More temple changes

[The Folk Prophet]

51 minutes ago, Vort said:

But that was not at all what was being said.

What is the real goal of our testimony that we are bearing in Church? Is it to testify of the Savior and bring the voice of the Spirit into the hearts of the listeners? Or is it to draw attention to ourselves? That latter thing need not be an attempt to draw plaudits or admiration. Merely saying "Look at me!" tends to draw attention away from where it belongs.

It merely strikes me that you might have a tendency to interpret a good "performance" as a "Look at me!" moment, which may not have anything to do with what's going on. I'll accept I might be misinterpreting.

I, for example, am a relatively good singer. Relative to the non-singer I'm very good. (Relative to a pro I'm...okay.) I grew up singing a lot. When I was a teenager I sang in church quite often with a "Look at me" sense behind it. (Mostly, I'd say, trying to appeal to cute girls. It didn't work, btw.) Now that I'm older and WAY better a singer, WAY better a performer, etc., I have no interest in singing in church. I have been asked many times because I sing well. I almost always say no because I'm lazy and don't have any "Look at me" ambitions in the matter. (Well...I can't say none. But for the most part.) But every once in a while I'm convinced to sing because it's a "service" or I feel bad for the music director or the like. So when I do sing, I sing as well as I can. I perform as well as I can. I feel positive that some take my efforts in that regard as "Look at me" and have the Spirit driven away accordingly. I feel positive that others are moved and drawn closer to the Spirit. The difference is them, not me. As for me, if I'm going to serve the Lord, I'm going to give it my best, using every tool I have available to try and communicate what I feel should be communicated. That translates to a performance. It's a different performance that I'd give were I singing outside of church...but a performance nonetheless. Because, just like good teaching techniques, singing performance is a technique and a tool for communication.

51 minutes ago, Vort said:

There are times that it may be appropriate to say, "I am an example of blah blah," either for positive or negative. But in all cases, the intent should always be to testify of Christ and his works, and not a bid for attention. When the hymn being sung or played becomes an opportunity for the singer or player to reveal his virtuosity or demonstrate deep emotional interpretations, it ceases to be an act of worship and becomes a form of immodesty and hypocrisy. That should always be avoided.

I agree, but I think it's motivationally based. A demonstration of deep emotional interpretation isn't, de facto, indications of the singer's focus. Obviously immodesty should be avoided.

But I've seen similar complaints about people who cry when bearing testimony. People get annoyed at it. They don't see it as sincere. They think it's cheesy, performative, and put on. And I get the point. I get your point. And I think it is well worth consideration in each performer's mind as they prepare. But you said you have "heard in Church what I considered to be performances", and that implied to me that you (and I expect, also in what Orson Scot Card) meant that the interpretation of the performance isn't the issue...but the performance itself. I absolutely agree that people shouldn't be performing for the sake of themselves. I don't agree with the implication (or inference on my part) that the performance itself is a reliable indicator for that state. If that's not part of your (or Card's) meaning then we don't disagree on the matter.

But.... I think that even when, for example, a young teen girl stands up and sings a song in church modeling the vocal stylings of Idina Menzel's performance of Let It Go, that it's still primarily on us, individually, whether that can be a spiritual moment or not. People do all sorts of flawed things in church. In point of fact, I'd say if we're counting on others to feel the Spirit at church, we're going to go long and far between spiritual experiences at church.

So I think we agree after all....except maybe in our understanding of what a "performance" is.

Just out of curiosity, and I think related...what do you think about jokes cracked at the pulpit?

Edited February 9, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

They certainly need not be at odds. The older I get, the more I find my emotions intruding on my spirituality. I think maybe this is a good thing, a way of integrating two aspects of my being that should be working together.

But emotion is often easily confused with the Spirit. I have witnessed this in Church since my earliest childhood days. I was put off by the hypocrisy of people who would stand crying and blubbering in testimony meeting but treat people unkindly and be much less than honest in their dealings with others outside of sacrament meeting. It seemed hypocrisy to me, at least. It taught me that feeling some emotion at the moment, or seeing others display emotion, was in no way an indicator of real spiritual involvement. That was a lesson I learned perhaps too well, and it has taken most of my sixty years to begin to unlearn it. My bias is still to distrust overt emotionalism labeled as spiritual experience, though I do recognize that as a bias and am exploring other options for how to perceive such things.

