A Must Read For TBMs and Critics! --: A Psychotherapist's Insightful Approach to LDS Cultural Problems

47 views
Skip to first unread message

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 3:15:58 PM10/6/03
to
The following article by a psychotherapist, former seminary teacher,
institute instructor and bishop is an excellent read both for critics
and TBMs:

http://snurl.com/2kvi


Comments?

TheJordan6

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 4:59:10 PM10/6/03
to
>From: SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck)
>Date: 10/6/2003 2:15 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com>

Steve, did you recognize the author's name?

You've met him.

Randy J.

McSorley

unread,
Oct 5, 2003, 7:53:17 PM10/5/03
to

<ancient_lights_and_perf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1619832.u...@192.168.1.1...
> On Monday 06 October 2003 12:15, Fool Speck <SRLo...@hotmail.com> typed:
> Daaaaaamn! Very good article - I had time to glance through it and got
> stopped reading in detail some bits. It's a saver, but, what can one do
> with this that is positive? Bringing this up in _any_ church setting or
> with any church leaders in going to be problematic. I once sat in a stake
> conference for adults where a bishop, who was also a psychiatrist,
> indicated clearly several times that if he was working with a boy who
> didn't masterbate, there was something wrong with the child. I wondered
> what the people and the other church leaders had to say about that amongst
> themselves? He was quite forward and too the point, a rare breed. Why
> they asked him to speak, who knows? Good thing there wasn't any General
> Authorities there. I was still an Ultra-conservative Mormon then.
>
> I heard 10 hours of general conference this weekend and the ambiguity in
> thought and ignorance of mormon history and the scriptural record is
> astonishing. They appear to all be so cocksure of themselves, yet, I
> couldn't help thinking that most of them know it is all a facade, that
they
> are perpertrating a lie. I don't think they really care that much that
> they are ruining the beauty of marriage and destroying the joy of
intimacy.

How? teaching self control and fidelity?

> Each couple has to discover that joy for themselves after throwing off the
> bindings of Mormonism, a process that I expect most mormon couples never
> fully achieve.

What the hell? Masterbation does not help make sex for better couples.

> Guilt is a means of control and making sure there are guilt
> levers to manipulate mormons with is what is created and perpetuated.
>
> Give up guilt and you see the world with new eyes.

Give up. I think thats your main message.

McSorley


Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 8:43:30 PM10/6/03
to
In article <9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com>,
SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:

Here's some responses to various items:

Any article with this sentence loses a few credibility points: "When
First Presidency counselor William Law could no longer condone the
secret practices and peculiar doctrines Smith was advocating, he
publicly split with the prophet and along with others determined to
expose the truth."

This seems about as accurate as portraying him as a hand-twisting,
mustache-twirling villain. William Law as valiant defender of truth is a
hard to swallow image.

"In my teaching experience in various settings in the church I've
discovered many contemporary members of the church are surprised to
learn that Joseph Smith was married to anyone other than Emma! "

Two responses: A) Most of the members I associate regularly know Smith
had mutliple wives.It may be argued that my experience is anecdotal, but
so is that of the author.

B) Lack of historical knowledge seems to be an American, not just an
LDS, characteristic. Thus, the reasons for people not knowing JS'
history could be part of a larger American trend rather than an attempt
to whitewash LDS history.

Here's another interesting line: "To many, Smith was hailed as a martyr.
Others knew him as an obvious fraud and scoundrel exploiting his
position of power to gain control over others and the sexual favor of
many."

Note how the latter view, in the author's style is given waaay more
credibility than the martyr view. That speaks loads about the author's
bias.

"Historically, official statements from the church have consistently
failed to validate or recognize the positive aspects of sexuality. "

Inaccurate. Here's a selection:

łin the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is
right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about
sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process
of creation and in an expression of love˛ (The Teachings of Spencer W.
Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, p.
311). Quoted in General Conference by Dallin H. Oaks, 3 October 1993.

"Chastity before marriage and faithfulness after marriage are cardinal
ingredients for the full flowering of sacred love between husband and
wife. Chastity nurtures and builds feelings of self-worth and
indemnifies against the destruction of self-image." --James E. Faust,
General Conference, April 1981.

"Within the enduring covenant of marriage, the Lord permits husband and
wife the expression of the sacred procreative powers in all their
loveliness and beauty within the bounds He has set. 7 One purpose of
this private, sacred, intimate experience is to provide the physical
bodies for the spirits Father in Heaven wants to experience mortality.
Another reason for these powerful and beautiful feelings of love is to
bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration of
each other, and common purpose."--Richard G. Scott, General Conference,
1 October 1994.

łWhen we obey the law of chastity and keep ourselves morally clean, we
will experience the blessings of increased love and peace, greater trust
and respect for our marital partners, deeper commitment to each other,
and, therefore, a deep and significant sense of joy and happiness˛ (Ezra
Taft Benson, łThe Law of Chastity,˛ BYU 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside
Speeches [1988], 51).

The positive aspects have, in fact, been emphasized--and just were
again, by President Hinckley, in the most recent General Conference.

"While Elder Holland could have used the time to teach the youth of the
church the positive reasons why an expression of sexuality with healthy
boundaries is favorable, instead he turned to the shame motive."

Hmmm--that doesn't sound like Elder Holland. Let's look at some talk
excerpts:

"Secondly, may I stress that human intimacy is reserved for a married
couple because it is the ultimate symbol of total union, a totality and
a union ordained and defined by God. From the Garden of Eden onward,
marriage was intended to mean the complete merger of a man and
woman--their hearts, hopes, lives, love, family, future, everything.
Adam said of Eve that she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh,
and that they were to be "one flesh" in their life together.12 This is a
union of such completeness that we use the word seal to convey its
eternal promise. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said we perhaps could
render such a sacred bond as being "welded"13 one to another. "

That sounds like a positive aspect of sexuality, doesn't it?

Later he adds: " Suffice it to say that of all the titles God has chosen
for Himself, Father is the one He favors most, and creation is His
watchword--especially human creation, creation in His image. You and I
have been given something of that godliness, but under the most serious
and sacred of restrictions."

Again, sex is shown as a godly power--a good thing.

The fact that the author ignored these parts of a talk he was claiming
to reference is a critical error.

"In my experience, shame, or applied guilt is a very poor motivator to
change behavior. Sometimes, applied guilt can help control others for a
period of time, but I don't believe it ultimately fosters long term
resolution, or growth."

Exactly right. A full reading of Elder Holland's talk, though, shows
that the prime motive he is using is not shame, but rather of gaining an
understanding of sex's place in Heavenly Father's plan--when we
appreciate the gift, we'll treat it well. That's quite different from
the shame approach the author is deriding--and more effective.

"I personally believe I have had better success dealing with this
difficult issue through openness, honesty, and using positive influences
that recognize the worth of each individual, and the pervasiveness of
the behavior."

A good approach. More members of the church should use it. The fact that
not everyone does, though, is more representative of personal failings
and not understanding how to deal with person than a reflection on
church teachings. We find this failing throughout humanity, in all
religious denominations--and non-denominations, too.

"Voyeuristic, probing bishop's interviews, rather than helping to
relieve shame, often profoundly increase it. "

Again, the author's bias flashes out. "Voyeuristic"? Please. That's not
the intent of bishop's interviews. Most bishops as I know aren't
thrilled to talk about sexual indiscretions, but they have a sense of
duty--of helping a person repent. Confession is for the benefit of the
confessor, not for the thrill of the listener, and to throw the "voyeur"
label around demonstrates exactly the type of immaturity toward
sexuality the author is trying to condemn.

"A natural question arises: why the need to wear the holy garment during
sleep time? Mormons are taught that the garment is a protection to them.
It seems obvious that a deduction many members consciously or
unconsciously make is that the garment worn at night may protect them
from sexual thoughts or behaviors. This contributes significantly to the
undermining of sexual thought necessary for normal sexual response."

I haven't seen a logical progression that bizarre since . . . well, my
last discussion with Duwayne (ooops. I said his name. Now he'll have to
respond to me).

It really is a strawman argument--he sets up his own reason why wearing
the garment at night might be important, then ridicules it. But that's
not the reason. The reason for wearing it at night is simple--that's
what you promised to do. Why? As a reminder of your covenants. _That's_
the protection the garments offer--it's not mystical hocus-pocus (urban
legends of people burned on every part of their body except where their
garments covered notwithstanding), but a simple, obvious reminder of
promises you've made and reasons for making them. It has nothing to do
with controlling your dreams, and no one I know would believe that such
dreams constitute sin, anyway. This is just a ridiculous point.

"The church must approach sexuality in an open and honest way. It must
recognize that shame is a propellent for unhealthy sexual behavior (and
other destructive behaviors). Church gatherings, rather than being
places of displaying our false images, could be places of refuge and
healing--places to deal openly with the complexities of modern society
with its innate difficulties. Church classes, meetings, and
confessionals could become places of dialogue, confrontation,
ventilation and relief from the sexual complexities we face. These
issues could be discussed, addressed, and at times even resolved in a
community of support and collective faith."

This, by contrast, is a good point. It's a goal to reach. I think it's
what we're supposed to be working toward. The reason we haven't made it
yet, though, is our individual failings, not because of churchwide
policy. Too many people, in this church and others, fall back on shame
as a motivator without moving beyond. The GAs tend to use shame much
less often--they try to build our understanding (go and read anything
Richard G. Scott says about morality for a compassionate view on the
subject). They have set an example that the membership often fails to
live up to.

The big concern I have here, Steve, is that you labelled this
"insightful" and a "must-read." You have spoken often of what you call
the "Mormon Denial Mechanism," which you claim is necessary for church
membership--you explain it as a mechanism to ignore things that are
inconsistent or out-of-step in LDS theology and history. Yet this
article contains open statements of bias and mis-characterizations of
LDS position, and it gets a free pass. There's not supposed to be an
Anti-Mormon Denial Mechanism, is there?

Jason H.

--
łYou know that youąre dead?˛ I managed to stammer.
łOf course. Died of a heart attack, February 23rd, 1890.˛ He smiled slyly.
łItąs in all the history books.˛
--"Alone With Rittenhouse's Ghost," in _Ghostbreakers: Sinister Sleuths_.

Peggy Tatyana

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 9:51:04 PM10/6/03
to

"Jason Hardy" <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote

(quoting article)

> "The church must approach sexuality in an open and honest way. It must
> recognize that shame is a propellent for unhealthy sexual behavior (and
> other destructive behaviors). Church gatherings, rather than being
> places of displaying our false images, could be places of refuge and
> healing--places to deal openly with the complexities of modern society
> with its innate difficulties. Church classes, meetings, and
> confessionals could become places of dialogue, confrontation,
> ventilation and relief from the sexual complexities we face. These
> issues could be discussed, addressed, and at times even resolved in a
> community of support and collective faith."
>
> This, by contrast, is a good point. It's a goal to reach. I think it's
> what we're supposed to be working toward. The reason we haven't made it
> yet, though, is our individual failings, not because of churchwide
> policy. Too many people, in this church and others, fall back on shame
> as a motivator without moving beyond.

