More temple changes

[CrimsonKairos]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

 I like these changes, more focus on the covenants, less Michael Ballam style over acting. I love the endowment.

The Michael Ballam version was my favorite, wish it was back in rotation. 😎

[LDSGator]

55 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

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. 

@NeuroTypical-what is about therapy/mental illness that is so threatening to previous generations? Do they also feel intimidated by blood pressure medication? What are they afraid of?
 

Not being funny, I don’t get it. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by LDSGator

[CrimsonKairos]

51 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

@CrimsonKairos holds the going opinion of pretty much anyone born after the late 1980's.

I was born in ‘81 for the record, hahahaha.

Thanks for the history lesson, makes me wonder if anyone read their scriptures or not back then: Paul describes the attributes of Christ-like love/charity, and 1 John 4:8 says they who love not know not God, for God is Love.

Glad we’ve come a long way, I hope we keep progressing towards a brighter world for everyone.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, CrimsonKairos said:

Glad we’ve come a long way, I hope we keep progressing towards a brighter world for everyone.

Oh, we are. @NeuroTypical just proved it. Progress is always slower than we’d like but it’s better than moving backwards. 

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

@NeuroTypical-what is about therapy/mental illness that is so threatening to previous generations? Do they also feel intimidated by blood pressure medication? What are they afraid of?
 

Not being funny, I don’t get it. 

I largely agree with NT, but I would point out that mechanically we know far more about how blood pressure medication works (and how it interacts with the broader cardiovascular system), than about  how antidepressants (or any other medication used to address behavioral/psychological issues) work and how they interact with a particular person’s overall neurophysiology and psychology.

Meds are a great tool, but they are not a cure-all and over reliance on them can sometimes backfire in catastrophic fashion.  Careful mental health professionals and others in counseling roles (including religious leaders) will want to be careful to keep a nuanced approach.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I largely agree with NT, but I would point out that mechanically we know far more about how blood pressure medication works (and how it interacts with the broader cardiovascular system), than about  how antidepressants (or any other medication used to address behavioral/psychological issues) work and how they interact with a particular person’s overall neurophysiology and psychology.

Meds are a great tool, but they are not a cure-all and over reliance on them can sometimes backfire in catastrophic fashion.  Careful mental health professionals and others in counseling roles (including religious leaders) will want to be careful to keep a nuanced approach.

Two things- 

While I generally agree with both of you, we tend to focus on the negative when it comes to antidepressants. We ignore the success stories and focus on the times it didn’t work. 
 

I absolutely agree that someone can’t just gobble Prozac from their couch, never do anything and expect their mental health to magically improve. 
 

Is it the same with therapy? Do previous generations hate and fear it because they think it’s a crutch for laziness? 

Edited February 13, 2023 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I absolutely agree that someone can’t just gobble Prozac from their couch, never do anything and expect their mental health to magically improve. 

My experience tells me that there are many a case where using Prozac (or similar) from the couch does, indeed, "magically" improve mental health.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My experience tells me that there are many a case where using Prozac (or similar) from the couch does, indeed, "magically" improve mental health.

That makes me feel much, much better to hear that. No one deserves to suffer from depression. 

[The Folk Prophet]

28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I largely agree with NT

Which parts?

I find the idea that in ye olden days of the 1970s the brethren in the church all felt it was hunky-dory to essentially rape your wife against her will because she should have just known better in getting married is ridiculous. Nor do I think there was as much of a universal "deep and hostile distrust of counseling, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and mood altering medication" as he implied either. Sure there was some. Still is. And rightly so, imo. Of course being distrustful of psychology and believing it's okay to force yourself on your wife aren't even remotely in the same categories either. So...that's a bit of a strange thing to throw out there as "similarly".

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I find the idea that in ye olden days of the 1970s the brethren in the church all felt it was hunky-dory to essentially rape your wife against her will because she should have just known better in getting married is ridiculous.

