unixknight

When you start reading about some of the stuff that went on in the early days of the Restoration it gets... interesting. This is why anti-LDS folks love to go to that period to find stuff that isn't consistent with how things are done today. Everything from using wine at Sacrament to Joseph Smith and the guys chewing tobacco during meetings to the number of wives Brigham Young had (WOW, by the way.) The thing to remember is these guys were just trying to figure stuff out. It's not like everything was revealed in one big wave. They got revelation little by little, and made a few mistakes and blunders while the gaps were being filled. What matters is the end result, which is what we have today. I'm quite sure if Joseph Smith were standing here right now, he'd probably do a few embarrassed facepalms as we look at some of the things that were done back then, but it's not a big deal. I have no doubt that the weird cases like the ones discussed here were straightened out along the way.

If you feel like the Lord has forgiven you, I mean you honestly feel that way, then accept it and let the guilt go. Seeing the Bishop is something that we do when we need help getting back on the right path. The Bishop doesn't provide absolution for your sins. As for whether or not to talk to him, use discernment. Pray about it, see if the Spirit prompts you to do so. Be open to the answer.

It's a matter of judgement. I remember a couple of years ago where a person posted that he was terrified that his new fiancee' might break up with him and that he'd be in hot water with the Bishop because he pleasured himself once in the shower. And man, this guy came across as beside himself with stress and fear over it. I don't know what part of that broke my heart more: the fact that his discernment was in such a state of atrophy that he couldn't see that in a reasonable perspective, or the chance that his fiancee' might actually freak out about it so badly that she'd break off the engagement. (I hope he was just being paranoid, but sheesh some people are so uptight his fears could have been justified.) Guys... seriously... We're given discernment. We're given a library of scripture and a direct line to Heavenly Father through prayer and personal revelation. We have a huge number of great and wonderful tools at our disposal and it seems like too often people want to just dump it on the Bishop 'cause he's got a cool title and runs things and if he says we're good then we must be. I agree that this would be a waste of the Bishop's time. This is a chance to flex your own discernment muscles. Pray about it, meditate about it, and unless it becomes a habit, let go of it and let your spirit grow. Guilt is the single most effective weapon Satan can wield against us, and litigious thinking only makes it more powerful.

I'm gonna go against the grain here and not give the standard auto-answer of "Go to the Bishop." Now, it is true that Bishops have a way of helping us put things into perspective and give reassurance, and that's very valuable. Bishops can help with guilt in this way. However: This isn't Catholicism where the clergy gives absolution for sins. That's between you and the Lord. The purpose of a Bishop is to provide whatever support and counsel is needed, and if it's a problem you're still having and struggling with, or if it's really severe, to respond according to Church guidelines, such as offering more detailed assistance, disciplinary response, etc. I go against the grain on this because I see a troubling tendency for people to think litigiously about this stuff and that leads to Pharisaical thinking. That, in turn leads us to act like robots and not use discernment or critical thinking. I mean no offense to anybody when I say this, it's just that I've seen how much people stress over this sort of thing and that can be pretty damaging to one's spiritual health.

The past is exactly that - the past. Satan can, and will, try to convince you that the past is relevant to the future. The only thing you should be hanging onto from the past is lessons learned. Guilt is a bat that Satan will use to keep you feeling low and distract you from making spiritual progress. If it's well and truly behind you, then leave it there. You do yourself no favors by dragging it around. If you've repented of it, then God has forgotten it. Or do you suppose you have higher moral standards than He does?

I have a close friend who is going through exactly this, and yes he's a member of the Church. I also had a co-worker once, who was gay. I told him about my friend, and he said "It's sad that he can't be who he is in order to stay in your church." I reject that mentality wholeheartedly. Who was my co-worker to judge whether or not my friend was "being who he is?" My friend alone gets to decide that. He is exactly who he wants to be - a man who places God's will higher than his own wants and desires. He is a man for whom his spiritual path is more important than any other aspect of his life. To say that a man with same-sex attraction isn't being himself simply because he chooses not to engage in a relationship is to suggest that our sexual appetites are what defines who we are above all. I am married to a woman, but the fact that I'm heterosexual isn't my singular defining characteristic.

