lostinwater

Thanks. Could be. i tend to think that history books will still be written by the victors and that studies will still tend towards producing the results desired by those who are paying for them. And may we all be spared from biblical sexual mores! i tend to think incest and polygamy are bad. If we practiced biblical sexual mores, our prisons would have more people incarcerated for sexual crimes than are currently imprisoned for drugs. But i think i understand what you meant. But really, when i grieve for those i've lost, i am not demanding that every concept of morality be tossed out the window. i just wonder at times if a little less force and negative association could be used when conveying them. At an institutional level, i really don't know. But at an individual level (aka the only one that matters at all), i think it's definitely possible. i definitely see some of the cost that focusing too hard on them produces. Others can talk about the benefits - but i think there's a middle ground that produces the benefits while reducing the number of casualties. And to be honest, the cost usually isn't suicide. At at least not the abrupt kind of suicide that statistics can measure. There are a million ways a person can act out their pain while still in their body. And in fairness, the mormon church *is* changing - as is the LGBT community. Both are better now than they were 40 years ago (like a lot better). i think the mormon church is way more accepting, and i think the LGBT community has done a better job at being such that it's constituents can function more stably in society (a win win). So props to both of them for that. If everyone avoids their impulses to destroy the other, my guess is a workable middle ground will eventually be reached.

Thanks! Fair question. i guess it's to remind myself, and maybe show others in the process that those who disagree with us aren't as evil and malicious as our imaginations make them out to be. i think if i didn't put that idea inside the gaping hole that is left when a person born/raised in the mormon church has to leave, a red-hot, mostly unjustified indignation would burn me right down to the ground. But joking and melodrama aside, you've got some great personalities here - just have to take time to get to know them!

Thanks! Yeah, honestly, i'd agree with just about all of this. i do think specific sects - not naming names because they all do it - have a tendency to base their claims of exclusive divinity (or at least the fullness thereof) off of the functionality of precepts they hardly own, but act as if they do. i guess you have to allow some bad with the good, but there are a lot of people for whom the prescriptive formulas just don't work. And a lot of those people blame themselves when those formulas don't work (many have not been raised in a way that provides context for any alternative explanation) - some taking it all the way to self harm or suicide. Not making a demand or trying to prove a point - just relating what i've seen. And i will say - i hope people don't think that the people in the LGBT community the media covers actually represent it. Like most wars, you have people on the edges of the distribution whipping up everyone closer to the center into a frenzied kind of war against one another. And the other thing i cringe at is when people assume that if the 'other' would just go away, then it would all be good. i really think that the people who disagree with us (and i'm including myself in my own rebuke) are far more necessary to maintaining some semblance of a balance in society than we'd care to admit!

Thanks! i'd watched that video before i listen to a lot of the experiences of other people who've left the Mormon church (not citing any sources out of respect for forum rules) - and i try to mix in alternative viewpoints. i'm also going through "Rough Stone Rolling" right now just because i've been subjected to so much anti-JS stuff that i know not all of it could be true. And it isn't. He's a much more decent fellow than i used to think. i've come to realize that there aren't many angels or demons (including organizations). That like Solzhenitsyn said, "the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being". i have gone through times of moderate frustration with the Mormon church. But i've never been lividly angry at it. That's certainly the narrative most people who leave are assumed to follow. A kind of middle-fingered jump out of "the boat" into waters filled with the sharks of drug addiction and immorality and frustrated meaninglessness. That everyone who leaves does so in violation of their own knowledge of the truth. That people who leave still view God and Mormon church as being the same thing as they stride off. Maybe that happens to some people. But that's not been my experience. And honestly, i didn't leave over any specific doctrinal issue. The real reason wasn't that i saw something i didn't like (though i did) - and more just that i saw something else i valued more. A shift in goals, i guess. All precipitated by a brush with death (no, not suicide). Odd how that sharpens one's viewpoint. And believe me, i'm not claiming to be any wiser or better than anyone else. Most of the things i 'reailzed' i've since failed pretty spectacularly at putting into practice. And beyond that, i don't even claim that my path is the exclusive right path. In the ways in which a person ought to be exceptional, i am abysmally normal, and in the ways in which a person ought to be conventional, i am profoundly weird! But anyways, i don't think God and Jesus need every living breathing being inside a tabernacle on Sunday for 3 hours. And maybe at the same time He desperately needs millions who are! Maybe He's got to spread us around a bit - and maybe that's OK. Anyways, i don't see myself coming back. i mean, i could PUT myself back. i could be PHYSICALLY present. i did that for years. But emotionally - it's just not there. That, and i have a hard time keeping my mouth shut like i should out of respect when i am there.... Moderators - delete if you need. i tried to respect forum rules, but i can see how this might be too much. Do whatever you feel is best.

