The Folk Prophet

I'm sorry, but Elizabeth Smart is not likely to represent sound thinking in this regard. The fact that she has turned around and essentially blamed the church is ridiculous. How about we blame the rapists for the psychological abuse of rape? Moreover, a child misunderstanding the difference between physical virginity and virtue does not validate an abandonment of true principles. Chastity, virtue, modesty. Lust is wrong. The church has always taught this. But they have never taught that physical desire and passion equates to lust. Rather, the clear teaching has always been that passions are to be kept within the Lord's bounds -- never that passions are bad. The church's teachings on this are not ambiguous or difficult to understand. Like many things in the church, however, they are is easy to judge and condemn without real understanding. I would not, and could not, contend that no mistaken teachings or approaches have crept into the church. Obviously. But if one understands the gospel, the context of most of these teachings are not that difficult either. The chewed-up gum analogy, for example, is clearly not ideal. But it does not, nor has it ever, meant that the mere act of sex makes you into this chewed-up gum. If that were the case, divorced women or widows would all be labeled unclean chewed-up gum. This is clearly not the case. Along the same lines, Elizabeth Smart's interpretation was incorrect. No one considers rape victims chewed-up pieces of gum. So, yeah...fix the way we teach things...but let's keep some perspective* here. * Edit: Lest you think I'm criticizing you directly, I'm referring more to the perspective posed by Elizabeth Smart. Also, when re-reading your post, I realized I'd failed to address the last paragraph, that I agree with completely. I think the misunderstanding cannot and should not be blamed on the church. But I also feel that the church can and should do their best to clarify these teachings and try to make it less likely that people will misunderstand.

We've had some good debates that have not gotten personal. Those I enjoy. Maybe it's never gotten personal for you though...as you say. I do tend to be sensitive to direct personal criticism. Particularly when it is not justified. I make a comment and someone declares that my attitude is what's causing people to commit suicide or something...yeah...that'll get me riled up. But even then I try very hard not to rip peoples throats out -- because I can, and I know I can.

Thank you for what is a very gracious reply. I understand where you are coming from. And it helps me better explain myself. I do not mean just get over it, nor do I mean that if we give ourselves up that we'll magically be healed. But eventually, with persistence, I think this is the key. Contrary to what some might argue, the church and the gospel has never taught us that we can simply pray away the problems of life. But through the principles and application of the Atonement, we can grow and consistently become more the people that we should be. As for myself, learning to enjoy church took many years. It did not happen overnight. And, as I said, in some ways I also still struggle (though certainly never struggled in the way you describe --- though I do severely struggle with other aspects of life...but that's another thread... :)). For others it may take a life time, or they may never reach the point at all. It is a struggle - and struggle is life. Long-suffering is a gospel principle for a reason. Sometimes, we just have to deal with the fact that we are mortal, and we will face the problems of mortality. But we should do our best to face them with faith, trust, and selflessness.

^ get's test case execution. :) Must not be Safari.

Yes.

I did not say just get over it. I quoted the words of Jesus. If you're reading "Just get over it" into that I cannot help it. But that is not what I said.

How does that tell you I am not understanding your point? As near as I can tell I basically agreed with your point. ("Of course I agree with not running faster than able, and that each must find the ways that they can serve.") I didn't say that you said that or anything closely related to it. I said it. It was my original point. ("...stop worrying about yourself. Give yourself up.") What you did say is that my point was an oversimplification. I am trying to point out that I do not think that it is an oversimplification. Are you misunderstanding me? If we simply disagree, we simply disagree. That tends to be my read of it. You think it's an over simplification, I do not. So...we disagree. That does not mean we are not trying to understand one another.

Thanks for sharing.

My guess is Safari is the culprit. :)

There is certainly something to it. But it is as likely as not something about those saying it as it is an incorrect application of what are, actually, very simple principles. The gospel is simple. It is simple to apply. But it is not "over" simple, and a simple application is not "over" simplification. It is very simple. There will never be a time when selfishness is the better choice then selflessness. There may be times when a person's status, either mentally, emotionally, or otherwise, makes it impossible for them to be selfless. But that does not change the principle, nor make a suggested application of the principle an oversimplified approach.

Why do people keep claiming my statements of gospel principle to be oversimplification? By insinuation you are calling the gospel oversimplified. These were Christ's words, not mine. These are exactly the words that Christ said to those with "mental disorders". I don't remember any, "unless you're depressed" conditionals to His teachings. Of course I agree with not running faster than able, and that each must find the ways that they can serve. But that doesn't diminish the principle. Sorry if I seem defensive. I'm dealing with the same accusation in another thread so my hackles may be raised a bit.

So...what's your point? You have done your duty to correct me according to your view. I have done my duty to correct you according to my view. We may both sleep well tonight knowing we have done our duties.