Hey...we do agree! You're biased!

 

J/k. I mean sort of. We're all biased. I am certainly biased towards musical performances. If they're good. I despise poorly executed ones...especially when they think they're good... (Which, based on my bragging in the previous post may, actually, be me.)

Edited February 9, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Just out of curiosity, and I think related...what do you think about jokes cracked at the pulpit?

I have often been guilty of pulpit joke-cracking. When I examined myself candidly, I concluded that the jokes were meant as a performance of sorts, and not as a means to focus people on the worship of God. So I tend to try to avoid jokes at the pulpit. I'm not perfect at it, and I find I have difficulty separating performance from testimony. The two seemed intertwined, to the point that if I am going to bear authentic testimony from my heart, I feel almost obligated to reveal myself as I am, including silly jokes and wordplay. Still struggling with how to bear sincere testimony that touches people, such that they may remember the testimony years later without having any recollection of who offered it. Maybe that's not even possible.

As for other people's jokes at the pulpit, I usually find them somewhat distracting. But I try consciously to avoid assigning any motives to them and instead seek to listen with a spiritual ear at what they're trying to convey. The more I try, the more success I seem to have. It's a very gradual process, but I do perceive some growth there. So that's encouraging.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Vort said:

I have often been guilty of pulpit joke-cracking. When I examined myself candidly, I concluded that the jokes were meant as a performance of sorts, and not as a means to focus people on the worship of God. So I tend to try to avoid jokes at the pulpit.

See this is interesting. I see the point. But...another thing I see... a good joke that actually gets laughs is a way to engage. And as I said before... engagement is key to things. My "job" as it were in speaking, teaching, etc., is engagement. And when someone tells a joke and I laugh...and then give a meaningful, well spoken-talk, the joke doesn't diminish from the meaningful, well-spoken talk. (I see you allude to what I'm saying here later in your post).

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have difficulty separating performance from testimony. The two seemed intertwined, to the point that if I am going to bear authentic testimony from my heart, I feel almost obligated to reveal myself as I am, including silly jokes and wordplay.

I agree.

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Still struggling with how to bear sincere testimony that touches people, such that they may remember the testimony years later without having any recollection of who offered it. Maybe that's not even possible.

I just look at it like this. Do my best and leave the rest to agency and God.

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

As for other people's jokes at the pulpit, I usually find them somewhat distracting.

I do too...because most of them aren't that good.

Do you find the humor at General Conference distracting too?

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

But I try consciously to avoid assigning any motives to them and instead seek to listen with a spiritual ear at what they're trying to convey. The more I try, the more success I seem to have. It's a very gradual process, but I do perceive some growth there. So that's encouraging.

I'm in the same boat. For me it's boring talks. Actually that's more of a struggle of listening at all. And...the biggest struggle I have...when someone says something that I disagree with. Boy howdy will that destroy the rest of the meeting for me.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

I find I have difficulty separating performance from testimony. The two seemed intertwined, to the point that if I am going to bear authentic testimony from my heart, I feel almost obligated to reveal myself as I am, including silly jokes and wordplay.

By the way...this says pretty well what I was trying to convey about musical performances.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, CrimsonKairos said:

Adam and Eve were like children, she wouldn’t have been thinking that deeply about it (or been able to), imho.

Agreed.  Eve didn’t know what she was doing.  She was “beguiled”.  She admitted as much, and Paul affirms it.  I recognize that a lot of terrible things have been done to women because of suppositions about “Eve’s weakness”, but the solution is not to turn the event into something that, scripturally, it clearly wasn’t.

And for what it’s worth, I loved all three of the new temple films.  Even the one with the stoner Satan who used zero inflection in his voice.  

[CrimsonKairos]

Diversity of individuals has intrinsic merit inasmuch as God distributes different spiritual and secular gifts among all of us in varying degrees: the more variety in people and cultures, the broader the range of abilities and talents you’ll have access to.

Diversity of life direction & global goals is where cracks can form in Zion’s foundation: one heart, one mind, dwell in righteousness, that’s the non-negotiable minimum requirement. Everything else can be diverse (tastes, preferences, skin color, language…as long as all is overshadowed by the dwelling in righteousness element).

