lostinwater

Thanks. Fair points. i don't know that percentages matter that much when you are touched by this directly. But i hear what you are saying. And i actually agree that it's not just affecting youth. Most of the people i've known who have had a bad experience were over 18. Usually, i've seen it go something like this: - A very above-board question like "Do you keep the law of chastity" is asked - Strong sense of awkwardness and discomfort enters the room - Deeply conflicted person feels like they are obligated to answer their priesthood leader (because he is their priesthood leader, and because they want to maintain their standing in TCOJCOLDS). But they really, really, really don't want to. - Leader probes, in pornographic detail (trying to keep this G rated - but you can find the kinds of questions that get asked if you choose). Just a ridiculous amount of detail is demanded. - Details are reluctantly supplied - Person leaves the office feeling violated and shamed, having shared the most intimate details of their life with someone they barely know, or someone they know very well on a purely social level (not sure which one is worse) i see a lot of positive stories about people being helped by their bishops in things like these - and i fully acknowledge the positive aspects of those experiences. Mostly though, i've seen people just eat themselves alive with shame - and then be written off as sinners who just didn't want to repent when they try to say anything about it at all. And i guess i seem Sam's as being someone that at least addresses the existence of these kinds of experiences. Sheds some light on them.

i assume you mean Sam Young. Yes, i've listened to him extensively. i know people who have been probed in completely unacceptable ways by ecclesiastical leaders. Anyone is more than welcome to tell these people that they are wrong, prideful, sinful, unworthy, or statistically irrelevant outliers. But as far as i'm concerned, those are the people Sam is talking about. And honestly, i don't think organizations change without methods like the ones that Sam's using. And i'm certainly not saying TCOJCOLDS is under any obligation not to excommunicate him. i don't think anyone could not have seen this one coming. i'm entirely aware that there are experiences outside of my circle of influence that can, and should, be accounted for. My thinking has been moderated by hearing some of those experiences here - and for that i am grateful.

Thanks. Yeah, the process does not surprise me at all. i'm not sure i agree with his having a mental illness, the motives others are superimposing onto Sam, or the inherent incorrectness of the methods he's using. But, that's just my opinion, and is worth significantly less than what you paid for it. (money saving tip: never pay for lostinwater's opinion - it's always free ).

Thanks. Yeah, a good reminder. It's interests represent a tiny fraction of the population. Honestly, timing couldn't be worse for them. The Catholic church having covered up abuse (again) - and hot on the heels of that is TCOJCOLDS excommunicating someone for campaigning to end older men asking minors sexually explicit questions during one-on-one interviews. They are giving Sam a huge gift of publicity, and themselves a massive PR black eye. i understand the realities are more subtle, but i don't think any of that is going to get communicated to the average person hearing about this.

Thank-you. Respect that - and you. My comments just reflect the people i've known - and i'll be the first to admit that the experiences with which i am acquainted are a tiny subset of all the experiences that are out there.

i guess the choice of tense is what i am getting at. And i try not to be picky on grammar unless it's use reflects a perception. Anyways, i get what you are saying - people need a firm hand. Lots of people need to be told to just soldier up and change. That's very true. i appreciate your more pragmatic approach. But i can say that words like "worthy" and "fake" have way more power than most people realize - especially when applied to people. You find what seems like the most rotten "sinners" out there - and i'd bet the majority of them are people who heard words like those said about them when they are very vulnerable - and actually believed that designation was correct.

i don't meant to be confrontational - but statements like this sadden me a lot. Labels like "unworthy" and "fake". i get why they are used - but i wonder if people really understand just how much damage they do when they actually stick.

This has actually blown up recently. Sam got a letter calling him to a disciplinary council. i think in about a week. No surprise, for sure. Article is (or at least was ) on front page of Fox News, US News and World Report, and probably several others. Assuming he is excommunicated (and i can't imagine he won't be) - this is going to make for quite the headline, especially given the recent goings-on in the Catholic church.

