Stop treating them like monsters.

[prisonchaplain]

Most here, who suggest "nature" has some role, have been careful to use words like "temptation" and "predisposition." "Hardwire" suggests that there really is no agency. I prefer the word "temptation." It may be a struggle to overcome, but not an impossiblility.

[bytor2112]

So are you suggesting that God has revealed himself to you, and as part of that revelation he has assured you that homosexuality and pedophilia are not among the trials he gives his children?

No. I was agreeing with your assertion when you posted ,"When we expect God to conform to our preconceptions, we are bound to be disappointed."

I do not believe that Heavenly Father gives people trials per se.....allows them to endure and choose to overcome or not overcome, yes, but not give.

[Vort]

No. I was agreeing with your assertion when you posted ,"When we expect God to conform to our preconceptions, we are bound to be disappointed."

I do not believe that Heavenly Father gives people trials per se.....allows them to endure and choose to overcome or not overcome, yes, but not give.

Whether God "gives" you trials or merely "allows" you to experience them is, to a large degree, a semantics-only difference.

On my mission, I knew a young man, maybe a year or two older than the missionaries, who was very friendly. He was an investigator, sort of. In fact, when he bore his testimony, it was moving almost beyond words, and I felt the Spirit as strongly as I had with anyone else. He was truly a remarkable individual.

But he could not get baptized. Our mission president (now a member of the First Quorum of Seventy) would not allow it. And why not? Because he was a homosexual, raised from birth to act out sexually with all who were around him as his primary demonstration of love and caring. It made him a threat to the Church and the missionaries, at least in the president's eyes. This young man truly loved the Church, the gospel, the missionaries, and the members (at least those who would tolerate him). But he could not be baptized.

Whose fault was his sorry state? Was it his? After all, he was literally raised from birth in that environment. The fact that he was even able to (a) listen to the missionaries, (b) feel the truthfulness of what they taught him, and © take positive steps in an attempt to come toward what he had learned constitute, in my not very humble opinion, more than a merely minor miracle. If anyone "deserved" the power of the atonement and the joy of Church fellowship, it was him. To a very large extent, his state was truly not his fault.

Yet he could not be baptized.

So did God "make" him this way, or merely "allow" him to gain these characteristics from an unimaginable childhood? And does it matter?

I have little doubt that there are some individuals who, through no explicit fault of their own, find themselves sexually attracted to juveniles, perhaps even young children or babies. You may not believe that, but after what I saw on my mission and afterward, I do. Just as I believe that there are some people who truly do have sexual feelings for members of their same sex and who never wanted or asked for those feelings, I also believe such people exist with respect to pedophilia.

I just do not see the utility in calling them "monsters". How is that useful? What does it even mean? It is a verbal attempt to render such people as somehow less than fully human, which therefore means we are justified in doing whatever it is we want to do to them.

What happens when -- God forbid! Please! -- your nineteen-year-old son comes to you and confesses that he has always been sexually attracted to little girls or boys? Do you throw him out, burn all his baby pictures, and pretend he never existed?

I expect I have about the same gut reaction to the issue that most people do who have not been directly touched by pedophilia. But do we, or do we not, believe in the divine origin and potential of human beings? Do we, or do we not, believe in the power of the atonement? Exactly how is it that we are so pure and holy that we can cast aspersions at those who find themselves sexually attracted to children, or same-sex members, or dead bodies, or cats, or large vegetables?

And even if they have violated a little child -- do we, or do we not, believe that under Ammon's guidance, a nation of murderous Lamanites repented, buried their weapons of war, and were forgiven by God and made clean? Do we, or do we not, believe that Ammon himself and his brothers, along with Alma, were cleansed from being "very wicked and idolatrous" men in an "awful, sinful, and polluted state"?

