the globe and visiting some of the places where we were both served in Wars.

I personally believe that the Ten Commandments were not given to refrain us from enjoying anything this life has to offer; they were given as guide lines for us to find the one and only path to happiness.

In the end anyone who has sinned is going to experience grief or heartache for any and all sins they have committed. The best way to happiness is just to listen to God and believe in HIM.

grampa75

[_KimberlyAnn]

[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

I did not leave the church because I felt it was not true. I addressed this on FAIR many times. It was a combination of cog.diss and personal weakness, and just boredom with the routine, and some negative reactions by members to my quest for more knowledge on controversial matters in church history. I was also never able to come to terms with polygamy (I'm a lot like the Witnesses). When I left I was still a believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I still believe both, but in a much more "liberal" way. I'm not a literalist. My belief in the divine authenticity and spiritual message of the Book of Mormon remains quite strong. For this reason, perhaps, I don't "buck the system", though I am critical of some things. I do admit that leaving granted me much more freedom, and I felt happier being away from ritualistic living. Even Nibley admitted that "endless church meetings" and not enough mental/intellectual food can drive one nuts. I liked the intellectual freedom. I am not saying that the church, or church life, is faultless (and I do agree with some of the points being made), but I think there's another imbalance, and that's the other extreme with some exmos who demonise the church as some kind of unhealthy ogre. That's primarily why I respond to these imbalances, and skewed, broad-brush thinking. "If it's bad for me, it must be bad for everyone else." "A black fella beat me up, so all blacks are bad." I know World War II veterans who still have a morbid dislike of the Japanese, because of their war time experiences, but does this mean all Japanese are bad?

Do I believe Mormonism is healthy for men and women? That's like asking whether I think running six miles a day is healthy for men and women. Or whether doing yoga and meditation for an hour a day is healthy. Or whether Buddhism is healthy. It's an individual choice. I still have many Mormon friends who live very happy lives and experience strong family solidarity. I have occasionally returned to church over the past seven years, for brief visits, and each time I return I never fail to be moved by what the Book of Mormon calls "the happiness of the Saints". I have told these stories many times on boards. Like the story of brother "A", an alcoholic and smoker who was destined for the grave. The missionaries picked him up out of a gutter one night. He invited them to come back. They taught him and the "spirit overcame him". He immediately changed his life, gave up alcohol and smoking, joined the church, and rapidly moved through the ranks of leadership. He was 50 when the missionaries, as he said, "saved my life". He is now in his late seventies and maybe even 80. Thirty years later his face reflects serenity and peace, and an ever-present smile of approval. His spirit is compassionate and understanding. He is the sort of person people want to be around, because of his positive and healthy outlook on life. And, he is only one example of many I could give. For this reason I am unmoved by claims such as yours, that this is a "dangerous religion", because I have seen the practical results of what Mormonism can do, and I cannot deny that.

You never know. One day I might do an "Oliver Cowdery". I don't have to accept everything, but there is enough truth for me to endure the "difficulties" B.H. Roberts talked about. As the old saying goes, "two men looked out from prison bars, one saw mud, the other saw stars". I prefer to look at the stars, and the unimaginbed possibilities for the future, instead of the mud, or the past.

Thank you, Ray, for answering my questions. I do not read much on FAIR and didn't know your story.

KA

[_Bond...James Bond]

I believe you are way out in left field....

grampa75,

You're so far out in left field you're directing traffic in Parking Level C.