Posted by: Vicki ®
01/06/2002, 14:44:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
Mat! This is bothers me a great deal as well! I do think however, that it is difficult for many teens to discuss issues of sexuality with parents. It seems to me that if teens cannot speak to parents they should be referred to school counselors, not a Bishop. While a Bishop certainly (I'm assuming) can offer spiritual guidance according to LDS practices and beliefs, a school counselor is in a better position and far more qualified to identify areas of dysfunction, maladaptive behaviors, depression and the like. If the student has a chronic issue the counselor will naturally suggest therapy. A good school counselor can be the go between for parents and students while maintaining the confidentiality of the student. One of my concerns with the Bishop is...does the Bishop maintain confidentiality? Is he qualified to make referrals? Will the private concerns of the teen be filtered somehow to the parents? If so, this is completely UNACCEPTABLE! Without confidentiality the student's issues will never be adressed. In many schools there are peer counselors that act as confidant, counselor and can trouble shoot problems to see if the student needs referral to the counselor in place. If a student is struggling with guilt then yes, of course spiritual support is needed if the student is a believer. My question is how does the Bishop guide in this case? Is the student "unworthy"? If so...unworthy of WHAT? Grace is a free gift and one does not need a go between to seek and attain forgiveness...the heart goes on it's knees...and it's done. Vicki
|
Posted by: MormonDude ®
01/06/2002, 15:18:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
First off this is not a Mormon thing. Many Christian faiths have leaders that are in positions just like LDS Bishops. Second, if you believe this is the Church of God, and God has declared that the Bishop is a good source of gidance, then the Bishop is just that. The difficulty here is that you really can't take a position here if you are not a believer, because your perspective in the first place is this is not God's Church. This puts you in a poor position for this judgement because faithful members view the Bishop as a spiritual guide and that God will do what needs to happen... I guess I am not as elegent in describing this, but I hope you see where I am going. If not, I'll sit and think how to better describe it.. It is my opinion though... 
|
Posted by: Mat ®
01/06/2002, 19:09:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
I understand that it is hard for some kids to talk to thier parents about some things. It's such a shame though. My oldest boy approached me about masturbation when he started it. But, I did talk to him about it during our sex talks long before he started.
I wonder why kids feel ashamed to talk to thier parents about sexual matters. I know I felt I could not because my parents told me how wrong it was in the eyes of God to have premarital sex and all the other stuff. On the other hand, my oldest son and I have no problem talking about sex. I approach the issue not in the way that it is wrong in the eyes of God, but rather the consequences that can come from it. So, he sees it not so much as a sin problem as it is a natural problem.
But in regards to masturbation, I have no problem with it. And as a result, he feels no guilt about it. And I would much rather have him doing that than having sex with his girlfriend.
But I agree that a school counselor is great person to talk to. They are definitely trained(or at least should be) to handle the situation.
I think most bishops probably are pretty confidential. I think the main problem that I see from reading stories about this is that many bishops seem to not realize there limitations.
When my LDS friend's father was discovered to be sleeping with a teenager from his church, the bishop was the ONLY one that was consulted. Even the parents of the child were perfectly content to have this man see only the bishop. Was the bishop a psychologist or expert in human behavior? Nope. He was a high level manager at a real estate firm. Not hardly equipped to handle that situation. And to think that this man who was caught sleeping with an underaged girl was, at one time, a bishop who listened to such confessions. Sick!
Another thing that bothers me about this "worthiness" thing is the possibility that young people cannot even talk to thier friends about it. I wonder if that's the case? This is for ex-mormons and mormons alike:
Does the worthiness issue isolate mormon teenagers in anyway?
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/06/2002, 23:18:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
Mat States: I wonder why kids feel ashamed to talk to thier parents about sexual matters? Vicki: I don't know hey won't TELL me! LOL! Honestly, I think it has to do with the search for identity Mat. Teens go so far out of their way to not be like their parents...try so hard to be like eachother, try so hard to be liked...accepted...I think the cause is in the weather report...storm clouds with a chance of serious turbulence.
|
Posted by: violet ®
01/06/2002, 23:27:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
There is an unspoken code amongst LDS youth, that the appearance of worthiness is of the utmost importance. You do not disclose to your friends your "issues" for fear that they will see you as flawed - you are supposed to strive for higher standards, and no one wants to be caught failing - it is a sign of spiritual weakness. Counseling with the bishop is the usual 'safe' way to discuss issues. If you can go to the bishop with your problems, then you are following the proper channels and thus remain worthy in the eyes of your friends. Just my experience...