If we're really in a mood to condemn people, let's condemn those who don't take their covenants seriously, who pretend to be Latter-day Saints but are in reality latter-day people of a whole other sort. If we must condemn, let's condemn those who close their eyes to lies and to liars because they like what the liars preach, and freely choose to ignore the good and the right because it's not as easy or convenient. If condemnation is what we must do, let's condemn those who freely choose to do evil, and not just those who do it because they don't understand that it's wrong, and certainly not those who merely want to do evil but avoid it.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Vort

[MorningStar]

To say that they are born that way is pretty silly. As children, we develop crushes on other children, which is normal. It seems that pedophiles' attractions don't mature as they grow like everyone else.

[bytor2112]

So did God "make" him this way, or merely "allow" him to gain these characteristics from an unimaginable childhood? And does it matter?

A thoughtful question and one I have pondered frequently and.....Do we, or do we not, believe in the power of the atonement? We do indeed.

[Wingnut]

To say that they are born that way is pretty silly. As children, we develop crushes on other children, which is normal. It seems that pedophiles' attractions don't mature as they grow like everyone else.

This makes the most sense to me of any guess at origination I've heard on the issue.

[Guest]

The issue is "attraction", and whether or not a person is "born as pedophila" or not. I agree that Spencer is feeling these attractions. I disagree that he was born that way.

I don't think it would be correct to label a man/woman a pedophile until they have actually committed the crime, or attempted to and were unsuccessful (dang it couldn't think of the right word, other than successful)

At least this has been what has stemmed my argument with this article. If I remember the article correctly, Spencer acted out, and thus deserves the connotations the society he lives in correlates with such activities. Or, was Spencer, the member someone brought up in this thread? Either way, both acted on their temptations.

You did not read my post before this. Nobody is born with an attraction. But people may be born with a proclivity to an attraction.

Nobody is born cliptomaniacs. But people may be born with a proclivity to steal.

Nobody is born alcoholics, nobody is born depressed, nobody is born mathematicians. But they may be born with the proclivity to be so.

Spencer is the man in the article who grew up in a perfectly normal moral family. He loved spending time with his best friend, sleeping with their arms around each other in a normal boy fashion when they were tweens. He grew up to be 17-years old and he continued to still love hanging out with the 13 year olds that he mentored. He grew up to become an adult but his attractions for 13 year olds did not grow up. And no, he never once acted on his attraction. He sought therapy and he got labeled by the therapists a pedophile and treated as such - with all the "you're a monster" treatment that comes with it.

[Wingnut]

YHe loved spending time with his best friend, sleeping with their arms around each other in a normal boy fashion when they were tweens.

Okay, granted, I was never a teen or tween boy, but this doesn't sound like "normal" boy behavior to me at all.

[Soulsearcher]

Okay, granted, I was never a teen or tween boy, but this doesn't sound like "normal" boy behavior to me at all.

If it was normal i don't think i would have had the issues i did as a teen.

[Windseeker]

Definition of MONSTER

1a: an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure

b: one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character

2: a threatening force

3 a: an animal of strange or terrifying shape

b: one unusually large for its kind

4: something monstrous; especially: a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty

5: one that is highly successful

I think the term is accurate and appropriate when applied to a pedophile.

From the Article

He considers himself a “minor-attracted person,” a term that some prefer to “pedophile,” and what he and others like him have been quietly promoting is the idea that society needs to recognize that they exist, that they are capable of controlling their sexual desires and deserve support and respect for doing so.

I wish people would support and respect me for all the the things I'm tempted to do but don't.

I've seen estimates as high as 40% as the number of cases of child molestation where children end up dead or missing..as in forever. We are not talking about a patting someone on the back because they didn't yell at the guy who cut them off, or didn't slip the itunes card in their purse or refused the cigarette. It this case what they want to do, that they are not doing has some serious long lasting effects.

And that's why I think it's worse then murder, because the victim will wish they were dead but they are living it everyday.

I think treating someone as a Monster does not mean pitchforks and torches, it's simply being cautious, vigliant and alert. I've attended two wards that had registered sex offenders and they were treated very well.

[Misshalfway]

This is just an age old nature vs. nurture thing.

I don't believe that attraction to children is nature at all. There are so many factors....abuse usually being one of them....that contribute to all the developmental delays and thought distortions that lead a person to this kind of deviance.