I'm not sure, Jason. I agree that the article shows a definite bias, but I
do think that there is a tendency to pussyfoot around these issues a lot of
the time. As evidence, I present the lesson that my daughter was asked to
give in Beehives last month. It was lesson 34 from the Young Woman Manual 1,
called "Worthy Thoughts." A lot of it was based on Boyd K. Packer's famous
talk from 1967 about how, when you start to think about things you
shouldn't, the solution is to sing or hum a favorite hymn. (But we all know
what happened to Absalom when he followed that advice!) Nowhere in the
lesson is sex mentioned, or referred to directly, even though, at least to
my mind, it is a major theme being addressed. For example:

<<Young people, you cannot afford to fill your minds with the unworthy music
of our day. It is not harmless. It can welcome onto the stage of your mind
unworthy thoughts and set a tempo to which they dance and to which you may
act. You degrade yourself when you identify with those things that at times
surround extremes in music-the shabbiness, the irreverence, the immorality,
the addictions.>>

Okay, I'll grant there are people who always assume that the word
"immorality" always refers to sexual immorality, but I'd still call that a
less-than direct reference. As my daughter pointed out when I asked her,
some of the girls in her Beehive group are barely twelve years old, and
probably not even out of latency. (She wasn't at that age.) So it seemed
more important to her to emphasize other sorts of unworthy thoughts that
some of them might actually be having. But my point is, this isn't just an
abberation of some prudish member -- it's right there in the lesson manual.

Happens, I don't agree with Gardiner that it's our polygamous past that has
led us into this dire situation, though it might be a good idea for the
church to decide whether plural marriage is actually a Good Thing or a Bad
Thing. (Oh, I know -- it's good when God says it is, and bad when he
doesn't. But that's a really difficult concept to get one's mind around.) I
think it has more to do with trying to hold to a standard which, though it
might be a worthy one, is outdated in a lot of people's minds.

My other example of this beat-around-the-bush tendency in the church comes
from my own life. When I was finally away from home, living on my own, I had
to decide whether or not to have sex with my very importune boyfriend.
(Fortunately, he lived in another city, so I did have some time to think).
All my life I had been taught that the reason I needed to stay chaste was
that I needed to do that so I could be married in the temple to the worthy
young man of my choice for time and all eternity. I had to figure out for
myself that there were other reasons -- such as that it would be a Bad Idea
to bring a child into the world without two parents who were committed to
each other and to that childn's nurturance. That's something no one had ever
taught me in all those YW lessons about chastity.

Peggy


TheJordan6

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 11:40:25 PM10/6/03
to
>From: Jason Hardy Jasnka...@ameritech.net
>Date: 10/6/2003 7:43 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <JasnkatNOSPAM-7EA...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>

>
>In article <9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com>,
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
>
>> The following article by a psychotherapist, former seminary teacher,
>> institute instructor and bishop is an excellent read both for critics
>> and TBMs:
>>
>> http://snurl.com/2kvi
>>
>>
>> Comments?
>
>Here's some responses to various items:
>
>Any article with this sentence loses a few credibility points: "When
>First Presidency counselor William Law could no longer condone the
>secret practices and peculiar doctrines Smith was advocating, he
>publicly split with the prophet and along with others determined to
>expose the truth."
>
>This seems about as accurate as portraying him as a hand-twisting,
>mustache-twirling villain. William Law as valiant defender of truth is a
>hard to swallow image.

No, the author's comments about William Law are valid and accurate. Your
opinion of Law is the product of your bias and ignorance of the facts.

"In early 1843 Austin [Cowles] apparently did some missionary work in New
Hampshire and Massachusetts, but he soon returned to Nauvoo and played an
important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the
summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard
Richards, writing to Brigham Young, guessed that the church president was
referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Parley P. Pratt. These
men---the Nauvoo stake president, his first counselor, and an eloquent
apostle---would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic
authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the
dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism. Soon William Law, a
counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent.
Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on
polygamy, presently LDS D&C 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12.
Three of the leading brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin Cowles, and
Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum
would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks,
Cowles, and Soby would openly reject it. This was a watershed moment in LDS
history.
Undoubtedly Austin soon saw that he could not function as a church leader while
he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly and
completely. On September 12, according to the high council minutes, 'President
Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Councillor to President Marks
which was accepted by the council.' Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin
'was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine
[polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo.' After resigning his
presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder, and no longer held a prominent
place in the church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of
the best men in the place.' Mormons in the main body of the church viewed him
less sympathetically.
"Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a
new church. William Law was appointed president and selected Austin Cowles as
his first counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was 'cut off' from the main LDS
Church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the
fateful first and only issue of the 'Nauvoo Expositor', the paper which so
infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy.
It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second
page. The destruction of the 'Expositor' press, engineered by Smith, set off a
chain of events that led to his martyrdom."
("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Todd Compton, pp.
549-550.)

"The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law,
Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the
Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in
Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with
which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against the
Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith
had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October
12, 1843, to the day of the suit.
In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered on May 26:
'What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having
seven wives, when I can find only one.' As polygamy was illegal under US law,
Smith had little choice but to openly repudiate the practice. But as is often
the case with secret policies that are denied publicly, Smith's credibility
would later suffer. Realistically he must have understood that thirty-three or
more marriages could not be kept a secret forever, and that when they became
known the gulf between his public statements and private practice would come
back to haunt him."
(ibid., pp. 476-477.)

Randy J.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 1:27:58 AM10/7/03
to
Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-7EA...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
<snip>

> I haven't seen a logical progression that bizarre since . . . well, my
> last discussion with Duwayne (ooops. I said his name. Now he'll have to
> respond to me).
<snip>

What's the matter, Jason? feeling stupid for using your circular "a
prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" argument? Still have
that frustrating urge to want to get even, but don't really know how?

By the way, Jason. Did you ever disect the example Randy gave you?

"The prophet only tells the truth when he's not lying."

Both are examples of the sort of circular logic that Mormons build
their faith on.

Duwayne Anderson

American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.

googleplex

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 2:55:12 AM10/7/03
to
Oh freaking no!! Is Duwayne, the walking and talking straw man argument, at
it again? This is the moron who sets up a strawman (his extreme version of
what he says "Mormons believe") and then ridicules it. Basically he is
ridiculing himself.

"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.0310...@posting.google.com...

Goner

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 3:01:06 AM10/7/03
to
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:40:25 -0600, TheJordan6 wrote
(in message <20031006234025...@mb-m14.aol.com>):

Maybe Cowles was The One, Mighty and Strong.
He was rejected and ridiculed just like Art.


--
Best,
don m

Goner at Dangerous1.com

What care I how time advances:
I am drinking ale today.
Edgar Allen Poe

Andrew R

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 5:09:16 AM10/7/03
to

<ancient_lights_and_perf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

<SNIP>

> I don't think they really care that much that
> they are ruining the beauty of marriage and destroying the joy of
intimacy.

> Each couple has to discover that joy for themselves after throwing off the
> bindings of Mormonism, a process that I expect most mormon couples never

> fully achieve. Guilt is a means of control and making sure there are


guilt
> levers to manipulate mormons with is what is created and perpetuated.
>

Could you please explain what you mean by, "ruining the beauty of marriage


and destroying the joy of intimacy."

I was brought up in the Church, my wife, with her family, joined the Church
at age 10. We married at the age of 20 and have been married for 18 years. I
fully believe in the "beauty of marriage" and "the joy of intimacy".

Andrew R.


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 10:47:12 AM10/7/03
to
"googleplex" <goo...@plex.com> wrote in message news:<cs2dnYEkGv_...@aros.net>...

> Oh freaking no!! Is Duwayne, the walking and talking straw man argument, at
> it again? This is the moron who sets up a strawman (his extreme version of
> what he says "Mormons believe") and then ridicules it. Basically he is
> ridiculing himself.
<snip>

Folks, the above argument by "googleplex" (an apologist for the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) illustrates the frustration that
many cult members feel when unable to illustrate in an open forum the
super powers that they claim for the cult leader.

Googleplex claims that I've setup an "extreme" version of what I say
Mormons believe. But Googleplex is lying (as so many LDS apologists
do). What I've done is quote LDS leaders telling members that the
prophet will never lead them astray, and I've quoted the Book of
Mormon describing the super powers that a "seer" has.

Then I've challenged Jason Hardy (another apologist for the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to show even one example of any LDS
leader demonstrating in a non-trivial and verifiable way that they
have met the Book of Mormon seer test.

For those who haven't read it, here is the Book of Mormon's
description of the seer powers their leaders should have:

Mosiah 8
[13] Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a
man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can
look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a
gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can
look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he
ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in
them, the same is called seer.
[15] And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.
[16] And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and
a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the
power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given
him from God.
[17] But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things
which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or,
rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall
come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by
them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise
could not be known.

So here is my challenge to Jason Hardy and Googleplex (and any other
Mormons, too). Post a single non-trivial, verifiable example of an
LDS leader who was able to:

1) Know of things which are past, and also of things which are to
come.
2) Revealed all things
3) Manifest secret things
4) Brought hidden things to light
5) Explained things that could not otherwise be known.

Jason's latest excuse was based on a lie of his, to the effect that
I've not defined "non-trivial." In fact, the definition of
"non-trivial" is the same now as it was then. It's non-trivial if a
reasonably talented person couldn't do it.

So, the challenge stands un-met. Care to take it, Mr. Googleplex?

Waiting .....

McSorley

unread,
Oct 6, 2003, 1:29:52 PM10/6/03
to

<ancient_lights_and_perf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2117214.3...@192.168.1.1...
> On Sunday 05 October 2003 16:53, McSorley <miker...@cox.net> typed:
> Self control of what?

thoughts and actions.

> If one thinks other than perfect thoughts, one needs
> to repent and ask God in tears and humility each day for forgiveness -

Not tears necessarily. But you *always* should show humility towards God.

> that's a mormonism daily concern for being a failure.

in your negatively twisting view. To me its a daily attempt to make youself
better.

> In Mormonism every
> day is an experience in self depredation, being concerned with what a
> sinner one is and constantly and daily seeking repentance. Is it any
> wonder that Utah is the Prosac capital of the world?

ha ha.

> Read scriptures,

yes

> do church callings

yes

> kiss gospel ass,

i don't know what you taking about there but sounds like an inferiority
complex.

>day in and day out. Don't see anything
> but G rated movies,

exageration.

>avoid the word "gosh",

Who does?

> be constantly in service to the
> church;

The people really believe they are in service of God when the are in service
of the church, so you can't fault them on that.

>and if you make it to the celestial kingdom, you get to again
> submit your will 100% to someone else and become a godly Borg.

Borg? your really trying to make a valid point?

>
> As to fidelity, that is worthy, but Joseph Smith fucked that one up
royally
> when he went off marrying teenagers and the wives of other men (11 of
them)
> and then had himself ordained King of Israel.

Maybe he did make a mistake. But you really can't tell me that you know all
the details of what really happened. Too much stuff has been twisted by
antis to really know the truth about it.