|
Posted by: Mat ®
01/07/2002, 23:18:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
That is really so sad. My best friend I have known since I was 3. He and I told each other everything we did. There were no hidden secrets and, as a result, we grew closer and closer. In some respects, we know each other better than we do ourselves. You know violet, that appearance thing does not end in childhood. I have seen this type of behavior amongst my LDS friends. When I am with only one at a time, they sometimes seem to be totally different people than when we are with the other LDS guys. It's really sad in a way. It's almost as if they have separate personalitles.
|
Posted by: lancslad ®
01/08/2002, 00:10:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi , I agree with what you pbserved about "best behaviour" in public, isnt this also what 99% of the rest of us is like? like mum , quick lets tidy up , grandads coming? LL
|
Posted by: Mat ®
01/08/2002, 06:48:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Lancslad, I disagree with your idea.
If you exhibit different behavior in public than you do in private because you are around different people, you are not "being on your best behavior", you are a fraud. I am not talking about talking with food in your mouth at a restaurant or not screaming out loud in church(unless you are charismatic). I am talking about acting differently in front of different people to give a certain appearance. That, my friend, shows lack of character.
|
Posted by: Nevo ®
01/08/2002, 10:14:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
As a hypocrite, I take some comfort in Wayne Booth's notion of "hypocrisy upward." He argues that some kinds of hypocrisy can actually be ennobling: the wearing of masks that project a self superior to our many other selves is not only an inescapable practice, but a habit-building practice that is essential to our psychological or spiritual progress....when we put on a mask of a better self, we are learning, just like Beerbohm's cheater, how really to be that better self. Surely there is, at least in some kinds of posing, something redemptive....[W]e are not saved only by some magical moment of bliss, though such moments can be a turning point, but by the daily aspiration to enact now virtue after virtue--often virtues that we don't yet have. (Wayne C. Booth, "The Rhetoric of Hypocrisy, Virtuous and Vicious," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 1 [Spring 2000]: 124-125, 127); see also his discussion here)
Modified by Nevo at Tue, Jan 08, 2002, 10:18:14
|
Posted by: Mat ®
01/08/2002, 19:08:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
I disagree that the "wearing of masks" is inescapable. This is merely a presumption by the author that everyone does. It is a fallacious statement.
I also totally disagree that to do it is "but a habit-building practice that is essential to our psychological or spiritual progress". This is another speculation that those who pretend to be different are doing so in an effort to better themselves. That is also a presumption.
Pretending to hold values that you don't really possess, display a certain type of behavior or make statements that are contrary to your normal behavior, covers up the true self. If one does not reveal their true self to others, others are unable to judge accurately your beliefs, values and, most importantly, your character. This is very important in establishing all kinds of relationships. To display such false traits in the effort to gain acceptance, toleration or whatever else, amounts to nothing more than manipulation.
I agree with lancslad that being "your true self" is not a easy thing to do. But, that is a personal thing that comes with maturity, independent thinking and self-acceptance.
|
Posted by: Cal ®
01/08/2002, 23:21:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
Mat, I think you're reading too much into the quote. The author doesn't say that "the wearing of masks is inescapable." He's saying that the wearing of masks projecting a self superior to your current self is inescapable. He's just pointing out the old idea, almost a truism, that doing good even if you're not as good as your acts can lead to your habituation to goodness--and that this can come from playing the role (good father, for example) that's expected of you. There's really no call to some kind of inauthenticity here. Evil hypocrites do good things that are beyond them simply for the sake of looking good. They're whited sepulchres whose "goodness" is done above all for the sake of public consumption. The kind of "hypocrisy" that Booth's speaking of is different. It relies on the idea of hoping to be better than you already are by doing things that seem better than you. There's no compromise of independence or of the integrity in that.