I guess I find it abhorrent to suggest that such is natural. I understand that the "natural man" has the potential for all sorts of evil. But is "potential" the same as a "tendency"? My personal opinion is that Satan takes an innocent "attraction" and he seduces the person into dark and twisted behaviors.

I don't not have compassion for those whose own abuse led to such sad ends, but I don't feel a need to spare them the social stigma/consequences for their behaviors. They can't take it back for their victims. Sympathy can't change the altered trejectory of all the broken ruined lives of those children. I DO think that rehabilitation is possible, but I don't think that means that the social consequences should be lifted. If a person harms a child, they should permanently lose the right to interact with children. And now that I've said that I know that one answer can't fit all cases. I know of one where the perpetrator harmed his own children and after all that the family still wants reconciliation. Perhaps the victims should have a say too.

As a side note. I think we do a poor job in this country of identifying deviant behavior properly. We call everyone a "sex offender" and then we group those who truly are a threat to children with those who just behaved badly. For example, I tend to see a difference between someone who views child porn and those who have sex with children. I see a huge difference between a pedofile and the 19 yr old who sleeps with his 16 yr old girlfriend. I think if we labeled the offenses better, then the social stigma might be more appropriate in its reaction to these people.

[LittleWyvern]

b: one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character

I think the term is accurate and appropriate when applied to a pedophile.

Who isn't a monster under that definition? None of us are completely normal, whatever normal means.

[Misshalfway]

Who isn't a monster under that definition? None of us are completely normal, whatever normal means.

I don't know what "normal" is. But I stand firmly against normalizing this kind of deviance.

[Guest]

Okay, granted, I was never a teen or tween boy, but this doesn't sound like "normal" boy behavior to me at all.

It is normal both girl and boy. It's only in the US that physical contact is immediately assigned sexual connotations. In the Philippines, you'll see kids - cousins - all sleeping with limbs on top of each other on the floor of grandma's house. And yes, in the Philippines, cousins do not necessarily mean blood related.

[NeuroTypical]

LM, what does it mean to treat a person like a monster?

Appropriate question. I suppose the best way to answer - a story from Louis Midgely:

I loved visiting the sex offenders unit of an Auckland prison one afternoon a week for two years. I realize that this will be hard to believe, but there I was with people that I loved and could express my affection to. And those people accepted me despite my being a pale face and whatever goes with professor.

When my wife and I arrived I greeted the Maori and some others by placing my left arm on the back of the other one and taking the placing my right hand in there right and and then touching the nose and forhead. If you saw the Whale Rider, you saw this greeting taking place between Maori gents in the scene filmed in an Auckland hospital. And you saw it at the end when the little girl revived the whale by touching he nose and forhead to the head of the whale. This is a ritual greeting in which the breath of life is exchanged.

Every time I greeted those fellows in that prison I could look right into their eyes only an inch away and I often saw tears. This happened both with my wife and I arrived and when we departed.

In that situation I know myself as quite a different person. And I like myself better there among my Maori friends than I do here.

I guess that's pretty close to the best answer I can give. Note:

* These people had all deeply, deeply wounded other humans, in ways that would never be repaired in this life.

* They were forced to live apart, probably for three reasons - justice for their victims, for their own safety, and as a protection for possible future victims.

* They were still human, desparately needing the love we are commanded to give.

My wife and I add the following for the couple we know personally:

* If one showed up on our property unannounced, we would assume they intend us or our children serious injury or death, and we would not think twice about pumping a few rounds into him if we continued to have a clear shot after counting to three. This answer may change once our kids are adults, but for right now, the threat is real and our stewardship is clear.

I suppose I don't really expect anyone to see things in a similar light. I'm just telling you how my wife and I are choosing to go through life juggling varous commandments and stewardships that occasionally seem to be in conflict with each other.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest]

I don't know what "normal" is. But I stand firmly against normalizing this kind of deviance.

Okay, STOP THE PRESSES.

It is really difficult to have a conversation when people are not paying attention to the premise.

The OP presented an article. We're talking about the points in that article.