Thanks. Born into and raised in. But have left.

i'll just say on this that the idea that people who complete suicide do so in some final act of childish protest is almost always incorrect - at least in my opinion. i hope nobody seriously believes that. The mormon church looms large in the lives of it's members - and things that loom large cast broad shadows. Things are beautiful - until you or someone you know falls into that shadow. And for many born and raised in the mormon faith, it's ideals and culture has been drummed into them so completely, it's next to impossible to just walk away. You can call that shadow whatever you want - being offended, fruits of sin, or just the pettiness of an organization that clings to it's troubled past. Or maybe it's a mix of all of those. The mormon church has definitely played a role in some of my acquaintances who have completed suicide. Honestly, though - i don't know. Like what's an acceptable ratio? How many out-of-wedlock pregnancies ending up in abusive marriages need to be averted to justify the tragedy of a girl who passes away from an eating disorder because of her sexual shame – both because of an incredibly intense focus on the idea of chastity. And maybe the truth is that such is a realm where numbers and ratios and percentages mean nothing - at least outside of trying to make political points. And that the only response that means anything is to think of that one person almost all of us sort of know and make sure they know there are reasons for them to stick around - and places they can exist that are not so painful so as to drive them to madness.

Thank-you, Sir. Agree! i guess that's the rub, right? Everyone trying to figure out whether the good or bad labels they've assigned to something are accurate or not. Task enough to fill a lifetime, and maybe longer.

i remember when i was active in the Mormon church how i would respond to people saying i was in a cult with total, mostly polite incredulity. While i think that statement is still inaccurate now for how most LDS practice their faith, i can definitely look at things a little more objectively now and say, "Yeah - that really is kind of weird/borderline disturbing". And i write that knowing i penned a few of the rather weird posts in this thread! And also, that people view my own beliefs through the same lens of quasi-disdainful skepticism that i view theirs through! i really think it's accurate that our experiences shape our beliefs far more than our beliefs shape our experiences.

If anyone hasn't read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis - i'd highly recommend it. It talks about the afterlife a lot in a really interesting way. But that aside, i think there is an common (not ubiquitous) perception that those in this community are people whose motivations, lives, efforts, desires, etc., are almost exclusively based on the 'homosexual lifestyle' - whatever that is supposed to mean. There have been at least a couple references to this just in this thread. i mean, like what is the homosexual lifestyle? Talking to people about your friends who've taken their own lives? Marching in a parade maybe once a year - though most people don't even do this. i wish most people realized that like 98% of everyone in this community is not trying to desegregate bathrooms, not trying to teach things of a sexual nature to elementary school kids. But i guess it's irresistibly convenient to define a group by whoever claims to speak for the group with the loudest bullhorn. Especially when generalizing in that way serves to reinforce your current world view. It's really unfortunate, because i think a lot of division is nourished from the misconception that everyone in the LGBT community is someone whose entire lives revolves around that one aspect of themselves - and that when you realize it's not true, a person will often rethink their beliefs. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of parents of Mormon (and even Christian in general) LGBT children support this aspect of their child - very often actively. You can't caricature a child, or a very close friend nearly as easily as you can someone you don't know. And really, it's worth mentioning that intersex and asexual people (widely considered part of the LGBT community) are in large part defined by the *absence* of the very stereotypes they are subsumed by - which is quite the irony.