If I’m cooking, I’d rather have a diverse set of spices and seasonings to work with: imagine trying to play The Well-Tempered Clavier without all of the keys on a piano.

D&C 1:24 teaches us that God is very attuned to our individual differences and speaks to us “after the manner of [our] language, that [we] might come to understanding.”

Language includes visual language, verbal language, neural language (so-called neurodiversity), etc.

Last but not least: Love is Inclusive. Period. 😎

[pam]

Wait...are my eyes deceiving me?  MOE and CK responded to this thread?  CK you haven't been around for years.  Welcome back to both of you.  

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks Pam, sorry for dropping off the face of the digital earth. I’m going through a personal renaissance and wanted to reconnect with this fine online community. I hope you’re well. 🌞

Edited February 9, 2023 by CrimsonKairos

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, CrimsonKairos said:

Diversity of individuals has intrinsic merit inasmuch as God distributes different spiritual and secular gifts among all of us in varying degrees: the more variety in people and cultures, the broader the range of abilities and talents you’ll have access to.

So do you agree that Nigeria, China, and Samoa are all sadly deficient because they have so few white people of European descent? That their lack of diversity is a real moral failing of those countries? That they should be ashamed for their paucity of white Europeans? Of course you would not. Ironically, such expressions would cause the woke crowd to go out of their minds with rage, despite the fact that if you replaced the countries with European nations and replaced "white people of European descent" with "black people of subSaharan African descent", they would unanimously cheer in agreement.

One of the reasons Japan rose as a phoenix so quickly from the ashes of WWII is their homogeneity. That lack of diversity led to a unity of vision and purpose, and worked as a great benefit to Japan for rebuilding their society. You may argue that it has been harmful in other ways, but the point is that, in and of itself, diversity is not "a good thing". As you point out, diversity is only intrinsically good when you have a situation where everyone has his own gift and the gifts must be shared to be enjoyed by all.

[CrimsonKairos]

Yeah, I think America has been more of a salad bar than a melting pot, but I love salad bars!

Having salad with just lettuce is boring to me. 

I think the woke crowd is just carrying too far the message that some voices haven’t been heard as much as others and a little balance would suit the choir well (that’s my compassionate take anyway).

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, CrimsonKairos said:

I think the woke crowd is just carrying too far the message that some voices haven’t been heard as much as others and a little balance would suit the choir well (that’s my compassionate take anyway).

If this is how the issue were actually approached, I think you would find few who would not agree. Sadly, that is not the world we live in.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, CrimsonKairos said:

If I’m cooking, I’d rather have a diverse set of spices and seasonings to work with

Yeah. But you probably wouldn't be dumping garlic, thyme, paprika, ginger, cinnamon, all-spice, sage, vanilla, cloves, cardamom, mustard, rosemary, etc., etc., into every dish, and then declare your pumpkin pie superior for it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don’t know how I missed this; but apparently the three 2013-ish temple films were all directed by the same guy; and he was later convicted for doing bad things to kids.  The Church pulled the films about a month before the story went public.  

 

[CrimsonKairos]

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t know how I missed this; but apparently the three 2013-ish temple films were all directed by the same guy; and he was later convicted for doing bad things to kids.  The Church pulled the films about a month before the story went public.  

 

This is shocking to me, I never looked up who directed the films, but while at BYU’s film school over 10 years ago I was accepted to a one-off workshop class run by that guy…wow, I thought he was cool at the time but I can’t get behind his sense of taste or style.

The allegation/confession is just shocking to me personally (yes I believe in repentance but I also don’t think someone just does that once and never again…maybe…I really have a hard time with the Church m.o. seeming to be “keep it quiet” instead of letting parents press charges and get some counseling for the abuse victim who I’m sure continued to see his abuser at church…insane): https://kutv.com/amp/news/local/lds-temple-videos-director-sundance-co-founder-admits-to-child-molestation-says-website

Guess he’s in jail now for a second (that we know of) instance of child molestation: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/07/09/child-sex-abuse-case-ends/

Insane to me.

Edited February 10, 2023 by CrimsonKairos

[Just_A_Guy]

26 minutes ago, CrimsonKairos said:

This is shocking to me, I never looked up who directed the films, but while at BYU’s film school over 10 years ago I was accepted to a one-off workshop class run by that guy…wow, I thought he was cool at the time but I can’t get behind his sense of taste or style.