The language you used in that paragraph dosen't say to me that you have
found a higher, more righteous life. Seems that hate has led you to the
dark side.

>
> Is one even allowed to kiss one's spouse passionately in Mormonism? Can
you
> kiss your spouse on other than the lips? There are too many stories

? Too many? Whats the data on that?

>of
> couples where they cannot get over the fact that sex was so evil before
> they were married and now, well, there are certainly restrictions on doing
> anything except trying to have children. Even the temple considers lots
of
> sex within the bounds of marriage "unholy and unnatural" but leaves that
> undefined leaving couples to imagine even the most simple and pleasure
> things that a man and a wife can do when they become "one" to be forbidden
> or something they need to repent of to their bishop.

come on, people are not so stupid, they ask their bishop to clarify the line
if they need to. As if you need to do everything to really have a healthy
sex life. Somethings don't need to be done and somethings shouldn't.

>
> Now, you spin this whole thing in my way by trying to imply that if
someone
> doesn't live the way you think they should on these matters leaving it all
> so ambiguous, that they are somehow lacking in "self control and
fidelity".
> Bullshit. I was a faithful LDS and the ultimate virgin when I got married
> and we managed to get past that garments should be worn all the time crap
> without problems thank goodness.

Man I just don't see the big deal. What are you so afraid of. I remember a
ward beach party when my Bishop went into the water in, yes, JUST A BATHING
SUIT. ahhhh!! Oh the counsiling the ward members needed after that. Get
real, if you would have had problems with you wife on where to set the
Garments boundries then that would be because you can't make simple
decisions.

> I'm in my third decade of marriage and
> intimacy is getting better all the time and we are not having any more
> children.


>
> >> Each couple has to discover that joy for themselves after throwing off
> >> the bindings of Mormonism, a process that I expect most mormon couples
> >> never fully achieve.
> >
> > What the hell? Masterbation does not help make sex for better couples.
>

> How did you read that into what I wrote?

from your post. So you were talking about masterbation until just then, oh
so what you're saying is, don't bother with you cuz you are just rambling
and don't know what your talking about?

>Are you masterbating right now?

pfft. How did you go from ulta-conservative to whatever you are now. Thats
what I would really like to see you confess.

>
> Helping one's spouse have an enjoyable time in the marriage bed is holy
and
> quite fun, it is not just about planting the seed, turning over and going
> to sleep, and hoping she doesn't get pregnant again. Some women need more
> that mere "penetration" by a priesthood holder to have an organism and
> perhaps you think that an organism is optional in a marriage,

you assume way to much and are building your arguement on a stereo-type.
Not solid ground wise man, you know nothing about me. Where do you get
"its just about planting a seed" from?

> but lets hope
> your wife doesn't get her hands on the kitchen knives. You should be
> concerned about other than yourself.


>
> >> Guilt is a means of control and making sure there are guilt
> >> levers to manipulate mormons with is what is created and perpetuated.
> >>
> >> Give up guilt and you see the world with new eyes.
> >
> > Give up. I think thats your main message.
>

> Well, it is a message. I don't feel guilty if I don't read the scriptures
> with the spirit of tears flowing down my face,

Who does?

>I don't feel guilty if I
> don't send birthday cards to everyone I home teach,

So someone who does that is what? Not Cool. Wrong. Evil. What is your
problem? You just need to spout of that you don't want to do anything for
anyone anymore and you are dang proud of it? Or just not for Mormons?

> I don't feel guilty if
> I don't jump up and volunteer for the closing pray if a volunteer is asked
> for,

same

> I don't feel guilty if I look at my wife and think, daaaaamn, what a
> babe without also concurrently thinking it's time to shoot for our 10th
> kid. Practice makes perfect they always say and I'm working on become a
> godly husband.

Oh cuz all Mormon family's have to have 10 kids. Right, now I see your
points. Very Valid. I have only one and plan to only have three. Do I feel
like I'm not doing my part or that there needs to be some limit on my sex
life with my wife after that. Big NO.

McSorley

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 1:47:24 PM10/7/03
to
In article <a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com>,
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:

Let's get the full picture first. I gave Duwayne many things I thought
met the definition. He dismissed a lot of them because they were
discussions of LDS doctrine, which he believes anyone could do. However,
he's got two problems:

1) Not everyone can discuss LDS doctrine the same way a prophet can,
because they do not carry the same weight. Duwayne has often
acknowledged this point, as when he calls me a "no-account" member whose
opinion does not matter. The prophet's discussion of doctrine carries a
weight that a "reasonably talented" person's discussion does not have.

2) If Duwayne, or anyone else, things they can discourse on doctrine at
the level of a prophet, go ahead. We'll do a blind reading test--write a
discourse on Zion, and we'll take that and some prophetic writings on
Zion, strip the names off all entries, and see how equal they are. Thus
we'll know better if anyone can do what prophets do when they discuss
LDS theology, as Duwayne believes is possible.


>
> Waiting .....
>

Keep waiting. I did my part, you did your subjective judgment part, so I
see no reason to go on. Your subjective judgment is really not all that
important in determining who is or is not a seer.

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 1:49:15 PM10/7/03
to
In article <a42139e3.0310...@posting.google.com>,
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:

> Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-7EA...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
> <snip>
> > I haven't seen a logical progression that bizarre since . . . well, my
> > last discussion with Duwayne (ooops. I said his name. Now he'll have to
> > respond to me).
> <snip>
>
> What's the matter, Jason? feeling stupid for using your circular "a
> prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" argument? Still have
> that frustrating urge to want to get even, but don't really know how?
>
> By the way, Jason. Did you ever disect the example Randy gave you?
>
> "The prophet only tells the truth when he's not lying."

Your continued misinterpretation of the statement boggles the mind.

Again, the point is that not everything said by a person who holds the
office of a prophet can be considered a prophetic utterance. It's a
simple concept. Your strained analogies (like the above statement)
continue to miss the point.

>
> Both are examples of the sort of circular logic that Mormons build
> their faith on.
>

Duwayne, if our discussions have shown one thing, it's that you have
absolutely no idea what I've built my faith on.

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 1:54:41 PM10/7/03
to
In article <20031006234025...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:

Ummmmm . . . that whole thing is about the character of Austin Cowles,
not William Law. Sorry. And if you're going to say "Law must've been
good to have a man like Cowles with him," you're going to open a whole
can of worms, because there were plenty of good men in LDS leadership
positions, too.

The Nauvoo Expositor did far than simply accuse JS of living in
adultery. Law clearly carried a grudge and it colored his writing.

All I'm saying is that not acknowledging Law's bitterness and simply
treating him as a crusader for truth is as inaccurate as portraying him
as a servant of Satan who made up lies out of whole cloth as part of a
vast conspiracy to bring the prophet down. Both views ignore the real
man.

€ R.L. Measures

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 1:58:20 PM10/7/03
to
In article <bltvrv$fman4$1...@ID-105978.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Andrew R"
<adr....@sarcastic.co.uk> wrote:

€ On 5 January, 1982, the Office of the First Presidency labled two
intimate activities that men and (especially) women take delight in as "an
unholy practice". [reference letter:
http://www.somis.org/hh.oral.html ]

cheers, Andrew R.

--
Rich, AG6K, 805-386-3734

Timpanogos

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 2:31:48 PM10/7/03
to
Guilt, the gift that keeps on giving.

So after 23 years, and the wife finds out that the Big O is something to be
sought and enjoyed - if Oral is immoral - what about those wonderful battery
driven rabbit ears - bad stuff I suppose?

Chad


"Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com...

googleplex

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 3:52:59 PM10/7/03
to

"Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com...
> The following article by a psychotherapist, former seminary teacher,
> institute instructor and bishop is an excellent read both for critics
> and TBMs:
>

It's not hard to see why he's a "former" teacher, instructor and bishop.


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 5:59:32 PM10/7/03
to
Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-43E...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
<snip>
> > So here is my challenge to Jason Hardy and Googleplex (and any other
> > Mormons, too). Post a single non-trivial, verifiable example of an
> > LDS leader who was able to:
> >
> > 1) Know of things which are past, and also of things which are to
> > come.
> > 2) Revealed all things
> > 3) Manifest secret things
> > 4) Brought hidden things to light
> > 5) Explained things that could not otherwise be known.
> >
> > Jason's latest excuse was based on a lie of his, to the effect that
> > I've not defined "non-trivial." In fact, the definition of
> > "non-trivial" is the same now as it was then. It's non-trivial if a
> > reasonably talented person couldn't do it.
> >
> > So, the challenge stands un-met. Care to take it, Mr. Googleplex?
>
> Let's get the full picture first. I gave Duwayne many things I thought
> met the definition.

None of them met the definition, Jason. They were all either trivial
or unverifiable.

Go ahead. Post e'm again.

> He dismissed a lot of them because they were
> discussions of LDS doctrine, which he believes anyone could do. However,
> he's got two problems:

Let's list the Book of Mormon seer test again for Jason:

So here is my challenge to Jason Hardy and Googleplex (and any other
Mormons, too). Post a single non-trivial, verifiable example of an
LDS leader who was able to:

1) Know of things which are past, and also of things which are to
come.
2) Revealed all things
3) Manifest secret things
4) Brought hidden things to light
5) Explained things that could not otherwise be known.

Still waiting for any non-trivial, verifiable evidence that any of
your prophets have ever done this stuff, Jason.

> 1) Not everyone can discuss LDS doctrine the same way a prophet can,
> because they do not carry the same weight.

Jason, can't you read? The Book of Mormon does not say "preach Mormon
doctrine." Let's summarize for you again:

Post a single non-trivial, verifiable example of an
LDS leader who was able to:

1) Know of things which are past, and also of things which are to
come.
2) Revealed all things
3) Manifest secret things
4) Brought hidden things to light
5) Explained things that could not otherwise be known.

Still waiting for any non-trivial, verifiable evidence that any of
your prophets have ever done this stuff, Jason.

Waiting... (no more excuses, Jason)

<snip to end>

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 6:17:13 PM10/7/03
to
Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-EB9...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...

> In article <a42139e3.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
>
> > Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-7EA...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
> > <snip>
> > > I haven't seen a logical progression that bizarre since . . . well, my
> > > last discussion with Duwayne (ooops. I said his name. Now he'll have to
> > > respond to me).
> > <snip>
> >
> > What's the matter, Jason? feeling stupid for using your circular "a
> > prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" argument? Still have
> > that frustrating urge to want to get even, but don't really know how?
> >
> > By the way, Jason. Did you ever disect the example Randy gave you?
> >
> > "The prophet only tells the truth when he's not lying."
>
> Your continued misinterpretation of the statement boggles the mind.

Your mind is clearly boggled. But using circular arguments will do
that, you know.

> Again, the point is that not everything said by a person who holds the
> office of a prophet can be considered a prophetic utterance.

Again, Jason feels HE has to reword it, for it to make sense. Which
is true. Because it does NOT make sense.

> It's a
> simple concept. Your strained analogies (like the above statement)
> continue to miss the point.