Well, so do I, and of course that's not what I said.  What I did say, tends to be so far outside of people's thinking about things, that there's just no way to find room for it in our brains, and the closest analogy folks can find is stuff like this.

The church has always been big on families.  And has always taught and preached long and loud about how to have good marriages, and how to be a good spouse.   I challenge you to find anything said from any pulpit, CoJC or others, before 1989 on the subject of spouse sexual abuse.  

Again - the church has always been big on families, and how to treat each other well, and the duties and responsibilities of spouses.  Again, the church didn't really address spousal rape until the '90's.

And once more - I am not claiming our prophets/seers/revelators ever had a good word or a permissive word to say about mistreating your wife.  I am claiming nobody, in or out the church, really ever said anything about raping your wife until the '90's.

It's so fine a distinction, that it's hard for people to grasp.  And until you do, my weird tales of an alternate universe I call 'the olden days' will seem to you like I'm making it up or outright crazy.

 

 

Quote

Of course being distrustful of psychology and believing it's okay to force yourself on your wife aren't even remotely in the same categories either. So...that's a bit of a strange thing to throw out there as "similarly".

I am throwing out two examples of radical change in our cultural thought processes, that I have personally witnessed.  The only thing relating them, is that they are both examples of stuff "we" used to think very very differently about.

[NeuroTypical]

People can have a hard time separating what folks used to think, with what folks think now.  So, lest anyone be confused about what the church teaches about either subject:

Abuse:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/Preventing-and-Responding-to-Abuse-attachment-final.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/abuse?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/get-help/abuse/protecting-members-and-reporting-abuse?lang=eng
 

 

Shrinks and pills and stuff:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/10/myths-about-mental-illness?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/10/like-a-broken-vessel?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/02/what-church-leaders-are-saying-about-mental-health?lang=eng

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

Also, if you have no memory of a time before humans clicked on links to find out things, then you might have a really really hard time grasping the concept of an entire church full of people who just never thought about something.

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

that's not what I said

I'm not trying to say, "you did TOO say that" with the following. I accept that I may have misunderstood.

But you had said, "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 can see the nation and culture thing. And I can see it as more prevalent in the church. So I accept the "cultural change" point. What I don't accept is the phrasing that it was the church at large that thought that way, or that it was common for most members of the church to believe that.

I disbelieve that, generally, moderately faithful, honorable, trying-to-be-like-Christ, members of the church believed it was impossible to sexually abuse one's wife, whether they thought about it in explicit terms of "sexual abuse" or "rape" or not.

The world once believed it was the husband's right to kill his wife if he so wished.

The gospel of Christ has always taught a higher way.

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

 I challenge you to find anything said from any pulpit, CoJC or others, before 1989 on the subject of spouse sexual abuse. 

You can set it up this way where it has to be, specifically addressing "spouse sexual abuse" with that exact phrase and, sure. But if you are addressing the idea of being abusive to one's wife then it's pretty easy.

For one example, Joseph F. Smith taught:

"The husband should treat his wife with the utmost courtesy and respect. The husband should never insult her; he should never speak slightly of her, but should always hold her in the highest esteem in the home...

"I can not understand how a man can be unkind to any woman, much less to the wife of his bosom, and the mother of his children, and I am told that there are those who are absolutely brutal, but they are unworthy the name of men."

"My brethren, can you mistreat your wives, the mothers of your children? Can you help treating them with love and kindness? Can you help trying to make their lives as comfortable and happy as possible, lightening their burdens to the utmost of your ability, making life pleasant for them and for their children in their homes? How can you help it? How can any one help feeling an intense interest in the mother of his children, and also in his children? If we possess the Spirit of God, we can not do otherwise. It is only when men depart from the right spirit, when they digress from their duty, that they will neglect or dishonor any soul that is committed to their care. They are bound to honor their wives and children."