The allegation/confession is just shocking to me personally (yes I believe in repentance but I also don’t think someone just does that once and never again…maybe…I really have a hard time with the Church m.o. seeming to be “keep it quiet” instead of letting parents press charges and get some counseling for the abuse victim who I’m sure continued to see his abuser at church…insane): https://kutv.com/amp/news/local/lds-temple-videos-director-sundance-co-founder-admits-to-child-molestation-says-website

Guess he’s in jail now for a second (that we know of) instance of child molestation: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/07/09/child-sex-abuse-case-ends/

Insane to me.

From what I gather, the stake president *did* tell him he had to confess to law enforcement; which he did.  But then the kid’s parents, on the advice of a friend who happened to be a bishop (but not THEIR bishop) declined to press charges. But the story is still bizarre to me, because if you have the perp’s confession to police that should be *more* than enough for a conviction even if the victim doesn’t want to testify.  

Edited February 10, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[CrimsonKairos]

Yeah the whole thing “stinks” to me.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the fact that he was the co-founder of the Sundance Film Festival (pretty important to the local economy, etc) had something to do with no arrest ever happening.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, CrimsonKairos said:

I really have a hard time with the Church m.o. seeming to be “keep it quiet” instead of letting parents press charges and get some counseling for the abuse victim who I’m sure continued to see his abuser at church…insane

That's a weighty accusation to level at the kingdom of God. Do you have any actual evidence that the Church has done this? Because if it's true, it's true, and speaking the truth about such a matter is justified. But if it's false or at least undemonstrated, I think such accusations are shameful and reek of the behavior I associate with antiMormon hatred.

[Vort]

44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From what I gather, the stake president *did* tell him he had to confess to law enforcement; which he did.

I assume the stake president said something like, "I will report this immediately to the authorities. It would be in your best interest to report yourself first."

[Vort]

1 hour ago, CrimsonKairos said:

 https://kutv.com/amp/news/local/lds-temple-videos-director-sundance-co-founder-admits-to-child-molestation-says-website

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/07/09/child-sex-abuse-case-ends/

If it were my child, I would want to see him swinging from the rafters. But rather than filling me with indignation and disgust, reading those articles just made me feel sad, both for his victims and for the man himself. I can imagine being in the throes of an addiction or urge or whatever you would call such an unholy desire to the point that I acted on it even against my own beliefs. I can also imagine the intense self-hatred that such a course would engender.

I do believe there is forgiveness available for this man if he will walk that path. I hope for the best for him. Perhaps he still has spiritual growth he can accomplish in this life, maybe even start getting past the evil that must have possessed him for decades. And it goes without saying that I hope his victims can and will get past those events, including coming to the point where they can sincerely forgive such a lost soul. They need to forgive him for their own sakes, and at some point in his existence, he will need their forgiveness.

[CrimsonKairos]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

That's a weighty accusation to level at the kingdom of God. Do you have any actual evidence that the Church has done this? Because if it's true, it's true, and speaking the truth about such a matter is justified. But if it's false or at least undemonstrated, I think such accusations are shameful and reek of the behavior I associate with antiMormon hatred.

You’re confusing God’s kingdom with the people in it. Those articles point out that a Bishop urged the victim’s parents to let the Church handle it and not press charges.

I’m not anti-Mormon, please sir, one can call a foul without saying the whole game is rigged, and you seem to be implying that leaders—even at the apostolic level—are perfect or don’t make mistakes or bad calls but I see nowhere in the scriptures where Christ says his servants are perfect.

In fact the New Testament is full of examples of apostles making mistakes. That’s why sustaining is such a commitment, because it implies sometimes having to forgive a lack of wisdom or experience, etc. Just look at Paul and Peter’s arguing over preaching to Gentiles (Peter, I believe, was incorrect in that instance).

Being part of God’s kingdom involves being part of a feedback loop, and I’m not saying hate the Church or anything silly, I’m just saying I disagree with how they’ve handled abuse cases in the past, specifically.

I don’t care what the laws of man are and if they are somehow construed as forbidding a bishop from reporting child abuse unless the confessor agrees. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and abuse will continue unless it is reported and stopped.