The simple concept is that Mormon prophets setup circular definitions
for their powers, and that Mormon followers have to restate it --
changing it -- for it to make sense.

Thanks for making that so clear, Jason.

> >
> > Both are examples of the sort of circular logic that Mormons build
> > their faith on.
> >
>
> Duwayne, if our discussions have shown one thing, it's that you have
> absolutely no idea what I've built my faith on.

Oh, it's clear. You've built it on circular thinking, denials, and
telling yourself it's just "opinion" when the LDS prophets say
something you don't like.

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 6:23:28 PM10/7/03
to
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20031006165910...@mb-m11.aol.com>...

Not until you mentioned it! The guy who talked about his Burning Man experience!

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 6:49:45 PM10/7/03
to
"McSorley" <miker...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<5dngb.391$YV5.1...@news.uswest.net>...

Self-control and fidelity are admirable virtues. The Church does
indeed emphasize these virtues, and I don't think you can say the
author is against their teaching. However, as the author points out,
over-emphasizing these things to the point where it is not uncommon
for a typical member to have serious issues with his/her own sexuality
is a significant abberation of the culture. This is not just
Mormonism, but true of most conservative religions.

We must give the Church credit for having made some progress in this
area since the 1960's, however there is still a lot of ground to cover
before the ideal balance of promotion of virtue and the vigorous,
guiltless embracing of one's personal sexuality is met.


Steve Lowther

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 7:34:46 PM10/7/03
to

> Any article with this sentence loses a few credibility points: "When

> First Presidency counselor William Law could no longer condone the
> secret practices and peculiar doctrines Smith was advocating, he
> publicly split with the prophet and along with others determined to
> expose the truth."
>
> This seems about as accurate as portraying him as a hand-twisting,
> mustache-twirling villain. William Law as valiant defender of truth is a
> hard to swallow image.

Why? After all according to the LDS view he was Joseph Smith's
counselor, chosen of the Lord, and a true confidant to the prophet who
I am sure you would attest had powers of discernment in this area of
William Law's goodness.

Did William Law fall? Why shouldn't we think that William Law wasn't
courageous in going with his conscience, giving up his very
prestigious standing among the Saints for the sake of principle? What
was it he stood to gain in doing this? He obviously knew he was
giving up a great deal.

William Law apparently believed in the words of D&C section 101
explicitly condemning polygamy and thought Joseph should as well. He
saw Joseph's actions (which included having other men's wives
according to a quote from Jedidiah Grant in the Journal of Discourses)
and Joseph's lying about those actions as overt opposition to
righteousness. At least at first I think we can be confident he hoped
that Joseph would abandon polygamy and repent of what he saw as an
insidious evil in direct violation of the BoM and the D&C, and even
the ten commandments.

What was William Law's crime? That he betrayed his loyalty to Joseph?
If he remained loyal to someone whom he saw as practicing and
promoting adultery, and publically lying about that adultery, would he
not have been less virtuous?


Steve Lowther

Mike W

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 7:45:54 PM10/7/03
to
> "Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com...

> The following article by a psychotherapist, former seminary teacher,

I've been told Mormon guilt palls before Catholic guilt or Jewish guilt.
Seriously, the only reason one might not feel guilty after embracing this
URL's language is because it's so fresh, new and fashionable you just don't
know that it might all be wrong. So the APA meets annually to describe our
possessions, our insanities once again. Ummm... y'know this stuff isn't
really science, right? It's all so cold and clinical though... it's easy to
get taken in.

You'd think First World guilt wouldn't be screaming back at us -- what the
hell are we whining about, now?!?! Oh, Gawd!!! Be mad, be insane and screw
those families royally, we're too rich to be any other way

Mike


Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 8:27:42 PM10/7/03
to
> In article <9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com>,
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
>
> > The following article by a psychotherapist, former seminary teacher,
> > institute instructor and bishop is an excellent read both for critics
> > and TBMs:
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2kvi
> >
> >
> > Comments?
>
> "In my teaching experience in various settings in the church I've
> discovered many contemporary members of the church are surprised to
> learn that Joseph Smith was married to anyone other than Emma! "
>
> Two responses: A) Most of the members I associate regularly know Smith
> had mutliple wives. It may be argued that my experience is anecdotal, but
> so is that of the author.

I guess so is my experience. The church does not devote much time to
Joseph's plural wives. However, I think you will agree Emma does
receive much more than most early sisters. Perhaps Eliza Snow comes
in a distant second, but how often is it omitted that she was Joseph's
plural wife?

Note the author did not quantify his statement with a "most" as you
did. Note both his statement and yours (since you used "most") can
both be true.



> B) Lack of historical knowledge seems to be an American, not just an
> LDS, characteristic. Thus, the reasons for people not knowing JS'
> history could be part of a larger American trend rather than an attempt
> to whitewash LDS history.

True, it is an American characteristic. However, it cannot be denied
that the brethren, Boyd K Packer in particular, distrust historians.
Have you read the seminary text book on the History of the Church?
This is supposed to be a scholarly rendition of Church History. How
many of the myriad uncomplimentary historical facts do you find in
there? Why that book even whitewashes Joseph's involvement in the
Illegal Kirtland banking activities, his polyandry, his treasure
hunting, or even the Saint's involvement in plundering in Missouri.

Surely you are not saying that the "faithful history" handed down by
the Church is anywhere near a balanced history.


Steve Lowther

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 9:18:58 PM10/7/03
to
> Here's another interesting line: "To many, Smith was hailed as a martyr.
> Others knew him as an obvious fraud and scoundrel exploiting his
> position of power to gain control over others and the sexual favor of
> many."
>
> Note how the latter view, in the author's style is given waaay more
> credibility than the martyr view. That speaks loads about the author's
> bias.

The whole article has a bias. The author likewise displays a Jungian
bias. You and I both display our biases as does any human being who
writes a substantiated opinion.

Now how often do you object when an LDS general authority displays an
LDS bias?


> "Historically, official statements from the church have consistently
> failed to validate or recognize the positive aspects of sexuality. "
>
> Inaccurate. Here's a selection:
>
> łin the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is
> right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about
> sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process
> of creation and in an expression of love˛ (The Teachings of Spencer W.
> Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, p.
> 311). Quoted in General Conference by Dallin H. Oaks, 3 October 1993.

Come on, Jason. This is about as sterile an approach to human
sexuality as can be written. It makes having sex sound like a pious
ceremony. It is procreation to the tune of "Onward Christian
Soldiers".

> "Chastity before marriage and faithfulness after marriage are cardinal
> ingredients for the full flowering of sacred love between husband and
> wife. Chastity nurtures and builds feelings of self-worth and
> indemnifies against the destruction of self-image." --James E. Faust,
> General Conference, April 1981.

Geez, Jason. He even managed to avoid the "S" word. This is not a
statement of the joys of sex in marriage, it is a warning, a setting
of boundaries. It is poor attempt as a validation of marital
sexuality.

These excerpts sterilize human sexuality by emphasizing bounds at the
cost of suppressing the reality of pleasure or even tumenscence. It
avoids the pleasure factor completely, instead somehow trying to paint
a picture of dignified procreation.

Should bounds be set? Absolutely when addressing fidelity! But these
words portray permission rather than celebrating human sexuality. One
gets the feeling of a pragmatic approach -- "You gotta encourage them
to breed, that's a major source of little Mormons!"

The underlying tone of these words makes it seem if a husband and wife
could somehow procreate without an orgasm to avoid "lust", it would be
better. You can bet that these authors would have found any
meaningful expansion on the subject of human sexuality degrading.

Can you imagine the basic words of human sexuality such as "penis",
"vagina", or even "orgasm" ever spoken publically by a Church leader,
even in a class on marital relations? Why not? Because it would be
"degrading"!

> The fact that the author ignored these parts of a talk he was claiming
> to reference is a critical error.
>
> "In my experience, shame, or applied guilt is a very poor motivator to
> change behavior. Sometimes, applied guilt can help control others for a
> period of time, but I don't believe it ultimately fosters long term
> resolution, or growth."
>
> Exactly right. A full reading of Elder Holland's talk, though, shows
> that the prime motive he is using is not shame, but rather of gaining an
> understanding of sex's place in Heavenly Father's plan--when we
> appreciate the gift, we'll treat it well. That's quite different from
> the shame approach the author is deriding--and more effective.

The shame involved with human sexuality plays much louder even in
background strains than what you seem to be willing to admit, Jason.

>
> "I personally believe I have had better success dealing with this
> difficult issue through openness, honesty, and using positive influences
> that recognize the worth of each individual, and the pervasiveness of
> the behavior."
>
> A good approach. More members of the church should use it. The fact that
> not everyone does, though, is more representative of personal failings
> and not understanding how to deal with person than a reflection on
> church teachings. We find this failing throughout humanity, in all
> religious denominations--and non-denominations, too.

This sounds rather like a "well, everybody else does it" kind of
argument. If it is valid criticism why attempt to deflect it?

> "Voyeuristic, probing bishop's interviews, rather than helping to
> relieve shame, often profoundly increase it. "
>
> Again, the author's bias flashes out. "Voyeuristic"? Please. That's not
> the intent of bishop's interviews. Most bishops as I know aren't
> thrilled to talk about sexual indiscretions, but they have a sense of
> duty--of helping a person repent. Confession is for the benefit of the
> confessor, not for the thrill of the listener, and to throw the "voyeur"
> label around demonstrates exactly the type of immaturity toward
> sexuality the author is trying to condemn.

I think you may be unwilling to admit to the multiple facets of the
typical bishop's personality. Of course many find it uncomfortable.
But that is not to say that a part of them does not also finds it
titillating.

Maybe "voyeuristic" has too much charge to it for your taste. Are
such questions voyeuristic? Of course they are in that they provide a
mental sexual picture for the questioner. Males seem to be naturally
voyeurs. I know mental sexual imagery is a large part of my own
sexuality and I would be surprised if you would deny it is not a large
part of yours.

What does the ethical mental health practioner, Catholic priest, LDS
bishop do when aspects of the discussion become voyeuristic? I would
hope he would apply enough self-discipline to focus on the therapy
benefitting the subject. One can never hope for an asexual therapist,
and in truth however infintisimal, there will be some degree of
arousal. Hell, I am attracted to some degree even to the very word
"female".

I think the author's point is that this type of questioning is not
necessary for the benefit of the confessor. To deny it has any
voyeuristic qualities I think is rather naive.


Steve Lowther

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 9:47:26 PM10/7/03
to

> "A natural question arises: why the need to wear the holy garment during

> sleep time? Mormons are taught that the garment is a protection to them.
> It seems obvious that a deduction many members consciously or
> unconsciously make is that the garment worn at night may protect them
> from sexual thoughts or behaviors. This contributes significantly to the
> undermining of sexual thought necessary for normal sexual response."
>
> I haven't seen a logical progression that bizarre since . . . well, my
> last discussion with Duwayne (ooops. I said his name. Now he'll have to
> respond to me).

It is not so bizarre. Do you find garments sexy? Of course not.