It's pretty hard to read into such comments a big, UNLESS....... "if she's not in the mood for sex, feel free to force yourself on her anyway!" And no right-thinking, decent, faithful man would ever believe so.

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

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.

For me, that was one of the things I rather liked about the sessions that used live actors.

[Vort]

On 2/9/2023 at 8:50 PM, CrimsonKairos said:

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.

Please give the exact quotations from the articles that you claim "point out that a Bishop urged the victim’s parents to let the Church handle it and not press charges." I have reread both articles and found nothing of the sort. As far as I saw, the Salt Lake Tribulation article, even though from a vomitous, lying rag with a proud and proven history of trying to defame the Church, still made no mention of any urging from anyone, bishop or otherwise, for people not to press charges. If such a thing were testified to by anyone, I would bet my house that the Tribune would have made that a front-and-center focus of their article. The KUTV article actually includes a quotation from Van Wagenen himself at the end of the article:

I went through the Church disciplinary process and was disfellowshipped for about two years. I repented and there were no further incidents. I reported the abuse to the police, as I was instructed to by my Stake President, and the parents elected not to press charges.

So again, please demonstrate where the articles "point out" any such thing as you claim. I freely confess that I might have missed it; it would not be the first time I didn't see something right in front of me.

On 2/9/2023 at 8:50 PM, CrimsonKairos said:

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.

I am implying no such thing.

On 2/9/2023 at 8:50 PM, CrimsonKairos said:

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.

Presentism in its rawest form. Please never complain when you are condemned by your grandchildren for having done what you believed was the right thing in a difficult situation, but that your grandchildren don't agree with. Don't protest your innocence to them or propound on the evanescence of popular mores. Better to just agree with your condemners and accept their judgment. But for myself, I disagree with presentism. I consider it lazy and dishonest.

On 2/9/2023 at 8:50 PM, CrimsonKairos said:

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. 😎

Where did I imply that "anyone with eyes and ears and a brain & the gift of the Holy Ghost who gives feedback is automatically anti-Mormon"? Pretty sure this is a false allegation. On the contrary, those who preach falsely against the Lord's Church or its leaders and who seek to cast the kingdom of God and its leaders in an undeservedly unfavorable light are anti-Mormon.

[Vort]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Similarly, there was deep and hostile distrust of counseling, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and mood altering medication.

And as we see today all around us, that deep, hostile distrust was not at all unreasonable.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

And as we see today all around us, that deep, hostile distrust was not at all unreasonable.

I have wondered a great deal concerning mental illness.  I wonder if we deal with such any better now than when it was thought to be a demonic possession.  Drug addictions and alcoholic addictions seem worse now (at least to me) than when I was a child that thought nothing of taking a firearm to school with the intent of hunting rabbits after school to earn a little extra cash.

I am also concerned that this generation does not seem to know the difference between teasing and bulling – both from the side of the instigator as well as the receiver.  I am not sure if it is possible to tell children that any behavior is unacceptable.  This from a kid that for some of my schooling – spent more time in the principle office or being punished than I did in class – yes I was even discipline for stuff someone else did just because I was sometimes guilty.  I was physically punished (hit by punishing devices) by more than one teacher but I would never tell my parents because I was likely to receive additional such punishment.  All this and I am dyslexic, but I grew up in a time that excuses were not allowed.  As I look around today – I honestly believe that I am better off growing up when I did.   BTW – I also grew up in a home where the showing of affection towards other family members was not considered normal.  I was kissed once in my life by my mother when I left for my mission and once by my father as he was dying.  Now days my kids think it is funny to try to kiss me on the lips.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have wondered a great deal concerning mental illness.  I wonder if we deal with such any better now than when it was thought to be a demonic possession.  Drug addictions and alcoholic addictions seem worse now (at least to me) than when I was a child that thought nothing of taking a firearm to school with the intent of hunting rabbits after school to earn a little extra cash.