I’d rather report abuse and lose my calling as bishop than adhere to some silly law created by society if such laws exist (which according to my limited research seems to be the case in some States: https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2022/08/12/utah-gop-lawmaker-wants-require/ ).

Obey, honor and sustain the laws of the land that are Constitutional, not every law a man can invent (see D&C 98:4-9).

I believe our leaders as imperfect beings can be mistaken at times pertaining to policy (not doctrine), and I don’t think anyone with eyes and ears and a brain & the gift of the Holy Ghost who gives feedback is automatically anti-Mormon. 😎

Edited February 10, 2023 by CrimsonKairos

[Carborendum]

On 2/9/2023 at 10:50 PM, CrimsonKairos said:

You’re confusing God’s kingdom with the people in it.

I believe you're confusing God's people with people in general.  

I'm going to tell a couple of unpopular truths.  And I don't like the fact that they are true.  But I've spent many decades thinking this over.  And I can't deny the truth.

The culture of America has changed.  No one can dispute that.  Some things for the better.  Some for worse.  No one can dispute that.  But every once in a while, we judge the past from today's societal lens incorrectly.  And due to moral indignation, that incorrect judgment is pretty harsh.

It wasn't "The church's policy".  It was the common wisdom of the government and the society in which some things happened.  And in many ways, the good outweighed the bad.  I'll explain with an example of a family I know.

The father was sexually, emotionally, physically, and psychologically abusing his children.  The bishop heard the man's confession.  The father was told to submit to authorities.  I don't know the specifics of that conversation or what ultimatum there was.  But he did so.

At the time, the police didn't automatically throw the book at him.  The policy of government (wide-spread, but by no means universal) to try rehabilitation rather than incarceration in SOME cases.

The mentality was that if you take the father out of the home, there would be a whole lot of children who are in the foster care system or an entire family on welfare.  And, let's face it, those programs don't have a great track record for raising children.  And as far as abuse goes, many studies show that foster families have about the same rate of abuse as standard family homes.  So, if you could rehabilitate the father, it would save a lot of trouble.

One of the main parts of rehabilitation was that they would give the children and the mother assertiveness training.  They would be sent through therapy so they knew that it was wrong, that they were not to blame, and that the father was a sick man.

It was by no means universal.  Many children were still taken from the home and the father incarcerated.  But when judges & social workers analyzed the situation, they determined if it was salvageable, they would try to keep the family intact.

This father was deemed to be one of those cases.  The abuse was extremely rare.  And the children fairly well-adjusted.  So the decision was made that he continued outside of jail.  He went through counselling, the wife and children were all armed with knowledge and awareness.

The result was that the father was never "cured".  But he was contained.  However, the next generation grew.  The father never abused his children sexually again.  But he did end up doing "something" to two of the grandchildren (the tone of the report I got was that it would fall under sexual assault rather than rape).  He was never allowed to see those children again.

Now it is very easy to say that had he been incarcerated that it would have saved those grandchildren.  Not quite.  If he were in prison and the children in foster care... a very different outcome would have been much worse.  Often, in those cases, multi-generational abuse occurs. So, the multi-generational continuous abuse was averted.

In prison, he couldn't have been the father and provider of a family.  Those children grew up healed, and strong.  None of them were ever going to go near abusing their own kids.  They are all very good parents who provide for, care for, and raise their children in righteousness.  None of that would have happened had the family been broken up and sent through foster care.

Although he was never "cured", his children grew up to be strong, righteous, & faithful adults who love and care for their children.

I don't know the details of the two grandchildren.  But my understanding was that they have gone through therapy and are healthy adults now.

You may still have moral indignation about the abuse of these children -- as do I.  But that cannot cloud our minds and hearts from the end goal which is to raise a society of strong, wise adults.  And foster care (in SOME instances) is not the best way to do it.

MANY cases which are investigated are completely irreparable.  Foster is the only answer.  But some were able to be repaired.

Today, however, I do not believe we have a society in which rehabilitation is possible.  Or at least... so rare that the number rounds to zero.

So, no matter how bad some situation may be, we need to consider what that alternatives are.  And when we compare horrible to catastrophic, sometimes, we don't really have a good solution because there is none.  And without a good solution, we often deal with what options are available.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Carborendum

[CrimsonKairos]

I’ve thought about all the factors and forces affecting those scenarios, and I really can appreciate what you’re trying to say.