Many non-LDS couples regularly sleep in the nude together. At any
rate you it would not be easy find a woman who regularly retires in
night clothes that dampen the libido more than garments do.

Now for guys, if they sleep in boxer shorts and a Tee shirt, then you
have a rough equivalent to garments. Thankfully women don't generally
find visual stimulation as necessary as men do.

> It really is a strawman argument--he sets up his own reason why wearing
> the garment at night might be important, then ridicules it. But that's
> not the reason. The reason for wearing it at night is simple--that's
> what you promised to do. Why? As a reminder of your covenants. _That's_
> the protection the garments offer--it's not mystical hocus-pocus (urban
> legends of people burned on every part of their body except where their
> garments covered notwithstanding), but a simple, obvious reminder of
> promises you've made and reasons for making them. It has nothing to do
> with controlling your dreams, and no one I know would believe that such
> dreams constitute sin, anyway. This is just a ridiculous point.

Sorry, Jason, the "reason" for wearing the garment at night is not
germane to his point. For whatever reason a person wears the temple
garment, sexual activity must be engaged in spite of it. That is the
point.

<snip>

> The big concern I have here, Steve, is that you labelled this
> "insightful" and a "must-read." You have spoken often of what you call
> the "Mormon Denial Mechanism," which you claim is necessary for church
> membership--you explain it as a mechanism to ignore things that are
> inconsistent or out-of-step in LDS theology and history. Yet this
> article contains open statements of bias and mis-characterizations of
> LDS position, and it gets a free pass. There's not supposed to be an
> Anti-Mormon Denial Mechanism, is there?

I don't think you have made clear what it is I am denying here. Is
there a bias? Of course there is. But the value in the article is
that he points out some bonafide problems that must be worked around
within the context of LDS culture. He is not requiring or advocating
the abandonment of Mormonism, even if he has in his personal life.

For example, the temple garments simply do not enhance sexuality as
other night attire may. That can be a damper on sexual expression.
Does that mean he advocates abandoning wearing the garment at night
because of this problem? No, it doesn't seem to me he would recommend
that to his LDS patients. Instead, from what I get from him, it is
something that would need to be addressed from a different approach in
enhancing sexuality if wearing the garment is causing problems in a
couple's sexual relationship.

But I don't see many LDS couples willing to admit the temple garment
contributes to the problem, even if it does. Do you?

That is the denial I am addressing.


Steve Lowther

Goner

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:05:43 AM10/8/03
to
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:47:24 -0600, Jason Hardy wrote
(in message
<JasnkatNOSPAM-43E...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>):


When do you know when the prophet is acting as a prophet? When do you know
when he is discussing doctrine, or just giving his opinion?


--
Best,
don m
Goner at Dangerous1.com

Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be
annulled in behalf of a single petitioner
confessedly unworthy.
[Ambrose Bierce]

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:03:58 AM10/8/03
to
In article <blt66a$bt4$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>,
"Peggy Tatyana" <proger...@xmission.com> wrote:

When we get down to individual level, evidence becomes anecdotal--my
experience is quite different from yours, and I'd heard plenty about the
value of two-parent families. Neither mine nor your individual
experience proves much, though, since both are anecdotal. The question
is if public statements from church leaders support the positive side of
sexuality, and I believe they do.

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:08:36 AM10/8/03
to
In article <a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com>,
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:

Two part question for you:

1) You have often accused me of lying when I say you claim everything a
prophet teaches is doctrine. Do you or do you not believe everything a
prophet says in public is LDS doctrine?

2) If the answer to the above is "no," how do you, Duwayne, pick what
counts as LDS doctrine and what does not?

These questions are not intended to be a trap in anyway. I'm sick of
going around in circles, so I'm trying to get some kind of groundwork
established.

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:16:04 AM10/8/03
to

> Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-7EA...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> > "A natural question arises: why the need to wear the holy garment during
> > sleep time? Mormons are taught that the garment is a protection to them.
> > It seems obvious that a deduction many members consciously or
> > unconsciously make is that the garment worn at night may protect them
> > from sexual thoughts or behaviors. This contributes significantly to the
> > undermining of sexual thought necessary for normal sexual response."
> >
> > I haven't seen a logical progression that bizarre since . . . well, my
> > last discussion with Duwayne (ooops. I said his name. Now he'll have to
> > respond to me).
>
> It is not so bizarre. Do you find garments sexy? Of course not.
>
> Many non-LDS couples regularly sleep in the nude together. At any
> rate you it would not be easy find a woman who regularly retires in
> night clothes that dampen the libido more than garments do.

This does not seem to be the argument the author is making. After all,
there is no need to be protected from sexual thoughts about one's
spouse. If that protection is needed, he must be talking about something
else.

>
> Now for guys, if they sleep in boxer shorts and a Tee shirt, then you
> have a rough equivalent to garments. Thankfully women don't generally
> find visual stimulation as necessary as men do.
>
>
> > It really is a strawman argument--he sets up his own reason why wearing
> > the garment at night might be important, then ridicules it. But that's
> > not the reason. The reason for wearing it at night is simple--that's
> > what you promised to do. Why? As a reminder of your covenants. _That's_
> > the protection the garments offer--it's not mystical hocus-pocus (urban
> > legends of people burned on every part of their body except where their
> > garments covered notwithstanding), but a simple, obvious reminder of
> > promises you've made and reasons for making them. It has nothing to do
> > with controlling your dreams, and no one I know would believe that such
> > dreams constitute sin, anyway. This is just a ridiculous point.
>
> Sorry, Jason, the "reason" for wearing the garment at night is not
> germane to his point. For whatever reason a person wears the temple
> garment, sexual activity must be engaged in spite of it. That is the
> point.

The garment was never meant to discourage sexual activity between a man
and wife. Indeed, it's clear that removing the garment for such things
(among other activities) is acceptable. The question about keeping it on
at night, then, has little to do with whether you're having sex with
your spouse, or thinking about having sex with your spouse. It's a false
path.

>
> <snip>
>
> > The big concern I have here, Steve, is that you labelled this
> > "insightful" and a "must-read." You have spoken often of what you call
> > the "Mormon Denial Mechanism," which you claim is necessary for church
> > membership--you explain it as a mechanism to ignore things that are
> > inconsistent or out-of-step in LDS theology and history. Yet this
> > article contains open statements of bias and mis-characterizations of
> > LDS position, and it gets a free pass. There's not supposed to be an
> > Anti-Mormon Denial Mechanism, is there?
>
> I don't think you have made clear what it is I am denying here. Is
> there a bias? Of course there is. But the value in the article is
> that he points out some bonafide problems that must be worked around
> within the context of LDS culture. He is not requiring or advocating
> the abandonment of Mormonism, even if he has in his personal life.

The problem is accepting his presentation of what LDS leaders say,
especially Elder Holland, at face value. He gets a free pass when he
says LDS leaders do not talk about the positive side of sexuality, when
in fact they do. The foundations of his analysis are quite shaky, which
makes his conclusions weak as well.

>
> For example, the temple garments simply do not enhance sexuality as
> other night attire may. That can be a damper on sexual expression.
> Does that mean he advocates abandoning wearing the garment at night
> because of this problem? No, it doesn't seem to me he would recommend
> that to his LDS patients. Instead, from what I get from him, it is
> something that would need to be addressed from a different approach in
> enhancing sexuality if wearing the garment is causing problems in a
> couple's sexual relationship.
>
> But I don't see many LDS couples willing to admit the temple garment
> contributes to the problem, even if it does. Do you?
>
> That is the denial I am addressing.

Ah. So you assume the garments _must_ cause a sexual problem, then when
you don't find couples who'll cop to your assumption, you assume they're
in denial?

How about questioning the assumption? Are garments sexy lingerie? No. Do
I find them inhibiting my attraction to my wife? No (sorry if I'm giving
too much info). There has never, ever been a time where I've looked at
my wife with lustful thoughts stirring, seen her in garments, and
thought "Ugh. No thanks."

That's just the way it is. I don't think the assumption that garments
are there to be a sexual turn off is valid.

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:33:48 AM10/8/03
to
Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-5C1...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...


>
> The Nauvoo Expositor did far than simply accuse JS of living in
> adultery. Law clearly carried a grudge and it colored his writing.
>
> All I'm saying is that not acknowledging Law's bitterness and simply
> treating him as a crusader for truth is as inaccurate as portraying him
> as a servant of Satan who made up lies out of whole cloth as part of a
> vast conspiracy to bring the prophet down. Both views ignore the real
> man.

In reading the Expositor, it seemed to me there was far more truth
than hyperbole. By far the main accusation was Joseph Smith's
polygyny and polyandry. If it weren't true, it is very unlikely Smith
would have reacted as violently as he did. We have Brigham Young and
his campaign to prove that Joseph was a polygamist to thank in
substantiating much of the Expositor's claims.

In the passages of the Expositor we discussed in the past on this
newsgroup, Woody and others were hard put to find passages that
strained credibility without straining their own. For example Woody
referred to the Expositor reference to female converts who came from
the "ends of the earth" must by definition be from Asia, and that
missionaries were not proselyting in Asia at that time. Therefore the
Expositor was a lie.

Victorian rhetoric at that time was flowery and dramatic, and some
license must be given for that. We also must concede that William Law
as Joseph Smith's counselor had information that the historian may not
have access to today, and would be difficult to verify. But having
said that, there is precious little that can be said is over the top,
and I think even you would have to agree with that.

Steve Lowther

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:37:11 AM10/8/03
to
"googleplex" <goo...@plex.com> wrote in message news:<cs2dnYEkGv_...@aros.net>...
> Oh freaking no!! Is Duwayne, the walking and talking straw man argument, at
> it again? This is the moron who sets up a strawman (his extreme version of
> what he says "Mormons believe") and then ridicules it. Basically he is
> ridiculing himself.

Such accusation demands substantiation, no? Let's have it.


Steve Lowther

Goner

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:40:38 AM10/8/03
to
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:34:46 -0600, Fool Speck wrote
(in message <9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com>):


> What was William Law's crime?

That Smith had no discernment?

--
Best,
don m
Goner at Dangerous1.com

"In fact, when you get right down to it, almost
every explanation Man came up with for *anything*
until about 1926 was stupid."
Dave Barry

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:40:13 AM10/8/03
to

> Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-7EA...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Here's another interesting line: "To many, Smith was hailed as a martyr.
> > Others knew him as an obvious fraud and scoundrel exploiting his
> > position of power to gain control over others and the sexual favor of
> > many."
> >
> > Note how the latter view, in the author's style is given waaay more
> > credibility than the martyr view. That speaks loads about the author's
> > bias.
>
> The whole article has a bias. The author likewise displays a Jungian
> bias. You and I both display our biases as does any human being who
> writes a substantiated opinion.
>
> Now how often do you object when an LDS general authority displays an
> LDS bias?

I don't, because I always assume that's what they're doing and know it's
coming. I object when an article is presented as objective research,
both by its author and by you, when it's not.