|
Posted by: lancslad ®
01/08/2002, 17:42:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi, maybe you do not like it, and maybe you are one of the few people who are the same in provate as in public all the time. Contratulations!!! I do not know anyone who fits the description which you advocate , excepting of course , "you"
Having said that I agree its not desirable to be this way . But alas I am trying... LL
|
Posted by: violet ®
01/08/2002, 01:20:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
Some point after I went inactive, my best friend, who I couldn't even tell my true feelings about the church to - and I went shopping. We were browsing through the Macy's crystal dept. and came across a display of beautiful Waterford cut crystal wine glasses. As we both stood there oooing and aweing at the beauty suddenly a group came up behind her and said" Ah caught you!"(they were only kidding) She practically knocked the whole display down when she realized the group was a family from her ward, coming up with a quick explanation for her admiration for something that held the "taboo". I felt really sad at that moment for her - she let her gaurd down for just a moment only to be caught and practically chastized. As I relay this story, it is important to note that at that time, it was one of the darkest times of my life - my disallusionment of the church was realized and I had found this board for support - I had gone through a complete breakdown, including marital, and I couldn't discuss my true feelings about any of it with her. I knew she couldn't handle hearing it,(I had tried a few tests with her and wouldn't hear from her for weeks after I had done so even though we lived a block away) and would withdraw from me (I needed her too badly to allow that) so I would make light of my depression, and explain my inactivity as exhaustion and needing a break. Pretty sad indeed. Truthfully if it wasn't for this board - I don't know what I would have done. I am not bitter towards her for that - I know she has had her doubts in the past, and that the foundation of her life is built into the church - to question it, or consider it invalid would result in a serious termination of her ability to function. I know my problems would have brought her lower than she could cope with and so when she couldn't handle me, her only option was to withdraw. To this day, we don't speak about it, but are still best friends.
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
01/08/2002, 01:30:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
Violet, Depression is a difficult circumstance to say the least -- I'm impressed you described it and the situations surrounding it here. I'd like to hear your perspective on depression sometime, if you're willing. Aaron
|
Posted by: Snowy Shaw ®
01/06/2002, 17:02:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well, I grew up in the church and I had those very problems. I too was referred to the bishop because of the masturbation issue and looking back it's sickening to see. I cannot believe that something so natural has to be forbidden. It is in my experience a very common response, mostly since it's been turned into a spiritual issue and for parents I guess it can make their lives easier not having to deal with it themselves. It's all very twisted.
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/06/2002, 18:27:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
Masturbation in early, middle and late childhood is developmental! It is as developmental as the emergence of speech and literacy!
|
Posted by: Mat ®
01/06/2002, 22:10:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
It's not so bad for us older folks either!
Honestly, the only thing wrong with masturbation is the guilt that sometimes accompanies it due to the impressions left on people by religious morons.
I remember an LDS statement I read somewhere that:"Masturbation is self-abuse." Does that mean that your wife or husband is sexually abusing you went you are "petting"? Give me a break! I think this mentality is due to prophets who lost thier limbido long ago. I wonder what a prophet in his 30s would have to say about it.
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/07/2002, 00:04:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Sorry, I'm losing my place in the discussion only due to time limitations. I strongly disagree that masturbation is self abuse! The term abuse implies harm, in this case harm to one self. Things such as substance abuse, self mutilation, unprotected sex...those are harmful to one self! Masturbation is a tensional outlet! Infants and toddlers masturbate! Are they too unworthy? Unworthy--of --WHAT? Masturbation is a good option for those who wish to remain celibate, abstain or for those who are without partners. What is the issue? Are you fornicating with yourself? Come on! When teens (as was the age group in question) whose world is already a little distorted, are made to feel guilty for releasing natural sexual tension...made to feel unWORTHY..the result can easily be depression which can easily lead to substance abuse, self mutilation, unprotected sex not to mention ideation of suicide...and suicide itself. Look, the only thing you're going to get from masturbating is a good nights sleep. Vicki
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/07/2002, 00:14:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
Aaron...I was thinking more along the lines of middle schoolers here. Please don't take that as an insult. I don't consider you a teenager, I consider you a young adult developmentally. Vicki
|
Posted by: Snowy Shaw ®
01/07/2002, 16:44:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
You tell me!! But I was taught it was wrong and I should feel bad about it, repent and never do it again. It's done a lot of damage and it's been a slow recovery. It's one of the things that made me really angry. Anyway, enough complaining from me.
|
Posted by: MormonDude ®
01/07/2002, 10:23:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
If God designed this Earth to be a challenge, and one of those challenges is self-control, do you not think that God couldn't demand of you anything he wants? He created you, so he could demand of you not to pick your nose, or not to scratch your butt. Here is the difficulty of trying to make God in your image, rather than you in God's image. That is why we have millions of different religions. Whatever the case, perhaps what you claim is "natural" is the animal instincts God wants you to challenge yourself with.