The article DID NOT posit to excuse pedophiles. The article DID NOT posit to normalize this kind of deviance. The article merely states that (just like homosexuality), "minor-attraction" may come as a predisposition. And the article presented Spencer - a person who grew up in a normal, happy childhood without any history of abuse of any kind, but is still suffering from minor-attraction but at the same time is successful in not acting on it - as Exhibit A.

And Vort's and PC's posts were accurate in the sense that we are asked as church members to show compassion for homosexuals and help them stay true to their baptismal covenants. This "minor-attraction" is yet just another one of those challenges.

It is sad to see that the general consensus in this thread is that Spencer, regardless of his successful fight to rise above his challenges, is doomed.

[MorningStar]

It is normal both girl and boy. It's only in the US that physical contact is immediately assigned sexual connotations. In the Philippines, you'll see kids - cousins - all sleeping with limbs on top of each other on the floor of grandma's house. And yes, in the Philippines, cousins do not necessarily mean blood related.

I think there is a difference between sharing a sleeping space and cuddling. This guy makes it sound like there's some snuggling going on.

[MorningStar]

Okay, STOP THE PRESSES.

It is really difficult to have a conversation when people are not paying attention to the premise.

The OP presented an article. We're talking about the points in that article.

The article DID NOT posit to excuse pedophiles. The article DID NOT posit to normalize this kind of deviance. The article merely states that (just like homosexuality), "minor-attraction" may come as a predisposition. And the article presented Spencer - a person who grew up in a normal, happy childhood without any history of abuse of any kind, but is still suffering from minor-attraction but at the same time is successful in not acting on it - as Exhibit A.

And Vort's and PC's posts were accurate in the sense that we are asked as church members to show compassion for homosexuals and help them stay true to their baptismal covenants. This "minor-attraction" is yet just another one of those challenges.

It is sad to see that the general consensus in this thread is that Spencer, regardless of his successful fight to rise above his challenges, is doomed.

I think the problem is, the same language used to encourage tolerance for homosexuality (or even embracing it) is now being used to describe abnormal attraction to children. Because homosexuals are "born that way", they can't help it, so they might as well be happy with someone of the same sex. To say that a pedophile is "born that way" makes my skin crawl and is too NAMBLAish for me.

[Guest]

Since we are not talking about Filipino culture, I think it's safe to assume that we're discussing the US norm.

[MorningStar]

It also says he was "madly in love" with his best friend, but nothing sexual happened when they were in each others' arms.

[Guest]

I think the problem is, the same language used to encourage tolerance for homosexuality (or even embracing it) is now being used to describe abnormal attraction to children. Because homosexuals are "born that way", they can't help it, so they might as well be happy with someone of the same sex. To say that a pedophile is "born that way" makes my skin crawl and is too NAMBLAish for me.

And this is why I like this article! Vort said it in one of his earlier posts...

This is arsenal in the LDS/Catholic position that homosexuals being "born that way" is not a reason to go ahead and normalize it in society. This "minor attraction" is just another example of it. Homosexuals will be very hard pressed to say "we're born this way" but "you're not".

[Guest]

It also says he was "madly in love" with his best friend, but nothing sexual happened when they were in each others' arms.

Yes, it is noted in the article that their arms wrapped around each other while sleeping has nothing to do with anything sexual in nature.

[Guest]

Since we are not talking about Filipino culture, I think it's safe to assume that we're discussing the US norm.

I didn't realize that being born American makes you a different kind of human.

[Guest]

I think there is a difference between sharing a sleeping space and cuddling. This guy makes it sound like there's some snuggling going on.

Snuggling/cuddling - is that sexual? Snuggling/cuddling does not give me a sexual picture - my son snuggles/cuddles me. Am I having a language barrier?

[MorningStar]

Snuggling/cuddling - is that sexual? Snuggling/cuddling does not give me a sexual picture - my son snuggles/cuddles me. Am I having a language barrier?

12-year-old boys in our culture do not snuggle with each other. There might be accidental touching if they're having a sleepover or campout, but they do not wrap their arms around each other and go to sleep unless there is something weird going on.