>
>
> > "Historically, official statements from the church have consistently
> > failed to validate or recognize the positive aspects of sexuality. "
> >
> > Inaccurate. Here's a selection:
> >
> > łin the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is
> > right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about
> > sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process
> > of creation and in an expression of love˛ (The Teachings of Spencer W.
> > Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, p.
> > 311). Quoted in General Conference by Dallin H. Oaks, 3 October 1993.
>
> Come on, Jason. This is about as sterile an approach to human
> sexuality as can be written. It makes having sex sound like a pious
> ceremony. It is procreation to the tune of "Onward Christian
> Soldiers".

Well, part of sex is actually a religious ceremony, but you have to
remember the context--this is a church teaching, not a sex education
manual. It presents sex positively.

>
> > "Chastity before marriage and faithfulness after marriage are cardinal
> > ingredients for the full flowering of sacred love between husband and
> > wife. Chastity nurtures and builds feelings of self-worth and
> > indemnifies against the destruction of self-image." --James E. Faust,
> > General Conference, April 1981.
>
> Geez, Jason. He even managed to avoid the "S" word. This is not a
> statement of the joys of sex in marriage, it is a warning, a setting
> of boundaries. It is poor attempt as a validation of marital
> sexuality.

You're harping on word choice. He says it's a "full flowering of sacred
love," and you don't think that's a statement of joy? Are there a lot of
_unhappy_ full flowerings of love out there?

>
<snip>


> >
> > That sounds like a positive aspect of sexuality, doesn't it?
> > Later he adds: " Suffice it to say that of all the titles God has chosen
> > for Himself, Father is the one He favors most, and creation is His
> > watchword--especially human creation, creation in His image. You and I
> > have been given something of that godliness, but under the most serious
> > and sacred of restrictions."
> >
> > Again, sex is shown as a godly power--a good thing.
> >
>
> These excerpts sterilize human sexuality by emphasizing bounds at the
> cost of suppressing the reality of pleasure or even tumenscence. It
> avoids the pleasure factor completely, instead somehow trying to paint
> a picture of dignified procreation.

It doesn't avoid the pleasure factor, but rather adds to it--emphasizing
that sex isn't just about pleasure.

And we have to remember the culture the messages are given in. Do we
live in a culture where there's a shortage of messages about the
pleasures of sex? Mmmmmm--no. Do we live in a culture where there's a
shortage of messages about the responsible uses of sex? You bet. The
public remarks are focused where the need is.

>
> Should bounds be set? Absolutely when addressing fidelity! But these
> words portray permission rather than celebrating human sexuality. One
> gets the feeling of a pragmatic approach -- "You gotta encourage them
> to breed, that's a major source of little Mormons!"

One does if one focuses on only parts, and ignores others, which is the
whole problem. Let me sharpen the focus a little and pull out some
select words about sex from these talks:

" the expression of the sacred procreative powers in all their
loveliness and beauty"

"the full flowering of sacred love"

" these powerful and beautiful feelings of love. . .


bind husband and wife together"

This is more than pragmatic--it recognizes the beauty of the act. Does
it come right out and say "Woooooo! Sex is really fun!"? No. This is
church we're talking about for--a certain amount of taste is called for.
And, as I mentioned, it's not as if the pleasure aspect of sex is
getting short shrift in the world at large.

>
> The underlying tone of these words makes it seem if a husband and wife
> could somehow procreate without an orgasm to avoid "lust", it would be
> better. You can bet that these authors would have found any
> meaningful expansion on the subject of human sexuality degrading.

That's an extension of arguments that just aren't there. There is
nothing that can be construed as orgasm avoidance in the talks.

>
> Can you imagine the basic words of human sexuality such as "penis",
> "vagina", or even "orgasm" ever spoken publically by a Church leader,
> even in a class on marital relations? Why not? Because it would be
> "degrading"!

No. Because this is church.

Let me give another example. I expect to here a lot in church about
compassion, and taking care of the poor, but I don't expect to here the
words "progressive income tax" or anything like it. Church speaks to our
spiritual side. That doesn't mean we don't have other sides, or that we
shouldn't learn about those other sides, it just means church is
concerned about our spirit. Thus, discussions of sex are not sex
education classes teaching us to have better orgasms in detail. There's
places we can go if we want to learn that. They teach us how to deal
positively with the spiritual side of sex.

>
> > The fact that the author ignored these parts of a talk he was claiming
> > to reference is a critical error.
> >
> > "In my experience, shame, or applied guilt is a very poor motivator to
> > change behavior. Sometimes, applied guilt can help control others for a
> > period of time, but I don't believe it ultimately fosters long term
> > resolution, or growth."
> >
> > Exactly right. A full reading of Elder Holland's talk, though, shows
> > that the prime motive he is using is not shame, but rather of gaining an
> > understanding of sex's place in Heavenly Father's plan--when we
> > appreciate the gift, we'll treat it well. That's quite different from
> > the shame approach the author is deriding--and more effective.
>
> The shame involved with human sexuality plays much louder even in
> background strains than what you seem to be willing to admit, Jason.

Or than I actually feel. Again, your going on assumptions. Your
conclusion that the church is emphasizes shame and repression in
teaching about sex. I'm a member of the church, so my teachings must
have contained this emphasis, and if I'm not willing to admit this
emphasis, I'm in denial.

But what if I really don't feel your conclusion is valid? What if I
think my experience goes against your conclusion? Do we just whip out
the ol' MDM, or do we re-examine the conclusion?

>
> >
> > "I personally believe I have had better success dealing with this
> > difficult issue through openness, honesty, and using positive influences
> > that recognize the worth of each individual, and the pervasiveness of
> > the behavior."
> >
> > A good approach. More members of the church should use it. The fact that
> > not everyone does, though, is more representative of personal failings
> > and not understanding how to deal with person than a reflection on
> > church teachings. We find this failing throughout humanity, in all
> > religious denominations--and non-denominations, too.
>
> This sounds rather like a "well, everybody else does it" kind of
> argument. If it is valid criticism why attempt to deflect it?

Because valid criticism is fine, but it works best when it's targeted
correctly. For example, I could point out weaknesses in the property tax
system in Chicago until I get blue in the face, but if I then blame the
shortcomings on the federal government, nothing will change because I
missed the locus of the problem. I think the problem is with the members
who don't do a good enough job teaching at the local level.

>
> > "Voyeuristic, probing bishop's interviews, rather than helping to
> > relieve shame, often profoundly increase it. "
> >
> > Again, the author's bias flashes out. "Voyeuristic"? Please. That's not
> > the intent of bishop's interviews. Most bishops as I know aren't
> > thrilled to talk about sexual indiscretions, but they have a sense of
> > duty--of helping a person repent. Confession is for the benefit of the
> > confessor, not for the thrill of the listener, and to throw the "voyeur"
> > label around demonstrates exactly the type of immaturity toward
> > sexuality the author is trying to condemn.
>
> I think you may be unwilling to admit to the multiple facets of the
> typical bishop's personality. Of course many find it uncomfortable.
> But that is not to say that a part of them does not also finds it
> titillating.

This is weak. So maybe a "part" of their mind finds it titillating--but
all minds are divided to certain degrees. Does the fact that a part of
our mind does something inappropriate mean an entire activity should be
cast in that light? If you're having a conversation with your
siginficant other, and most of you is attentive and caring, but a small
part of your mind is thinking "I'd like to watch some football now,"
should that conversation be cast as a "boring, non-football-related
talk."

No. We need to look at the general tenor of the interview. By using
"voyeuristic" as the lead adjective, the author is portraying that as
the dominant theme of the interviews, not just something that a part of
the mind may be thinking. That makes it inaccurate.

>
> Maybe "voyeuristic" has too much charge to it for your taste. Are
> such questions voyeuristic? Of course they are in that they provide a
> mental sexual picture for the questioner. Males seem to be naturally
> voyeurs. I know mental sexual imagery is a large part of my own
> sexuality and I would be surprised if you would deny it is not a large
> part of yours.

Again, we need to look at the purpose. The point of the interview is not
to provide these pictures, so using "Voyeuristic" as the lead adjective
is inaccurate.

>
> What does the ethical mental health practioner, Catholic priest, LDS
> bishop do when aspects of the discussion become voyeuristic? I would
> hope he would apply enough self-discipline to focus on the therapy
> benefitting the subject. One can never hope for an asexual therapist,
> and in truth however infintisimal, there will be some degree of
> arousal. Hell, I am attracted to some degree even to the very word
> "female".
>
> I think the author's point is that this type of questioning is not
> necessary for the benefit of the confessor. To deny it has any
> voyeuristic qualities I think is rather naive.
>

Does it have voyeuristic threads sometimes? Absolutely. All the time?
Absolutely not. Most of the time? Who knows? But I doubt it.

The interesting thing is the article is coming from a psychiatric
background. A good deal of psychiatric treatment focuses on getting a
patient to open up about themselves, to talk about their actions,
examine them, and see what's helping them and what's not. A psychiatrist
does it, and it's therapy. A bishop asks someone to discuss their
actions and think about them, and it's voyeurism. Is there a double
standard?

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:42:39 AM10/8/03
to

Which makes his claims of active suppression of information suspect if
it's getting out so easily.

>
> > B) Lack of historical knowledge seems to be an American, not just an
> > LDS, characteristic. Thus, the reasons for people not knowing JS'
> > history could be part of a larger American trend rather than an attempt
> > to whitewash LDS history.
>
> True, it is an American characteristic. However, it cannot be denied
> that the brethren, Boyd K Packer in particular, distrust historians.
> Have you read the seminary text book on the History of the Church?
> This is supposed to be a scholarly rendition of Church History. How
> many of the myriad uncomplimentary historical facts do you find in
> there? Why that book even whitewashes Joseph's involvement in the
> Illegal Kirtland banking activities, his polyandry, his treasure
> hunting, or even the Saint's involvement in plundering in Missouri.
>
> Surely you are not saying that the "faithful history" handed down by
> the Church is anywhere near a balanced history.
>

Church history certainly emphasizes certain elements at the expense of
others. Anti history does the same, in reverse. I'm not claiming
anyone's perfect here--I'm just pointing out that the problem may have a
different locus than the author suspects.

Jason Hardy

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:47:47 AM10/8/03
to

> Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-7EA...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> > Any article with this sentence loses a few credibility points: "When
> > First Presidency counselor William Law could no longer condone the
> > secret practices and peculiar doctrines Smith was advocating, he
> > publicly split with the prophet and along with others determined to
> > expose the truth."
> >
> > This seems about as accurate as portraying him as a hand-twisting,
> > mustache-twirling villain. William Law as valiant defender of truth is a
> > hard to swallow image.
>
> Why? After all according to the LDS view he was Joseph Smith's
> counselor, chosen of the Lord, and a true confidant to the prophet who
> I am sure you would attest had powers of discernment in this area of
> William Law's goodness.

Please don't attribute beliefs to me.

JS believed William Law was a good man. Whether that was prophetic
discernment or not is not for me to say at the moment. However, it is
patently clear that people can be good for a while and then not so good.

And this argument works in reverse. What did William Law say about JS
when they were getting along? He obviously thought he was good. So if
William Law, who you say was a good man, said JS was a good man, then .
. .