Quite so!

Nobody here has counseled that, I'm talking about the anecdotes of YM leaders saying it.

Sure, unfortunately. The thing that got me to notice this problem was actually a few years ago. A good friend of mine was having that problem where he was interested in a girl and they actually got along very well, enjoyed each other's company, and it seemed natural that they might start dating. So he asked her. Her answer? No. Why? Because he's not a RM. Had he been, she'd have dated him. She even said so, so this isn't a theory or conjecture. And why did she do this? Because it's what she'd been advised to do by some leader in her ward or another. So yes, she was putting aside her judgment to blindly follow that advice, to the detriment of my friend and, frankly, her own. He's a really great guy. Besides, in this very thread we've seen where people (possibly erroneously) have advised young women to limit their dating pool to only RMs. I shouldn't even need to have shown you an example for it to be clear that yes, people are using this as a litmus test.

Sure, but that's the problem... What you're talking about is thoughtful and a matter of using judgment. What some of us are objecting to is the encouragement put judgment aside and blindly use a litmus test that is demonstrably unreliable. JAG, I think you're right about it being largely a matter of coming at it from different perspectives. I'm glad that doesn't keep us from being able to talk about it reasonably, and even agree to disagree :)

No worries I didn't take it that way, but thanks for making the effort to be clear on that I don't mean to use the "being called" term in that context. What I mean is that if it's the case that serving a mission is sort of a default, then would that mean that a young man shouldn't expect to receive that answer in prayer? In other words, if a young man feels unsure, shouldn't he be able to expect that response if he takes the matter up with the Lord in prayer? (In accordance with James 1:5) I flat out reject any "one size fits all" solution. Not everyone is cut out to be a missionary. They just aren't. (Not talking about my son here. I leave that determination up to him.)

Fair enough, and we agree on this, then. I'm not sure about that. A "holier-than-thou" attitude can be extremely hard to recover from spiritually because it's so hard to recognize in one's self in the first place. We're all guilty of it from time to time, but it disturbs me to see it codified in any way. Fair enough. Indeed it does. It might say that the individual simply wasn't called to serve a mission. (At least, not yet.) My son (who is 19) was ready, willing and able to serve, and continues to be, but has not felt called to do so. I believe that if he feels called to serve, he will. Until then, he's focusing on earning his degree. I understand your answer, but I'm not sure how it applies to this discussion. If a woman should limit her pool of options to only men who are RMs, on the grounds that they've demonstrated some higher degree of dedication and faithfulness, why shouldn't young men be encouraged to hold that exact same standard for women he'd date?

Maybe so, but it definitely contributes to a certain "holier-than-thou" attitude which sometimes creeps into church culture. I don't agree that it works quite so well as you're suggesting, and the anecdotes we've seen already in this thread would make me seriously question the value of that approach. Ultimately, of course he has to defer to it, but his thinking it's stupid and arbitrary doesn't somehow certify that he would have been a bad husband anyway. I think where we disagree here, and it's been hinted at before in this thread, is that going to serve a mission is not proof that he's got a track record of those things. It could be that a guy serves a mission, not because he felt called to, but because he's trying to live up to parents' or ward expectations. It could be that he knows he'll have a more limited selection of possible marriage options if he doesn't, so he goes on that basis. It could be for a million other reasons hinted at earlier. Also as stated earlier, that might well make such a person a worse candidate for marriage than a guy who chooses to stay home for the right reasons rather than to go for the wrong ones. I'll concede that such cases are in the minority (At least, I hope they are) but while I have a deep respect for those who willingly go to serve the Lord by spreading the Gospel, that trait alone doesn't say enough about a person to indicate whether they'd make a good husband or not. For that matter, a thought just occurred to me... Why aren't young men counseled to only marry returned sister missionaries?

Of course, nobody is saying otherwise. But Just_A_Guy was saying that if a man has a problem with a prospective fiancee's reasoning then he would have been a bad husband anyway and I think that's unfair to say. A man might have to respect her decision in the sense that he can't force it, of course. Nobody's saying otherwise... But that doesn't mean he has to have respect for that process, and can quite reasonably think it's a terrible and arbitrary reason.