I am also concerned that this generation does not seem to know the difference between teasing and bulling – both from the side of the instigator as well as the receiver.  I am not sure if it is possible to tell children that any behavior is unacceptable.  This from a kid that for some of my schooling – spent more time in the principle office or being punished than I did in class – yes I was even discipline for stuff someone else did just because I was sometimes guilty.  I was physically punished (hit by punishing devices) by more than one teacher but I would never tell my parents because I was likely to receive additional such punishment.  All this and I am dyslexic, but I grew up in a time that excuses were not allowed.  As I look around today – I honestly believe that I am better off growing up when I did.

I have rarely agreed with you more than I do with what you wrote above. Our society almost sprains its shoulder by patting itself on the back for the marvelous leaps we supposedly have made in offering treatment and "therapy" for the mentally ill. Yet I see no evidence that mental illness is less common or less severe today than at any time in the past. On the contrary, I see plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise. Perhaps paying exorbitant sums of money to "therapists" so that they can listen to your troubles and then give you advice out of a humanistic, Machiavellian playbook won't actually give you the optimal outcome, after all. I don't look at history as "the good old days", but I don't necessarily look at them as "the bad old days", either. We have most certainly lost at least some important elements of the wisdom of our ancestors. I think the changes in the temple presentations demonstrate that.

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

BTW – I also grew up in a home where the showing of affection towards other family members was not considered normal.  I was kissed once in my life by my mother when I left for my mission and once by my father as he was dying.  Now days my kids think it is funny to try to kiss me on the lips.

I am sorry to hear this. I grew up in a home where physical affection was common, and I think myself better off for it. (Also physical punishment, which I remain unconvinced was a net bad thing, though I haven't followed that path with my own family.)

[CrimsonKairos]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

…those who preach falsely against the Lord's Church or its leaders and who seek to cast the kingdom of God and its leaders in an undeservedly unfavorable light are anti-Mormon.

“Preach falsely”? Geez, escalate much? Try re-reading the KUTV article, if you can’t do 2 + X = 4 with the article, sorry. 😁

Edited February 14, 2023 by CrimsonKairos

[The Folk Prophet]

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have wondered a great deal concerning mental illness. 

I have too. And although not about therapy, which I tend to think of as a big con, I kind of see both sides of the debate when it comes to medication. I think, on the one hand, that the fact that everyone's kids being home from school for the "pandemic" (yes, I put that in quotes ) led to Adderall shortages is shameful. On the flip side, I just got a prescription for A.D.D. medication myself (not that I can get any at the current time), my brother is on A.D.D. medication too. And my wife, father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother, sister, etc. are all on medication of some sort or another for depression. And the medicine makes a big difference in all of our lives. So I'm just not sure what to think about it.

Once as an adult my brother joked with me as we were discussing this matter, saying, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?"

And boy howdy do I still hold that to be true. My A.D.D. didn't make me be bad. I was just bad sometime. Because kids are bad sometimes. So stop putting "bad" kids on Speed to turn them into robots! Arggh! I really hate it. Especially when a lot of these kids are "bad" because they have terrible, impatient, inattentive parents and are put into an effectual prison-factory every day called school. I wasn't on medication as a kid because no one even knew that A.D.D. was a thing. I'm so grateful for that.

I'm not a fan of putting kids on medicine. I'm so grateful my childhood wasn't medicated away.

But with adults, however... well I don't see how the use of a crutch when you have a missing leg is a problem. There has to be balance and wisdom in that thinking though, especially when it comes to mental things. And I can't say I fully understand the wisdom and balance. But with some people it's obvious. Many of those I listed above who are on depression medication...when they are off it....you know it! And it's not good.

That being said, are there theoretically alternatives? Sure. I think people suffered a lot less from depression when they were too tired to think about it from all the hard work they had to do all day just to survive in ye olden days (I say think because who knows for sure). Plowing in the fields all day is a good remedy for a lot of mental issues, methinks. But... I'm not going to recommend my wife take up butter churning, sew (and then wash) all the clothes by hand, etc., etc., to deal with the depression issues she has. Life is what it is. We have it easy. And that leads to problems for a lot of people. Whatever the cause, people have mental broken legs and need crutches.