Thanks. Well, my dad was actually a bishop in the past. He's about as stand-up a guy as you'll find - and i still feel this way. Anyways, i'd be saying the same thing if it was a singles ward relief society president, a leader of the catholic church, or a liberal junior high school teacher. Really, i don't think the people in this movement are out on some personal vendetta against the Mormon church. But to argue the point further i expect would make chasing one's tail look like a case study in efficiency. i'm sure everyone's got their reasons for believing as they do - and that's fine. So i'll step out of this thread.

Thanks. It's hard (but healthy) for me to hear stories contrary to my own. Most of the people i know have a completely different experience. i expect Sam Young had a completely different experience also - and that this is his reason for doing what he is doing - that, and just being a voice for all the other people who have had experiences similar to his own.

Thanks. i can respect that. i'm pretty sure the Catholic church said similar things about Martin Luther. And Warren Jeffs says the same thing about his daughter Rachel who left and just published her book. And you could no doubt cite many more parallels that show you are correct - which would be better than mine. But the point i am trying to get across is that Sam is acting the way he is acting in accordance with his earnestly held beliefs - not in some kicking against the pricks opposition to them.

Thanks. i can understand that. But for Sam, he isn't dealing with God when he's dealing with the Mormon church. He's dealing with some elderly men in an office building who (from his perspective) are too stubborn to make a positive change to their policies. From that point of view, doing it any other way than the way he is doing it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Thanks. Well, i was trying to avoid using 'sexually explicit' in my response. But that is what i meant. As far as everything else, if it doesn't appear self-evident why an older man sitting alone with a young child/teen who barely knows him, who is asking about, hearing confessions concerning, probing into, and developing ways to "fix" things of a sexually explicit nature, often without a parent's involvement, is going to hurt a lot of people (including bishops), then i am not sure i am going to be able to explain it in a way that accords you the respect you deserve - which is more important than my attempting (and almost certainly failing) to convince you i am right. And again, no doubt, it's good for many. And maybe that sense of ambiguity is what i was trying to get at in my response - that just about everything that is, has a shadow - and some people stand in that shadow through no fault of their own.

Agree. And a bit of background - Sam Young (the hunger striker) has 6 daughters. The reason he lists for his doing the strike is because his 12 year old daughter was subjected to explicit questions, all alone, with her bishop. And that kind of questioning lasted for years. Oh, and he was, himself, a bishop at one time. So he certainly has seen both sides of this. It's certainly an understandable notion that he's just doing this for some kind of sour-grapes-based public relations stunt, but i really don't think that's accurate. He's also spent a *lot* of his own money taking out ads to draw more attention to this issue. i don't know on things like these. It's voluntary - but if you don't, you're going to be viewed differently in the ward, not be able to do some things, etc.,. It's good for some, and awful for others. Some bishops show a sufficient amount of discretion, and others are completely off the wall. For most people i know, it's just awful - though people on this forum seem to have had some positive experiences with it. i actually think that this will have been a huge success. Just because the Mormon church isn't sending the apostles out one by one to meet with him, it's getting a tremendous amount of press - and a lot of bishops are going to see it. My guess is quite a few are going to exercise a lot more discretion than they have in the past.

Thanks @NeuroTypical My concern is less that a person is raped or otherwise abused physically in a bishop's office - though i imagine there's far too many people who have experienced that also - and more just the content discussed. For most in this movement, i think that's what their primary concern is also. From their point of view, you have children/teens, sitting alone, with a much older man they barely know but believes speaks for God, being asked about, and feeling as though they had to admit to things of a sexual nature - in a way that burns shame into the deepest parts of their souls. And that's no jab at bishops in general. i guess our viewpoints are largely the result of our own/the experiences of those we interact with most closely. When i say i think change is much needed, it is because for the people i know, it *is* needed. i imagine all these people to the active member seem like unrepentant rebels without causes, full of malice and sour grapes at being told what to do. But it sure looks differently when you are one of the people with a not-so-great bishop, or are the hypersensitive and shame-prone teen - or ten dozen other possibilities. Certainly, a counter-narrative exists. And maybe it's the respectful exchange of and acknowledgment of the real and tangible nature of each narrative that results in good policy. Honestly though, i could and should have done a better job at making my statement that change was needed sound more like a hope/suggestion based on my experiences, and less like an indignant and angry scream. So i owe every here an apology for that.