|
Posted by: Briandc ®
01/07/2002, 11:33:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
Your contention that "self control" is what god wants from us is pure speculation on your part. Naturally, because your church leaders tell you that masturbation is unholy, you accept that this is god's will. Surely you can understand that those who don't stipulate to the divinity of Mormon doctrine are skeptical about the divine origin of this particular hang-up. You mention that god could command us not to pick our noses or other trivialities. This indicates that you recognize just how arbitrary god's "laws" are. Further, it's clear to the objective observer that the categorization of sexual impurity as a particularly offensive sin is no accident. Clearly the middle-aged men who dominate the propagation of religious dogma are particularly skittish about matters of sex. I suspect that it has something to do with maintaining their status as owners of women as sexual property but I'm sure it's more complex than that. At any rate, it's obviously not as simple as you would have us believe. A question for you: have you ever masturbated? If you're like 98% of the male population you undoubtedly have. If you did, knowing that god disapproves, why? Kindly,
Brian
|
Posted by: Mat ®
01/07/2002, 17:12:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
Brian, You said:
If you're like 98% of the male population you undoubtedly have.. Didn't Freud or someone say that 98% of men admit to being masturbators? And the other 2% are liars?
|
Posted by: Mat ®
01/07/2002, 23:30:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
I honestly don't know. But come on, Vicki. Women don't do that kind of stuff. ;-)
|
Posted by: Snowy Shaw ®
01/07/2002, 18:18:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
It's twisted thinking. No good can come from it. Besides, there is a major, and I mean major difference, between self-control and self-denial...
What you do very well, om the other hand, is showing everybody what is wrong with the whole god-concept. God is completely immoral and arbitrary. You indicate it yourself and you still worship him? How sick is that?Snowy Shaw
|
Posted by: Mat ®
01/07/2002, 23:37:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Who says God designed this earth to be a challenge? The same people who say masturbation is a notorious treacherous and evil thing? And if God made us in his image, then why wouldn't the natural urge to masturbate be given to us by God. Maybe it is these people who tell us NOT to do it that is changing us AWAY from God's image. Let me tell you, God is one sick puppy if he created us with a natural instinct that he wants us to deny. What a wonderful loving God! Of course, he has no need to masturbate with his billions of wives up there.
|
Posted by: cenglewood ®
01/09/2002, 00:50:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
you say: God is one sick puppy if he created us with a natural instinct that he wants us to deny.
do you really mean this? there are lots of reasons to deny natural instincts. it's actually part of being human not just to follow every urge. i've saved myself a lot of grief by thinking a few things over before jumping in head first. i'm not specifically talking about masturbation here; your argument seems a little scary when applied to all natural urges.
|
Posted by: rdl ®
01/09/2002, 19:20:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
you say:
do you really mean this? there are lots of reasons to deny natural instincts. it's actually part of being human not just to follow every urge. i've saved myself a lot of grief by thinking a few things over before jumping in head first. i'm not specifically talking about masturbation here; your argument seems a little scary when applied to all natural urges.You would have to define what you mean by "natural" urges and instincts before that question could be answered.
rdl
|
Posted by: cenglewood ®
01/10/2002, 00:33:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
> You would have to define what you mean by "natural"
> urges and instincts before that question could be
> answered. - rdli don't have a definition (am hoping that this group does nor require the rigor that my professors do), but i have a few examples. the thread here has certainly been referring to masturbation as a natural urge -- that word choice was not introduced by me. i would certainly characterize sex as another natural urge. (so in my original point, i would say there are certainly cases when a little mental action happily stopped an otherwise natural physical act from happening). other natural urges? not sure if i count violence as one. i have friends who seem naturally prone to violent behavior, and they are trying their best to control those urges. any others? i'd have to give it more thought than i feel like giving it.... anway, that's my immediate response, but i can't say this is a concept that is very formally worked out in my mind. it seemed like an acceptably pre-defined term at the time.
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
01/06/2002, 17:29:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
Mormons believe that sexual sins (basically any sexual activity outside of marriage, and, some believe, certain sexual activity witin marriage) must be confessed to the Bishop in order to be fully forgiven. Depending on the gravity of the sin, such forgiveness may be granted either immediately or after extended counseling with the Bishop, sometimes after undergoing a disciplinary council that may result in disfellowship or excommunication. Teenagers often don't want to talk to parents about sexual issues for obvious reasons. They are also understandably reluctant to confess private sexual behavior to somebody who might guard that information carelessly or use it to change their social status among their Mormon peers. (If you're not taking the sacrament or attending the youth temple trip, dark assumptions will be made about your worthiness.)
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/06/2002, 18:32:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
Why is there a need to confess to the Bishop when the Bible shows us that we need only confess our sins to God? Vicki
|
Posted by: violet ®
01/06/2002, 23:42:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
Not speaking for Alf, but here is some reference info from the Gospel Principles manual. According the LDS view of things: Repentence: the way provided for us to become free from our sins and receive forgiveness for them. Sins slow our spiritual progression and even stop it - repentence reverses the process and allows for continued progression. How does one repent?:
first principle is recognition - an awareness of our sins. second principle is -sorrow- feeling sincerely sorrowful with a desire to be free from the burden. third principle: forsaking them (discontinuing the sin) fourth principle: confession - Primarily to the Lord - those sins that involve no one but our selves. Sins that involve the other person should be confessed to the person/people involved.