@LePeel Sorry you are having to deal with that. Heavy feelings, indeed. i think the prevailing narrative is that sin is some unruly thing the person lets into themselves by choice - that needs to be beaten and flogged to extinction. A less common way of viewing it is as the blood and pus that flows from some wound or trauma in the person. In that case, you surround it with good things and avoid beating it with shame at all costs. Usually, some mixture of both is needed - though the ratios seem to depend on the circumstance, the sin, and the person involved. i personally have found more of the latter and less of the former to be more effective - but i guess that may just be an artifact from the truth that all the wimpy wishy-washy snowflakes like me tend to clump together . Anyways, i don't know where you fall in the mixture of the two. But i think the efficacy of any dark/shame-filled thoughts that don't come along with a big blazing door with the light of hope streaming through it and a clearly-marked "Exit" sign above it is very limited. Anyways, FWIW, i still think you're a great person who is worthy of every happiness out there.

If anyone is looking for a good book, you can read Asperger's Children. About how autism in general was identified and largely defined by a Nazi doctor (Hans Asperger), and just how the Nazi social ideals have shaped what we view as being autistic. One of the things they talk about in the book is how a large portion of the recent explosion in the number of people with autism is at least in part caused by the the increasingly subjective nature of the diagnosis. It's really an interesting (and mildly disturbing) book. And my sister is vehemently anti-vaccine. One of the nicest people you'll ever meet. She has some good points. Though i am glad that most people - myself included - are vaccinated.

This is a neat post. Jordan Peterson is quite the intellect. Thanks. But also - you hit 5000! Nice.

@Anon77 i am so sorry you are going through this. All i'll say is that if this is a super sensitive issue (and it sounds like it is) - make sure your bishop knows how raw this all is - before you've said anything other than that. If you have/want a person to go in with you - maybe they could do this for you. Perhaps you and someone you have implicit trust in already could discuss what you're comfortable with beforehand. And then start vague, and only go as deep as you feel comfortable (and this shouldn't be very deep at all). And if the trust just isn't there with the bishop... i just don't know. Bishops are the gatekeepers to missions i guess - so if that's the goal. But try and make sure you don't create even more trauma and shame from all this than you already feel. i really think it's worth the investment in pre-planning to ensure you you have a non-traumatic and loving environment around you throughout this whole process. And i just hope you remember that sins are things we do - not things we are. Please be gentle on yourself. Not just because you deserve and need the gentle kindness, but also because hurts don't heal by continually scratching them with shame.

Thanks @Sunday21 Yes, i did. i guess i took different things from it than others did. i'm still a bit confused, honestly - and also not sure how well all this will "stick". But regardless how it plays out, to the extent i can, i will try my level best to use the terms requested.

Thanks. Apologies. i could and should have been more clear about what i meant. i thought i was, but given the response, i tend to think i must not have been. And i take responsibility for that. My intended meaning was that i hope nobody expects a disinterested third-party (ie most of the world) to believe that any and all references to "the church" - without any other contextualization - to be assumed to mean "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". To me at least, that's sort of like Trump sending a memo to all other nations requesting that their citizens immediately begin referring to the USA as "the nation".

Thanks. Yeah, that ones seems perfectly reasonable. But only because you first used "The Church of Triple-Broad Nibs" . The second alludes to the first. To only use "The church" in both references would be the kind of thing i was referring to. So to use your example, what would be the structure that would meet Nelson's request - for someone writing an article for say the Washington Post? Just asking out of curiosity, as perhaps i misunderstood the news release.

My understanding of grammar is not great. But this whole thing seems to be less a name change than an attempt to replace an indefinite article with a definite one. To eliminate any reference that would miss an opportunity to make (or get those engaging in conversation with you to agree to) an empirical truth claim through the use of the name. Not criticizing it really, as it's only a request - just an observation. Though i really hope Nelson doesn't actually expect outside news sources or non-members to use "the church" .