You see where the argument gets into trouble?

>
> Did William Law fall? Why shouldn't we think that William Law wasn't
> courageous in going with his conscience, giving up his very
> prestigious standing among the Saints for the sake of principle? What
> was it he stood to gain in doing this? He obviously knew he was
> giving up a great deal.

I'm not going to speculate about William Law's motives at the moment,
but for any person in power at any given time, you can find a thousand
different people attacking him/her for a thousand different reasons,
some good, some not. Simply attacking someone in a way that puts you at
risk is no guarantee of virtue.

>
> William Law apparently believed in the words of D&C section 101
> explicitly condemning polygamy and thought Joseph should as well. He
> saw Joseph's actions (which included having other men's wives
> according to a quote from Jedidiah Grant in the Journal of Discourses)
> and Joseph's lying about those actions as overt opposition to
> righteousness. At least at first I think we can be confident he hoped
> that Joseph would abandon polygamy and repent of what he saw as an
> insidious evil in direct violation of the BoM and the D&C, and even
> the ten commandments.
>
> What was William Law's crime? That he betrayed his loyalty to Joseph?
> If he remained loyal to someone whom he saw as practicing and
> promoting adultery, and publically lying about that adultery, would he
> not have been less virtuous?

Have you read the Nauvoo Expositor? The question is how much of that is
true, since it accuses JS of more than ploygamy. If it's all true, then
fine, he's quite a crusader. If it's not . . .

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 1:08:53 AM10/8/03
to
Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-43E...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...


> 1) Not everyone can discuss LDS doctrine the same way a prophet can,
> because they do not carry the same weight.

"Do not carry the same weight"? Of course they don't, for this
"weight" comes from the collective agreement of the subject people.
It has nothing to do with the validity of the discussion. If you
convince a group of people that the earth is flat, the group agreement
would give the flat earther more "weight", but it hardly in any sense
be considered a standard of truth.

<snip>

> 2) If Duwayne, or anyone else, things they can discourse on doctrine at
> the level of a prophet, go ahead. We'll do a blind reading test--write a
> discourse on Zion, and we'll take that and some prophetic writings on
> Zion, strip the names off all entries, and see how equal they are. Thus
> we'll know better if anyone can do what prophets do when they discuss
> LDS theology, as Duwayne believes is possible.

This argument is disingenuous at best, Jason. The task you are
proposing could never be measured in any meaningful, objective way.
What would you do, take a vote among the Mormons who read it? All you
could do would be some kind of meaningless conformity straw poll.

Just the sheer magnitude of the task would make it undoable, never
mind the standards of objectivity. It seems one who endorses such a
test is counting on the protection of sheer volume and indefinable
objectivity standards. In short, this is not unlike some of the
volume tactics used by some of the contributors to FARMS.

> Keep waiting. I did my part, you did your subjective judgment part, so I
> see no reason to go on. Your subjective judgment is really not all that
> important in determining who is or is not a seer.

I think you know very well that you are being "tricky" here. All you
did was throw up a meaningless obstacle, far too irrelevant to measure
prophetic powers as defined in the BoM. Generating doctrinal
discourses (like Brigham Young's Adam-God discourses?) is simply not
one of the criteria the BoM defined.


Steve Lowther

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 1:25:29 AM10/8/03
to
"googleplex" <goo...@plex.com> wrote in message news:<deidnb8Hx_A...@aros.net>...

Yes, you are right. Furthermore, it is a shame that such typical
condescending attitudes as you expressed may preclude contributions
from people who can provide workable solutions to some very real
problems in a subculture known for its uncommonly high usage of
antidepressants.

But that is yet another LDS cultural problem, isn't it? Oh, well,
C'est la vie!


Steve Lowther

father of peace

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 1:32:26 AM10/8/03
to

>> Each couple has to discover that joy for themselves after throwing off the
>> bindings of Mormonism, a process that I expect most mormon couples never
>> fully achieve.

>What the hell? Masterbation does not help make sex for better couples.

I was once married to an LdS woman who wouldn't masturbate
nor anything like unto it... which meant in practice that she could
not move while having sex, that she had to lie perfectly still
at all times, and be passive at all times during sex... It was
like making love to a sack of potatoes. We'd have been much
better of if she masturbated once in a while, if only while we were
together.

Love,
Absalom


--
http://absalom.com/mormon/home.html

father of peace

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 1:43:47 AM10/8/03
to

>It was lesson 34 from the Young Woman Manual 1,
>called "Worthy Thoughts." A lot of it was based on Boyd K. Packer's famous
>talk from 1967 about how, when you start to think about things you
>shouldn't, the solution is to sing or hum a favorite hymn. (But we all know
>what happened to Absalom when he followed that advice!)

I can't even hear a church hymn these days without getting
aroused.

>Happens, I don't agree with Gardiner that it's our polygamous past that has
>led us into this dire situation,

I think it has more to do with the church being organized originally
in the Northwest united states with it's victorian era Christsianity.

Fool Speck

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 1:45:21 AM10/8/03
to
"Andrew R" <adr....@sarcastic.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bltvrv$fman4$1...@ID-105978.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> <ancient_lights_and_perf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> <SNIP>

>
> > I don't think they really care that much that
> > they are ruining the beauty of marriage and destroying the joy of
> intimacy.
> > Each couple has to discover that joy for themselves after throwing off the
> > bindings of Mormonism, a process that I expect most mormon couples never
> > fully achieve. Guilt is a means of control and making sure there are
> guilt
> > levers to manipulate mormons with is what is created and perpetuated.
> >
>
> Could you please explain what you mean by, "ruining the beauty of marriage

> and destroying the joy of intimacy."
>
> I was brought up in the Church, my wife, with her family, joined the Church
> at age 10. We married at the age of 20 and have been married for 18 years. I
> fully believe in the "beauty of marriage" and "the joy of intimacy".
>
> Andrew R.

If the both of you find your sex lives fulfilling, then there is no
problem. You are to be congratulated in avoiding an all too common
pitfall mental health professionals find themselves dealing with in
LDS marriages.

Other couples who do find something lacking often times find
themselves trying to avoid lusting after one another while still
trying to nurture their sexual relationship.

Many find a lack of fulfillment in "pious sex".


Steve Lowther

€ R.L. Measures

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 9:43:45 AM10/8/03
to
In article
<JasnkatNOSPAM-EB9...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>, Jason
Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote:

> In article <a42139e3.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
>

> > Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message

> > news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-7EA...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
> > <snip>


> > > I haven't seen a logical progression that bizarre since . . . well, my
> > > last discussion with Duwayne (ooops. I said his name. Now he'll have to
> > > respond to me).

> > <snip>
> >
> > What's the matter, Jason? feeling stupid for using your circular "a
> > prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" argument? Still have
> > that frustrating urge to want to get even, but don't really know how?
> >
> > By the way, Jason. Did you ever disect the example Randy gave you?
> >
> > "The prophet only tells the truth when he's not lying."
>
> Your continued misinterpretation of the statement boggles the mind.
>

> Again, the point is that not everything said by a person who holds the

> office of a prophet can be considered a prophetic utterance. It's a

> simple concept. Your strained analogies (like the above statement)
> continue to miss the point.
>
> >

> > Both are examples of the sort of circular logic that Mormons build
> > their faith on.
> >
>
> Duwayne, if our discussions have shown one thing, it's that you have
> absolutely no idea what I've built my faith on.
>

€ I think I know what faith in the Brethern is built on.

--
Rich, AG6K, 805-386-3734

€ R.L. Measures

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 9:46:46 AM10/8/03
to
In article <9dcdb6ed.0310...@posting.google.com>,
SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:

> Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-5C1...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> >
> > The Nauvoo Expositor did far than simply accuse JS of living in
> > adultery. Law clearly carried a grudge and it colored his writing.
> >
> > All I'm saying is that not acknowledging Law's bitterness and simply
> > treating him as a crusader for truth is as inaccurate as portraying him
> > as a servant of Satan who made up lies out of whole cloth as part of a
> > vast conspiracy to bring the prophet down. Both views ignore the real
> > man.
>
> In reading the Expositor, it seemed to me there was far more truth
> than hyperbole. By far the main accusation was Joseph Smith's
> polygyny and polyandry. If it weren't true, it is very unlikely Smith

> would have reacted as violently as he did. ...

€ Bingo. Nothing but nothing wounds as much as the simply awful truth.

--
Rich, AG6K, 805-386-3734

€ R.L. Measures

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 9:50:35 AM10/8/03
to
In article <0001HW.BBA8F166...@news.CIS.DFN.de>, Goner
<Go...@Dangerous1.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:34:46 -0600, Fool Speck wrote
> (in message <9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com>):
>
>
> > What was William Law's crime?
>
>
>
> That Smith had no discernment?

€ hardly. William Law's crime was coming home from a business trip a
day early and walking into his kitchen - where he discovered God's
"prophet" trying to bone his wife, Sarah.

--
Rich, AG6K, 805-386-3734

€ R.L. Measures

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 9:53:21 AM10/8/03
to
In article <3f83a076...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
abs...@pipeline.com wrote:

€ women usually prefer to do the Big-M where others can not see them.

--
Rich, AG6K, 805-386-3734

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 10:31:42 AM10/8/03
to
Jason Hardy <Jasnka...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<JasnkatNOSPAM-817...@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com>...
<snip>

> > Oh, it's clear. You've built it on circular thinking, denials, and
> > telling yourself it's just "opinion" when the LDS prophets say
> > something you don't like.
> >
>
> Two part question for you:

Looks like Jason's given up taking my challenge. Recall the challenge
is to provide a single example where any LDS leader met the seer test
as defined in the Book of Mormon. The example has to be non-trivial
and verifiable.

Just to be clear (since Jason has lied about this point) I've defined
non-trivial as meaning that it could not be performed by a reasonably
talented person.

> 1) You have often accused me of lying when I say you claim everything a
> prophet teaches is doctrine. Do you or do you not believe everything a
> prophet says in public is LDS doctrine?

I've already answered the question for you, Jason. I think your
prophets and seers are con men and frauds. But THEY tell the LDS that
they will never lead the Saints astray. So, to the extent that what
they say might lead the Saints astray if it were false, honest LDS
will consider what they say to be true doctrine.

That situation is in contrast to you, where you have taken public
sermons by LDS seers and pretended that you have the authority to
proclaim them nothing more than "opinion."

Now, since I've answered your question, you must answer it too. And
no empty assertions by claiming Clark settled the question. YOU
answer the question, and do it in your own words. Here.

Since you are on record dismissing the words of LDS prophets as just
"opinion," how do you tell which statements of theirs are opinion, and
which are meant as doctrine? Show that this method is well understood
and agreed upon (documented) in LDS teaching, so that there is NO
CHANCE of the LDS prophet saying something stupid and leading the
"saints" astray.

> 2) If the answer to the above is "no," how do you, Duwayne, pick what
> counts as LDS doctrine and what does not?