That’s a fine piece of anecdata (truly) accompanied by a false either-or scenario.

It’s not “keep the abuser in a position to abuse more, OR send kids to foster care.”

What about the ward family providing day care if a mom has to work in an incarcerated father’s absence?

What about fast offerings if the mom’s job is insufficient to pay the bills?

There are so many resources available to Church members that mentioning foster care in the same sentence as mentioning removing an abuser from the abused’s presence seems silly to me.

The problem may be that those who’ve covenanted in the temple to live the law of Consecration, are not actually willing to live that Law.

My critique of some in the Church is based on what I’ve observed which is those at the top and those at the bottom are in harmony, but middle-managers begin to worry more about controlling how the Church is perceived than they do about how an abused person perceives the value of continuing to live as part of God‘s kingdom.

I can only imagine being abused by someone I live with, and being told by my local shepherd, “Continue to live with the source of that trauma everyday, be triggered everyday, cement your PTSD more each day, oh and there’s a chance they’ll abuse you or someone else again but…we don’t want to have to put you in foster care.”

😣

I don’t mean to be unnecessarily harsh, but that literally is insane to me. They should get counseling AND the abuser should be removed from the situation. The abuser should want themselves removed from the situation: as Jesus taught, cut off an offending hand because it‘s better to be in Heaven with one hand than have two hands in Hell.

Edited February 12, 2023 by CrimsonKairos

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 2/8/2023 at 7:56 PM, mikbone said:

Yup, I’ve had it with professional actors in the temple.  Overdramatic acting.  I also hate having to wonder if the actor has gender / orientation issues.

Can’t we share the gospel in normal and natural ways?

I remember my first live session and it was really off-putting when the adversary showed up in a regular brown suit. I like these changes, more focus on the covenants, less Michael Ballam style over acting. I love the endowment.

[NeuroTypical]

21 hours ago, CrimsonKairos said:

I can only imagine being abused by someone I live with

21 hours ago, CrimsonKairos said:

that literally is insane to me.

In the early 1970's I was born into a nation, a culture, and a church, that did not believe it was possible for a husband to sexually abuse his wife.  I remember in the early days of online newsgroups in the late '80's and early '90's, arguing the topic passionately with other LDS folks.  The notion held by the majority, was something along the lines of this: women are scripturally mandated to submit to their husbands, they covenant do do such in both civil marriages and temple sealings, and if they didn't want to deal with the realities of marriage they shouldn't have gotten married.  That was it.  Case closed.  No more thinking need to be done.  Anyone who fights against that, is fighting against the Lord's church and threatening to ruin society and bring about the fall of the constitution.  (These are real statements made by real saints in real arguments back then.)

Similarly, there was deep and hostile distrust of counseling, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and mood altering medication.  PTSD, trauma, and what to do about it was barely understood, and widely criticized.  "Seeing a shrink" was not new, but it was certainly not widely adopted.  From the dawn of time until Freud and the advent of psychoanalysis, the men who ran the world simply didn't pay that much attention to what women had to say.  The word 'hysteria' means 'of the womb', and came into existence to describe "the nervous disease originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus".  So when a woman claimed her husband (or pastor, or boss) raped her, it was mere hysteria.

I personally experienced both notions getting preached from the pulpit as well as codified in law.  Protection for abused women showed up in the 1990's.  And for years, every single General Conference had at least one talk that specifically called out abuse in marriage, how it was possible, how it's not ever accepted or to be tolerated.  Our leaders were speaking to congregations containing people who had to change their minds about such things. 

The last time I heard one of these notions preached from the pulpit was in 2014.  A counselor in the bishopric was giving a combined 3rd hour talk on the dangers facing our youth, and he spent a good 45 seconds warning us about the dangers of mood altering medication, and he cautioned us not to "replace the priesthood with a pill".  I remember the general response from the congregation, was that this person's comments were rooted in ignorance, totally unaware of the realities of mental illness.

Anyway, I watched American culture (in and out of the church) evolve past that nastiness, into what they are today.  @CrimsonKairos holds the going opinion of pretty much anyone born after the late 1980's.  Utterly unable to even conceive of how things used to be very, very, VERY different.  So utterly removed are such notions from today's sensibilities, that folks simply cannot grapple with the truths @Carborendum is mentioning. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by NeuroTypical