How selfless does someone have to be happy? 100%. Entirely. Absolutely, without equivocation, completely. Incidentally, I did not say it was selfish to desire wholeness. Being miserable because of a lack of wholeness, on the other hand.... And the part of your old bishop's wording that was self-defeating was the "if only" part of it. There is no "if" about it. It is a choice. You either get up and work or you don't. Talking about things in terms of if only will always be defeating. Beyond that, if you are taking exception to the ideas of selflessness, service, working harder, loving more, having more faith, and being more righteous, or even against the idea of preaching these things, I'm afraid we're just not going to agree.

I think it really depends on personality. Mine is such that if my wife were not a member I would be miserable and drive her crazy trying to get her to join and stuff and it would be a bad situation. Sharing my life (particularly the important parts) with my spouse matters to me. My faith is too much a part of my life and too important to me to not want it shared. I would also be freaked out all the time concerning the example being set for my children. Moreover, the real issues for me concerning marriage are not based in marital bliss in this life, but with an eye towards eternal joy. Being married to someone not LDS would put way to much risk on those eternal objectives for me. I would not do it.

I always "wing" my talks, or at the very least wait 'til the last minute to prepare them. :)

The abuse issue is a valid and reasonable point. As to the other, first, of course I know this. I am reasonably educated, and I am a married man. But how would a woman even know this was an issue if society and culture and "hollywood" hadn't taught her that it was an issue? These issues, in large regards, stem from the world telling people that they must be miserable then, because how could one ever but happy without that... I cannot speak in more detail on this without stepping over the line of propriety. But in principle (there's the phrase again) it is true of many things. How could we ever be happy without a house, a car, money, healthy children, a wholesome sex life, etc., etc... The truth is that happiness and contentment simply do not come from these things. Too many concepts are based in selfishness instead of selflessness. And that is the base of my contention. Follow selflessness first and the rest falls in line. Nonsense. My comments are meaningless. I don't give therapy to anyone, and when I do speak my opinion on a public forum there are those like you to correct me. My ideas are not simplified, however. They are grounded in moral standards that are simple, yes, but carry great depth. And they are centered on an eternal perspective, not an "I can't have good sex so I'm miserable" temporal view. I am not discounting peoples difficulties. I have my own. I am suggesting, firmly, that the solution to these problems can better be found in the principles of the gospel than in principles the world would espouse as healthy and valid.

Hi CrossfitDan, I think you misunderstand me a bit. I thought a bit of clarification is in order. When I speak of the influence of Hollywood I am not necessarily meaning "just" movies and TV and the direct learning one might get from watching shows. It is a broad cultural change that is epitomized and perpetuated in the media, but certainly influences society at large. To presume cultural attitudes about sex are only learned directly by watching TV would be a gross over simplification, as you put it. This is not my contention. I also do not mean to specifically blame the media, other than in the mass ability to influence culture at large. But the general cultural attitudes about sex and sexual relationships are certainly influenced by a broad spectrum of variables. I used the term "Hollywood" as a simple, generic reference to this cultural phenomenon. In many ways, the internet is now more influential, and in the next 20 years or so the cultural shift we will see will almost certainly be driven and perpetuated therefrom. Generally we agree. Let me address a few of your comments: Only part of the problem. - agreed Plethora of misconceptions - agreed Education is needed. But the right education. (Which is actually my point). Figuring it out on your own is still well within the definition of education. "In principle" does not qualify anything beyond how it is already qualified. It's a meaningless addition to the sentence that relates more to my wordy writing style than anything. Everything we're discussing is "principle" so everything is "in principle". And it being said of anything would do nothing to legitimize what is being said. "In principle one could eat whatever they want and stay healthy." How does the addition of "in principle" matter? Not sure what you're getting at with this. Perception is reality? Hmm. Got to think about that. My initial thoughts tend to reject it -- or rather to accept it as only partial truth. Strikes me as too close to moral relativity. Hmm. Thinking.... I don't know if I agree with the "Period" adamancy. Too black and white. There are grays here, methinks. As to the 1. Sexually educate to accommodate the cultural perception of a healthy sexual life. I cannot really address this more without being explicit in ways that would severely breach the forums rules. So perhaps we should just let it be. The only reason I am addressing this topic at all is for the following reason: Sex, even topically, is sacred. The church does not teach proper sexual behavior because it is sacred. It is left to husband and wife because it is sacred and between them. That this approach may inadvertently cause people to misunderstand may be true. It is certainly true that people misunderstand the temple when we do not speak of it. That is a problem we accept and we still do not discuss sacred things that we should not. For a husband and wife to explore sexual education beyond the privacy of their bedrooms runs the risk of placing the holy into unholy circumstances. Please understand me. I am not advising against seeking help when needed, or suggesting that no matter the issues that a couple should simply "deal with it". What I am suggesting is that when an LDS therapist is consulting with an LDS couple as to sexual dysfunction that they teach them how to think rightly about something that is sacred, and to keep it sacred. Teach them to get their minds right about it, and not to impose upon them what is and isn't right and wrong. That is God and His church's place.