I don't have to pick. The fact that Mormon doctrine is a mess of
contradiction isn't a problem for me. It's a problem for you. That's
why YOU do the picking and choosing. That's why YOU have to figure
out what stupid statements from your "seers" are just opinion, even
though they were taught as doctrine from the pulpit by "prophets" who
promised the "saints" they'd never lead them astray.

It's YOU with your tit in the wringer, Jason. I don't think Mormonism
makes a lick of sense, so I don't have to play with semantics like you
do -- trying in vain to filter out the stupid stuff from the less
stupid stuff in order to construct a new mythology.

So again, Jason, you must ALSO answer the question. How do you pick
and choose which is doctrine and which is just "opinion?" Show that
the technique is well known and documented among the "saints" so that
the prophet can never lead the "saints" astray.

> These questions are not intended to be a trap in anyway.

And yet, you stepped in it anyway.

> I'm sick of
> going around in circles, so I'm trying to get some kind of groundwork
> established.

Finally. Jason Hardy is sick of going in circles. May we assume you
won't be using your stupid circular argument that a prophet is only a
prophet when acting as such?

Duwayne Anderson

American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.

Andrew R

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 11:46:45 AM10/8/03
to

<ancient_lights_and_perf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1743113.7...@192.168.1.1...
>
> In short, intimacy is experienced by the husband and wife as they enjoy
each
> others company in full and not just for the purpose of "procreation". The
> church presumes to state that it has a say in that intimacy, that there
are
> "unholy and impure" practices, whatever that might be, that are forbidden.
> These unholy and impure practices are left undefined but we all know what
> they are, at least, some people think they do. Many a person has
refrained
> from engaging in various forms of intimacy because this lack of definition
> leaves lots of room for assumptions.
>

That may be the case, but it hardly justifies your statement "I don't think


they really care that much that they are ruining the beauty of marriage and
destroying the joy of intimacy."

It is the individual who is doing that for themselves.


> For example, is it alright to have sex in other than the missionary
> position? Wouldn't any other way be unholy and impure? (Like the reverse
> missionary position.) If you are really uncertain (and you shouldn't be),
> some say one can always ask their bishop, like their bishop would know.
He
> certainly doesn't have a right to specify how you engage in intimacy on
the
> marriage bed, but some members think he does. Each bishop will have a
> different *opinion* and that doesn't count since one can always go opinion
> shopping.
>

You are assumeing ths unholy and impure practices are those that might occur
between married couples.

However this is part of a lower covenant (under the AP).

> The bottom line is the temple covenant says that you will have no sexual
> relationship except with your spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully
> wedded.

It does too, and this under the MP. So it is higher than the lower covenant.

> That's all, case closed. The bedroom is off limits to bishops,
> churches, and gods. It's not a three way experience, it is a two way
> experience within mormonism. (OK, some couples have claimed to pray to
> have the holy ghost with them at this time to, that's just weird.)
>

Indeed, weird. The bedroom certainly is "offl limits" I have never once been
asked.

> Congrats. That's the way it should be. When I was married our stake
> president, a very pragmatic person, sat us down and clearly stated that
the
> only sexual activity within marriage that was forbidden was something that
> one member of the marriage did not agree too. That was it. We didn't
> understand at the time why he said it or the scope of his statement's
> application, but he was a a wise one.

Which seems to be a very wise piece of counsel - and is one that I was told
(albeit by my father).

Andrew R.


Andrew R

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 11:48:41 AM10/8/03
to
"? R.L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-0710031...@66-42-106-180.lsan.npni.net...

> > I was brought up in the Church, my wife, with her family, joined the
Church
> > at age 10. We married at the age of 20 and have been married for 18
years. I
> > fully believe in the "beauty of marriage" and "the joy of intimacy".
> >

> ? On 5 January, 1982, the Office of the First Presidency labled two
> intimate activities that men and (especially) women take delight in as "an
> unholy practice". [reference letter:
> http://www.somis.org/hh.oral.html ]
>

My wife and I were married (and Sealed) in 1985. I have never seen this
statement in any Church context. It is not in the current reccomend book,
the Handbook, or any other place. I have seen it before, but only posted in
some other place. I have nothing to substantiate it and it does not seem to
be opperational.

Andrew R.


Andrew R

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 11:51:15 AM10/8/03
to

"Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dcdb6ed.03100...@posting.google.com...
>
> If the both of you find your sex lives fulfilling, then there is no
> problem. You are to be congratulated in avoiding an all too common
> pitfall mental health professionals find themselves dealing with in
> LDS marriages.
>
> Other couples who do find something lacking often times find
> themselves trying to avoid lusting after one another while still
> trying to nurture their sexual relationship.
>
> Many find a lack of fulfillment in "pious sex".

Whilst my heart goes out to any in this position I still fail to see how it
is the result of anything taught in Church. I have always been taught that
Sex has two divinly ordained purposes, 1. to procreate, 2. to strengthen the
marriage relationship.

If it is failing in the latter it is, IMO, the fault of the couple - not the
Church.

Andrew R.


€ R.L. Measures

unread,
Oct 8, 2003, 12:29:06 PM10/8/03
to
In article <5830813.B...@192.168.1.1>,
ancient_lights_and_perf...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 06:50, € R.L. Measures <2...@vc.net> typed:

> And William wasn't grateful that Joseph found William's wife Sarah worthy of
> Joseph's sexual interests (excuse me, commandments from god to Joseph)?

€ A commandment delivered by a short-fused angel swingin' a mighty
flamin' sword?

--
Rich, AG6K, 805-386-3734

McSorley

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 1:40:15 PM10/7/03
to

"father of peace" <abs...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3f83a076...@news.west.earthlink.net...

That reminds me of the Joke that Clovis Lark post a while ago, here it is:

A couple preparing for a religious conversion meets with the orthodox
rabbi for their final session.

The rabbi asks if they have any final questions.

The man asks, 'Is it true that men and women don't dance together?'

'Yes,' says the rabbi, 'For modesty reasons, men and women dance
separately.'

'So I can't dance with my own wife?'

'No.'

'Well, okay,' says the man, 'But what about sex?'

'Fine,' says the rabbi. 'A mitzvah within the marriage!'

'What about different positions?' the man asks.

'No problem,' says the rabbi.

'Woman on top?' the man asks.

'Why not?' replies the rabbi.

'How about doggie-style?'

'Of course!'

'Well, what about standing up?'

'NO!' says the rabbi....

'Why Not???' asks the man.

'Could lead to dancing!'

I think your wife was as silly as that joke.

McSorley

McSorley

unread,
Oct 7, 2003, 1:40:19 PM10/7/03
to
<snip>
> >> If one thinks other than perfect thoughts, one needs
> >> to repent and ask God in tears and humility each day for forgiveness -
> >
> > Not tears necessarily. But you *always* should show humility towards
God.
>
> Towards any real gods perhaps, if they exist. I never met one.

Maybe you never will.

>
> >> that's a mormonism daily concern for being a failure.
> >
> > in your negatively twisting view. To me its a daily attempt to make
> > youself better.
>
> No, one can examine the day and see what they can improve. I do that all
> the time. I don't believe in sins since I don't believe that Gods exist -
> consequently, it's not possible to disobey a commandment given by a
> fictional being.

fine, that doesn't give you the right to mock the idea of daily repentance
to God.

>
> >> In Mormonism every
> >> day is an experience in self depredation, being concerned with what a
> >> sinner one is and constantly and daily seeking repentance. Is it any
> >> wonder that Utah is the Prosac capital of the world?
> >
> > ha ha.
>
> Well, you might think its funny but there are way too many mormon women
> subjected to the pressure of being little miss perfect - they are
> prescribed lots of anti-depresants. It is real stress, not imaginary.

Yes real stress, but the answer is not to pretend it doesn't matter what you
do just because its hard to do the right thing.

>
> >> Read scriptures,
> >
> > yes
> >
> >> do church callings
> >
> > yes
> >
> >> kiss gospel ass,
> >
> > i don't know what you taking about there but sounds like an inferiority
> > complex.
>
> Was that an insult? Are trying to be Christlike? Perhaps you should
> repent? Do so tonight. Don't forget all the steps, I'll be waiting.

Your not Gods so my repentance is none of your biz, but anyway, insulting
to you or not, your statement sounds to me like an inferiority complex.

>
> >>day in and day out. Don't see anything
> >> but G rated movies,
> >
> > exageration.
>
> Perhaps, but you won't deny that there are LDS that believe this will you?
> Have you not heard the conference talks about having good language, good
> thoughts, avoid loud music, improper movies, etc.? How many *proper*
> movies are rated PG-13?
>

Yes, some people try to live a pure as possible, to complain about that is
shameful.

> >>avoid the word "gosh",
> >
> > Who does?
>
> It was meant as a more polite way of referring to swear words like fuck,
> damn, fudge, etc. Are explicitives allow in mormon speech?

Are explicitives needed in Mormon speech? Any speech? Something wrong with
being polite?

>
> >> be constantly in service to the
> >> church;
> >
> > The people really believe they are in service of God when the are in
> > service of the church, so you can't fault them on that.
>
> They might think that. The church attempts to keep one busy. We had a
> general authority speak one time that indicated that community service was
> good, but spending more time on improving one's Sunday lession and in
> general doing church related stuff was better. What was evident from the
> talk is that if the mormons listened to him and obeyed, then removing all
> mormons from a community would make the average time donated to service
per
> citizen increase. I couldn't figure out why only non-mormons should be
the
> ones contributing to ones community. Perhaps this general authority was
> just plain wrong.

Perhaps

>
> >>and if you make it to the celestial kingdom, you get to again
> >> submit your will 100% to someone else and become a godly Borg.
> >
> > Borg? your really trying to make a valid point?
>
> What freedom of action does one really have when they submit their entire
> will to the will of another god higher up in the chain of gods?

I don't know what your talking about.

>
> >> As to fidelity, that is worthy, but Joseph Smith fucked that one up
> > royally
> >> when he went off marrying teenagers and the wives of other men (11 of
> > them)
> >> and then had himself ordained King of Israel.
> >
> > Maybe he did make a mistake. But you really can't tell me that you know
> > all
> > the details of what really happened.
>
> Well, I don't know *all* *the* *details* of anything, even my daily
actions
> since such details can be numbered in the 10s of thousands, but the temple
> records of marriages specifies that Joseph Smith married young girls and
> married women. The only question might be how many young girls and how
> many married women, not if he did it. He did.

Still doesn't scratch the suface of the details surrounding the matter. You
just *want* to think its evil.

>
> > Too much stuff has been twisted by
> > antis to really know the truth about it.
>
> Are you in denial that Joseph Smith married other women and that some of
> them were already married? That certainly is a way to deal with this
> inconsistency in morality by one who ought to know better, but it is still
> denial.

no, but I just don't know if there wasn't a good reason for it or not.

>
> > The language you used in that paragraph dosen't say to me that you have
> > found a higher, more righteous life. Seems that hate has led you to the
> > dark side.
>
> What is the dark side,

the side where you lose respect for others in language and actions for
starters.

>claiming that what Joseph Smith did was righteous and
> holy and the men who already had those