You rock. I need you to know this :)

Gotta call you out on this one, brother. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with having a problem with a decision making process that's arbitrary and over simplistic. If a prospective fiancee' were to reject a man solely on the basis of his not being a RM, then he has a perfect right to gripe. It isn't a matter of not respecting her, because frankly, a decision like that, based on something so arbitrary and self-righteous deserves no respect. (Note: I said the decision, not the person.) It's very clear that she isn't respecting him. We have agency for a reason, friends. Not using our judgment in favor of an arbitrary standard like that is essentially letting your agency lie dormant, because you're letting someone else tell you how to think. Frankly, if I were a young man looking for a wife, I'd be much more interested in a woman who actually used her judgment and got to know me, and not someone who said something as vacant as "Well I think you're really nice and a great guy but you never went on a mission so I can't consider you for marriage." Heh. Bye bye, sweetheart.

Yes, in this case. Oh I didn't mean my post to be a direct response to your question, although I'd like to take a stab at it here. If it's a way to put pressure on a company to change its policy, I think boycotting is a useful and proper tool. Suppose a clothing store were using child labor overseas, or a restaurant chain were practicing racial discrimination in its hiring process... Those would be reasons to boycott that are justified in my opinion.

Just saw Batman yesterday and liked it very much. I enjoy the multiple layers Christopher Nolan includes in his films because it gives both sides of my brain something to do while I'm watching. The movie was a bit long though, and that last half hour my bladder was quite upset with me... Remember the little blurb about h ow the auto-pilot had never worked properly on the vehicle? Well at the end, when they're pulling it apart because Fox, distraught, wants to know what he could have done better, they notice that the auto-pilot had been given a software patch some weeks prior, and it had been done by Bruce Wayne. So we conclude that he bailed at some point and let the auto-pilot take the bomb out to sea. Yes thankfully she didn't do any of that rolling her 'r's or meowing in every sentence garbage. That would have been incredibly jarring.

The boycott makes no sense in any case because ultimately it's the personal opinion of the CEO, not a view espoused, or necessarily represented by, the company itself. What will be the result if the boycotters get their way? A lot of unemployed people. Way to make the world a better place...

The only part where I don't agree (and it may just be a flaw in how I'm interpreting your post) is that there seems to be an overtone of "If this guy didn't go on a mission he should be seen as a slacker until proven otherwise." I think to say that absolutely everyone should serve a mission (or even close to "absolutely") is a serious oversimplification. Not everybody is called to serve a mission, plain and simple, and the question of whether they've been called is personal, between them and Heavenly Father. For us to second guess it is terribly inappropriate. I'll concede that most probably are. That doesn't mean the remainder should have to defend themselves.

This topic has come up a few times in my circle of friends and family. I think it's extremely narrow-minded and wrong to automatically exclude any non-RM outright. (I have very strong feelings on this, and hopefully this post will clarify why.) I do not believe that every single person is called to serve a mission. I just don't. This should be obvious by how the system works. Serving a mission is not a one size fits all calling. That being the case, then logically it would mean that the percentage of faithful LDS members who have served on a mission will always be something less than 100%. Now, every single member of the church IS expected to get married at some point and rise a family. If all young women in the church followed the advice to only date RMs, then essentially, not going on a mission is like sentencing oneself to a single life... or to be forced to date outside the church. I find it hard to believe this is the intended result. I have a good friend who didn't serve a mission. Is he not "good enough" to be of interest to an LDS woman? He works hard, is educated, has a good job, and has a lot to offer. Nevertheless, there are people in our church who would say he's not dating material because he didn't feel the Lord called him to serve a mission. What are guys supposed to do? Go on a mission whether they feel called by the Spirit to do so or not? Is that really a good idea?

I did

A cannibal walks down the street and passes his brother.

Thanks for sharing that. Anything that encourages us to talk about the things that don't get talked about is good.

I love the idea that the only possible reason for us to disagree is a failure to spend enough time thinking about it. Was that supposed to be an armor piercing argument? Show me some examples and we'll discuss them on a case by case basis. In the meantime, I stand by my statement.