There is, and always will be, an aspect of sheer willpower to obedience. And the more we have allowed ourselves to be chained by sin, the harder it can be when trying to break free. The spirit can and will help you, but it will not turn you into a puppet that just obeys without any will. That is, however, exactly what Satan has been doing with you as you have allowed yourself into his web. When it all comes down to it, you simply have to deny yourself. It is a force of will. Other things will help, and they will help a lot. Particularly long term they will make all the difference in the world. But God will not take away your agency. You must choose. Of this you are capable. You might consider, if you have not, seeking therapeutic, ecclesiastic, and perhaps familial help. Once again, these are helps. But at the end of the day, you have to deny yourself these things. It is up to you.

I used to like Vegas (and I mean the Strip and the glitz and glam, etc.) Nowadays I am just uncomfortable there.

I do not think this is valid in the gospel. It is the paradox of this teaching - lose oneself to find oneself, give one's life to save one's life, etc. It is a paradox, and it doesn't seem to make literal sense. But it is gospel truth. We give ourselves up entirely to the Lord and His purposes and only in this manner can we truly find ourselves.

I think this is key. I think we need to set a commitment that is appropriate to our current abilities and then KEEP IT! Just as classylady has said, you commit and you do not falter. I think then there comes a time (hopefully) when we realize that the commitment we have kept is lesser than it could be, that we need to step up and lengthen our stride a bit, and at that point the process is the same. We adjust the commitment and then we KEEP IT! :) I started with a commitment similar to classylady's. Then I moved to a 5 min a day minimum. Then I jumped to 30 min a day. Reasonably speaking, my next phase of stride-lengthening will probably not be a time increase (how much time can one actually give to scripture study a day? -- an interesting question,) but will probably be a commitment more related to how I study. But I'm not there yet. I stick to my 30 min a day - no matter what - and that is working for me well. But there will come a time, I believe, when it is insufficient and I will need to find ways to broaden my study somehow.

The church does not teach these things. If people within the church teach them they are teaching false principles, and if people in the church are learning them they are learning false principles. Regardless, people are learning them. In my personal experience (obviously limited as compared to the membership at large) I have never heard any of these ideas "taught", though I have heard these ideas "learned". Wherein people are learning things that are not taught is an interesting phenomenon -- assuming my perception is valid.

I found this very helpful and valuable...and it is not something I do well. Responding to disagreements with questions is a method I have seen used to great effect without conflict ensuing. Thanks!

To be completely fair, "hostility" was probably not the ideal word and did not completely convey what I meant. "Defensive" would have been better. And I did not feel that in any way on her first post. It was the second one that came across to me like she was ever so slightly annoyed at me (which I expressed with the word "hostility"). Also, just to clarify the history of it (as it is quite applicable to the post), anatess and I have a history of misunderstanding in this regard. In fact, the reason that I started this thread was because of a misunderstanding with her in another thread wherein I stated something, she came back at me in what I felt was a rude manner, I said, "no need to be rude", she said, "I'm not being rude, are you?" back, forth, etc...and communication completely broke down there, so I disengaged. This happens between me and anatess moderately often. And it usually confuses me. I do not seem to have this break down of communication with most people, except every so often. I do with her and I find it interesting. And despite that there was more of that in this thread, I learned about her from it and will hopefully be more understanding in the future, and I hope the same for her. The funny thing is with anatess and myself -- the "hostility" is mild, and that makes it even more difficult in many ways. With several others the hostility is pretty severe (on their part I think...though I do respond in kind sometimes), and in those cases I simple stop talking with them. There are some posters on this forum that I generally will not engage with in any serious manner because they're just mean. Because the conflict that anatess and I have is often just edging "hostility", and we both try not to be total jerks, and we actually do share similar views on many things, it is a bit more of a difficult thing. I don't (and have never) feel like walking away and never communicating with her again. I'm writing this out not to specifically hash out that relationship, but to add to the subject at hand and to address some of the complexities that can be faced. I don't find it black-and-white in terms of "if you're offended you have a chip on your shoulder" or "any time anyone says something rude it's their fault". It is significantly more complicated than that. And I have a high level of interest in improving in this regard because I take very seriously the scriptural command of the Savior that there be no contentions among us. But that is a difficult thing in practice. Some seem to translate it to never take a stand. And yet we know that we should always stand for truth. So standing for true concepts, but not contending with anyone is a difficult thing for me to resolve.

Then it is entirely pointless to discuss scripture. Which is why I am reticent to debate with you on the subject.