But I just don't know. I really don't. I don't know what I'm talking about. I understand A.D.D. brain. (On a side note, my doctor told me that if it wasn't for the lack of severe depression after the manic, what I described to her sounded like Bi-Polar (to be fair...mild Bi-Polar..but still...)). But I don't understand depression. I still feel like the "just learn have a positive mental attitude" response is appropriate. But I've been told, firmly, that such an answer is wrong.  And because I have my own weird mental things...I can accept that others do despite my "just get over it" tendencies*.

*Which is sort of my natural response to a lot of my own issues. I suppress that response in favor of what I believe is the wiser course. But maybe I'm wrong.

Like I said.... I just don't know.

On a side note: I have A.D.D. but very little in the way of A.D.H.D. The hyper part wasn't really a thing for me, for the most part. A bit...but no more than a typical kid. But the daydreaming and lack of attention and bedwetting and all that....that I had down in spades.

Now...to relate that back to the temple changes somehow................................................................................................um....

[CrimsonKairos]

I think “mental illness” is a misnomer.

Much is actually “brain illness” and related to neuro-inflammation and disregulated or dysfunctional neural circuits/regions (left dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex, etc).

The mental symptoms are just that: symptoms, not causes.

Edited February 14, 2023 by CrimsonKairos

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, CrimsonKairos said:

“Preach falsely”? Geez, escalate much? Try re-reading the KUTV article, if you can’t do 2 + X = 4 with the article, sorry. 😁

CK, you implicitly claimed that I thought that merely voicing a difference of opinion with the Church's leaders was anti-Mormon. This is incorrect, so I corrected it. Your present implication that I am calling you a false preacher is also incorrect. Geez, escalate much?

As for your 2+x=4 claim, just point out where it was stated by anyone involved that a bishop urged parents not to press charges for the abuse of their children. It should be very easy, CK. Just point out where it's said. Don't give me 7th-grade algebra problems. Just cite the sentence. I don't think it's there. I think your claim was false. But I'm willing to be proven wrong, and if I'm wrong, I will admit it.

[CrimsonKairos]

Reread the article, it’s right there @Vort.

Also I’m uninterested in proving you wrong. You can either read and comprehend the article or not, no skin off my nose. Be well.

Edited February 14, 2023 by CrimsonKairos

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, CrimsonKairos said:

I think “mental illness” is a misnomer.

Much is actually “brain illness” and related to neuro-inflammation and disregulated or dysfunctional neural circuits/regions (left dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex, etc).

The mental symptoms are just that: symptoms, not causes.

This would be nice to believe. I would happily seize upon it if I knew of evidence of it. What I actually see is that people who practice poor emotional and psychological hygiene suffer from mental illness at a vastly greater rate than those who implement such hygienic elements. To me, that suggests an illness not directly based on neurochemical elements.

I mean, ultimately everything in our bodies is physical and chemical, but if unhealthy neurocircuit pathways are being developed because of behavior, then I don't think it's useful or reasonable to dismiss that as just a chemical problem that can be treated with drugs. If people keep catching cold by running around without sufficient protection from the elements, at some point they have to take responsibility and admit that the cause of their ills is ultimately their actions, not the mean old viruses that keep infecting them.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, CrimsonKairos said:

Reread the article, it’s right there @Vort.

Also I’m uninterested in proving you wrong. You can either read and comprehend the article or not, no skin off my nose. Be well.

I have read the article three times. No such statement as you claim is to be found. At least, I cannot find it. If it's there, show me. If not, admit that your statement was incorrect. If you do neither, then it would appear that you either intentionally lied, or else that you were shown to be incorrect and were too prideful to admit it.