If one assumes that both people are accurately relating what they were told/shown - and you assume that the same source would not directly contradict itself, i think the assumption hard to make. Storm, in some of his YT videos and book, says things that are the exact opposite of what is taught in the Mormon (sorry, President Nelson - i'm not sure that name is ever going away) church. For example what Howard Storm says is God's plan vs what is taught in the plan of salvation. Or when Jesus tells Howard that people building shrines or elaborate houses of worship in His name mean absolutely nothing to Him. And subjectively, it feels like they place the importance on different things. Howard Storm relates that in the eyes of God, the most important thing he'd done in his life to the point he died was holding his sister one night as she wept alone after being beaten by their father. Maybe that's just my perception, but i get a completely different feeling as to what's of ultimate value in the Mormon heaven. i love Howard Storm's accounts, too, though. If you haven't listened to Amy Call's experience, that's one i'd highly recommend as well. Petra Nicoll shares a childhood NDE also that i enjoy. It's one i go to sleep by - as much for the soothing voice and music as content. There's just such an overall gentleness to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqBZhWdkvGI i don't know why there is so much variety regarding near death experiences. i guess a person's perceptions of the inexpressible play a lot into it. And then also, honestly, if members feel as cold and empty when contemplating my ideation of the afterlife as i do when contemplating theirs, i can understand why maybe Jesus would said there were many rooms in heaven.

This is very sad. A perfect example of how to decrease the likelihood of someone accepting you. Agree with @zil - appears very intentional also.

Thanks Wade. All great points. i really appreciate that you have reminded me that people who think differently than i do/as i did are just different parts of the same solution. It's unfortunate the extremists do all the talking. i think the more middle of the road voices stay silent (especially in the LGBT community), because they just want to stay out of the whole mess. While i can't blame them, i think it allows false perceptions to spread much easier than they would otherwise. And i'll try to do a better job in this regard.

Thanks, Wade. Honestly, this is what i really appreciate. Dialogue. Just people realizing that the other is not the evil satanic blob that they've been taught to believe. Because we have a way of meeting one another's expectations. Or at least the people who scream the loudest from either side do. You know, i've sat on both sides of this fence. When i was in secondary school, they were trying to form a gay-straight alliance at a local school. i got up, amid much fanfare, and quoted the bible to the school board about how homosexuality would result in the destruction of the people who practiced it - yes, really. i waved signs and basically did everything i possibly could to prevent that club from forming. i never once - not a single time - even considered actually talking with the people i was doing my utmost to vilify. See if they actually were the evil bunch of reprobate deviants everyone told me they were. i guess the fact that their calling it an alliance might have actually meant something never crossed my mind. Sadly, i didn't care. i didn't even consider how my words might have felt or the conclusions that someone might have drawn as a result. You know - that stinging sensation in your heart that you feel before the emotional scar tissue of anger develops to protect you from it. And how much of that you quietly take before you know that this is no place for you. That maybe heading to the gay bar really is better than listening to the pastor talk about how people who feel like you do are mentally ill or demon-possessed. And that the idea of opening up to someone whose talked about you the way they have (even if they don't know it) is so unfathomably painful, the idea isn't even something your mind can grasp. But if i had even tried to put myself in their shoes, maybe i might have realized words like mine might have done a splendid job of driving them into the very places that i was condemning them for inhabiting. It's an odd turn of events as to how you take someone who thought the things i used to think and change them to the way i think now. i tend to think there is a divine hand in the exceptional ironies that brought it all about. Who knows. One thing your words have reminded me about though (and i'm grateful for this) - is that maybe unconditional love can look like persistently insistent stubborn concern on occasion. But maybe not everyone needs the same message at the same time. That maybe you need both a Father O'Mally and a Sister Superior (if you haven't watched Bells of St Mary's, you NEED to!) - assuming that you take humanity into account. i guess a lot of this is hard for someone to accept who believes there is no difference between what their church believes or what their bible can be made to say and what God believes. i've gone from knowing absolutely to not knowing absolutely - so in my calmer moments, i tend to think there is less absolute knowledge here on the earth than i'd like to think. But i can only speak for myself. And that, entertaining that idea, it's OK to treat someone differently than i would have otherwise.