Reminds me of the book "Blood in the Water" about the Attica Prison Riot. i have a ton of respect for people like yourself who do this job. i never realized just how fraught with danger it was - and all of the sacrifices/meaningful impact a good officer makes.

Scuttlebutt around the apostate underworld is that there will be a big announcement also tomorrow. Who knows... Regardless, i hope that change (which i think is very much needed) can be effected in a way that does not humiliate, keeps the door open for more positive change, and results in an overall reduction in animosity going forward. Actions like these are certainly more helpful/effective than protesting by yelling during the supporting votes of a general conference.

That's absolutely scriptural. Haven't you read the scripture where it says 'their worm dieth not'?

That's pretty neat. i know not all dolphins are nice, but on all the whale watch tours around San Diego i went on, they'd come and bow ride/jump out of the water. Maybe it was all just some Darwin-centered behavior, but they sure seemed to understand people pretty well - responding to the cheering. The whales, if you saw them at all, seemed pretty boring. i hope the hybrid got the temperament of a bottlenose.

Beliefs are mandatory. Evidence is optional - though usually in ample supply (at least in the sphere in which that belief exists). The world seems to be set up in in a way that makes one's beliefs a sort of half-blinded obligatory choice.

@DennisTate Thank-you for this thread. If you haven't read CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce" already, i'd highly recommend it. i've been reading near death experiences also (though not nearly so long as you), and i think it's a really unique insight that has a lot of wisdom. Amy Call's Near Death Experience really touched me also. You can find it on Youtube, if you have any interest. As you, i find it rather confusing that so many good people can report so many different things. In the end, i think i've come to the conclusion that there is quite a bit of variety in the afterlife. And also that i think that God and Jesus give people the things/experiences they most need (some pleasant, some not so much), choosing from those that the person will accept - while continuing to work with each of us. And i am not active in the Mormon church - so please know that my statements reflect that.

Though isn't easily bruised fruit also the sweetest? i've always thought of a gentle, pure, tender, sensitivity as the highest of all the virtues. Though very good points by everyone. It is important for that sensitivity to be silent!

+1 i don't know of a single Christian sect that doesn't discount large swaths of the scriptures. Or at least create an authority structure that is able to invalidate/replace them where necessary - and that's no jab specifically at any one sect. They/we *all* do it . It's been a bit of a mystery to me as to how each sect, in endless succession, can claim objective correctness based on texts whose functional interpretation falls anywhere in the spectrum from the westboro baptist church to calvinism. And the irony is that each one's claims, based strictly on the disparate parts they choose to focus on, are almost impossible to argue with unless you are as willing to ignore their dogma as they are to ignore yours. Fortunately (or unfortunately), we are all rather good at this..... ....myself included.... Context, or the lack thereof, can twist the scriptures into saying just about anything. And i don't know that there is anyone blame. Participation (through interpretation) is not optional for one who practices Christianity. Most are just making their way the best they know how.

The more i read, the more i become convinced that the greatest evils in the world occur when people numb their consciences for the sake of a "greater good" - or at least a protection of some greater good. Except the "greater good" usually ends up not being good at all. And i guess it's in this light that i've always interpreted that statement. It seems the minds that plan the greatest evils cannot do the thing they know as evil. They have to peddle it as something else - as a good intention. And then other people who see the evil as a good intention are the unwitting engineers of the path to hell - or at least something hellish. Decisions held in conscientious opposition to one's own often get labeled as moral relativism that has to be fought or destroyed. But i think most people know the difference between what they want to do that is not right, and what is right even if they don't want to do it. i think we allow others to override our consciences at great peril - not just to ourselves, but to those around us. Though to hear the other interpretations is fascinating. Good thread @Rob Osborn!