Serious sins(listed as - adultery,fornication,robbery, or any that would affect the current standing in the church)must be confessed to the proper priesthood authority (which would be the bishop) fifth principle: restitution - making right what was done wrong sixth: forgiveness - forgiving those that have sinned against us seventh:it is complete when the person returns to following the gospel which includes keeping the sabbath day holy, obeying the word of wisdom, paying tithes , sustaining the church authorities, loving the Lord with all their heart and our fellowman.
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
01/07/2002, 08:11:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
There is biblical precedent for public confession of sins (e.g., Num. 5:7; Neh. 9:2; Matt. 3:6; James 5:16). Granted, these instances do seem qualitatively different than the private transaction that goes on between a Bishop and a confessing sinner. Remember, however, that for Mormons, the Bible is not the sole repository of the Word of God. The Bishop represents the Church in the private confessions he hears, and I should emphasize that he does not grant forgiveness on behalf of God, only the Church. The individual is encouraged to seek private confirmation of his pardon from God. It is generally understood that such confirmation will be forthcoming only after a period of sorrow and penitence. Being forgiven by the Church seems an odd concept, but the intent is to maintain a basic level of purity of the Church itself. When there is grave iniquity among a Bishop's flock, it is his duty to counsel the sinners back to worthiness or cast out the unrepentant. The confessable sins are basically those pertaining to chastity and things that would be serious criminal offenses.
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
01/06/2002, 18:21:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
Although I can not comment on the LDS church, I can say that The Catholic church's attitudes towards sexuality are still very much Victorian. When in fifth grade, we were all told that masturbation was "bad," and should be avoided as it was a sin, sometimes a great sin, at that. Possibly the worst part of the whole production was that, outside of suppression, these very important issues were purposefully ignored. All-in-all, it makes me glad that I left the parochial institution.
|
Posted by: Vicki ®
01/06/2002, 18:35:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
The Bible states NO WHERE that any sin is greater than another...except ONE...and it's NOT masturbation! It would appear that Catholicism writes it's own rules...since there is no biblical support for a hierarchy of sin. Vicki
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
01/06/2002, 18:48:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
I tell only honestly of my experiences within the Catholic church. We were told the Church's official position on masturbation is that it is a sin; and that there are two classes of sins (Cardinal and another which I can not currently recall), with one being "greater" than the other.
Modified by Aaron V. at Sun, Jan 06, 2002, 18:51:18
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
01/06/2002, 22:07:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Reading the article brought up quite a few memories. Though what I was taught was not entirely consistent with the article, whatever lecture I received regarding sin in elementary school was haphazard at best. Thanks for the link.
|
Posted by: shooter ®
01/07/2002, 17:53:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yep, tell the Bishop. Then when you least expect it the information comes back at you. He talks to the wrong person at the wrong time, like the Bishop I listened to talking with a Stake President on his cell phone in the open waiting area at the Salt Lake Airport a few weeks ago. Talking openly & reading a letter confessing trasgressions written to him by a ward member who is now in Utah State Prison. Or like a Stake President I knew who drove to work & while driving would discuss people he saw with the three others in the work truck. "Guess what he does"... and then he would proceed to inform everyone in the vehicle of the transgressions, problems & foibles of the people we would see as we drove by. Pointedly ridiculing them & making fun of them with a High Priest group leader & Elders Quorum leader in the truck, while the two of us on the work crew who were readying to go on missions learned to keep our mouths shut no matter what. Yep, tell all & watch what happens.
|
Posted by: Snowy Shaw ®
01/07/2002, 18:00:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
After I talked to my bishop (age 16), all of a sudden all these Relief Society women came flocking around, being all concerned and caring and supportive.....hmmmm, maybe I shoulda tried something then
|
Posted by: Cal ®
01/07/2002, 22:50:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm no defender of the Mormon confession setup, and the focus on minor sexual issues makes it much more destructive than it has to be. But you have to admit that these anecdotes, if true, present us with grave misconduct from the standpoint of the church itself.
|
Posted by: Mensch ®
01/07/2002, 23:18:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
There is absolutely no excuse for violating a believer's trust in this manner. These individuals should be (or should have been) reported and released from their positions | |