What really worries me is how the fringes are recruiting people from the 'middle' on both the left and the right. i have read books from both sides. And the titles are beyond cringe worthy. In corner A, you have "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" And in corner B, you have "The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left" i mean, like really? Really!? You think that the conservatives are all billionaires or ignorant gun-toting rednecks dead-set on destroying the planet? Or you really think the average liberal is a closeted Nazi? That the likes of Fox News or Ben Shapiro aren't concerned more about finding the most sensationalized extremist and click-baitable stories they are capable of dredging up as opposed to telling the stories of your average person? i mean, take a look at your local Craigslist community section. You'll find people raging in the most crude and debased language imaginable about the evil of the 'other'. Or the comments on the Fox News Articles. Good heavens. It's madness. i honestly think Russia has it right. They've figured us out. They don't have to fight us! They can just whisper a few things in our ears and then sit back and watch us slaughter one another.

Thanks, Wade. Honestly, i've tried really hard not to criticize. But i guess if criticizing means holding and respectfully voicing a contrary opinion, then i stand guilty as charged. Or maybe you're referring to the people in the LGBT movement who blast their bullhorns, try to preach homosexuality in the classrooms, and draw all the media attention. If you are, then i am as against that as anyone. i know a lot of people that don't fit the HIV/STD/cultural pervert caricature of homosexuals. And subjectively, i think i can say i know quite a few people who given the appropriate environment readily transition away from some of those behaviors. All i am trying to say is that i don't think it's virtue signaling or sitting in blithe silence when someone attempts to help them get to a more stable place. If others want to return to the approaches that have been attempted for the past few thousand years, that's fine. It's not something i've seen work all that well - but i interact with the tiniest part of the tiniest fraction of the whole - and readily acknowledge that. Anyways, i hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it is written.

Change that "or" to an "and" and we're in complete agreement! i guess we can argue till we're blue in the face as to whether or not those two things are mutually exclusive - but i'm pretty sure all we'd accomplish is creating mutual dislike. And while i might be weird enough to merit that dislike (ok, i definitely am), you definitely don't!

Yes, that's true. Vomit aversion therapy also, from what i understand. On a positive note, they don't do that any more. Though there was a lesbian girl (Alex Cooper) who was shipped off to Southern Utah by her parents where she was abused in the attempt to 'cure' her of her homosexuality - this was just in 2010. And there was a pretty strenuous attempt by the State of Utah to label her as ungovernable and let her parents continue to try and change her sexuality. Thankfully, reason won out in the end. JAG might have some insight into this - as i know he deals with things like child custody/abuse and such. In fairness, this was *not* sanctioned by the mormon church - unless you count the bishop who refused to help her during an interview, or the missionaries who didn't say anything when they saw her standing up against a wall with a backpack full of rocks meant to symbolize the burden of her homosexuality. And really, they probably didn't fully understand everything that was going on. i hope not at least. Though i think the mormon culture provides unfortunately fertile ground for that kind of thing. i don't know. The mormon church disagrees with homosexuality, and will act accordingly. It's certainly got that right. As much as i disagree with their policies, i don't think they are likely to change - at least for a few leadership cycles. And in the mean time, i hope that those caught in dark places inside of it can get out. Just leave, walk away, and surround themselves with people who can accept them and help them live in a stable and responsible manner. That i think will be what tips the scales in the end. When there are enough stable, good people that the caricatures people are using to justify their harshness towards them disappear. And yes, that's just my opinion.

Thanks. Yeah, to be honest, i have no arguments that churches are hardly having huge impacts on the culture of Seattle (or many places for that matter). Was just commenting on many of those i know, and my own interaction with the pressure-cooker infusion method of moral norms. Most of those norms i agree with (and even those i don't - i have no right to demand anything) - it's just the method i hope will change. Honestly, it's not an easy line the mormon church treads. For the pressure-cooker to go away, i think they'd have to acknowledge that much of what they advocate isn't as important as they've said it is. And concessions like these aren't easy to make without undermining your own authority. Though i really believe you can convey the importance of something in an effective way that doesn't plant landmines of shame and guilt that detonate and destroy the person's sense of self-worth when they touch it a few years down the road. And i think this has been a huge factor in the suicides (quick and brutally tragic or long and drawn out and equally tragic) or self-harmful behavior that i have seen.