Ah, isn't the LDS church wonderful?

[_wenglund]

I can't answer for Tori, but I think it is through pointing out the ostracizing and belittling practices of the church that they are recognized and steps made to improve them. As Tori said, at the time she didn't say anything about it. I guarantee that today she would. That is because there are enough of us today that don't allow that kind of abuse to take place in our lives.

Do isolated instances of exclusion necessrily entail ostricizing? I don't happen to think so. In fact, given my own experience with being excluded from ordinances for loved-ones, I can say that ostricizing is a matter of perception and attitude (I was understandably excluded, but in no way felt the least bit ostricized). In other words, certain practices within the Church, while unavoidably exclusionary (children are exluded from being baptised until they reach the age of eight, male youth are excluded from holding higher offices of the priesthood until they come of age, women are excluded from performing priesthood ordinances, etc.) are not, in-and-of-themselves ostricizing, but become such when viewed that way either by those being excluded or those doing the excluding, or both.

So, if one wishes to correct the problems of ostricizing, it would make sense to change the perceptions and attitudes that lead to ostricizing. It then behoves each of us to look inward for ostricizing perceptions and attitudes (I would think that belittling the beliefs and practices of others may provide a clue), and view ourselves as the point of change and the perfect agent for that internal change.

Of course the LDS church (and any other organization for that matter) can exclude whomever they choose. But it is appropriate to alert the non-members/inactives in advance before making fools of them in front of family and friends. This process only serves to project a poor, arrogant, hypocritical image of the church before people who are taught that it is a "family-oriented" church.

Again, while the suggestion you make about prior alerts is well taken, the reactions you mentioned that may occur in the absent of prior alerts (due to human falibility or whatever), are also a matter of choice and not necessity. People can certainly chose to react in the way you suggest, or they can chose to react reasonably, with a proper sense of proportion, and with kindness and understanding, or a variety of variations inbetween.

And, depending upon what choice is made, it will either lend itself to ostricizing or perhaps the opposite. For those of us who wish to eliminate ostricizing, it would then make sense for us to react with, or advocate reacting with kindness and understanding.

That is at least how I see it--as someone who has been on both sides.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

Do isolated instances of exclusion necessrily entail ostricizing?

I would think so...and it is from the feedback of these unfortunate events that procedure changes are instigated. In my 40 years in the church (and probably more over the last 10 years -- just not completely aware of the recent ones) there have been many changes (doctrinal, procedural, etc.) that have been made that (mostly) minimize embarassing people unnecessarily. One is the announcements made of disciplinary actions in priesthood meetings.

But I think the most obvious example of "ostracizing" was when the blacks were able to receive the priesthood. I can't imagine a thinking person who would argue that pressure on the church leadership didn't have an impact on this significant change.

So I think the church should be grateful for us critics to point out the inappropriate procedures that occur unnecessarily...if for no other reason, to avoid so many black eyes the media gives for the smallest thing!

I don't happen to think so. In fact, given my own experience with being excluded from ordinances for loved-ones, I can say that ostricizing is a matter of perception and attitude (I was understandably excluded, but in no way felt the least bit ostricized). In other words, certain practices within the Church, while unavoidably exclusionary (children are exluded from being baptised until they reach the age of eight, male youth are excluded from holding higher offices of the priesthood until they come of age, women are excluded from performing priesthood ordinances, etc.) are not, in-and-of-themselves ostricizing, but become such when viewed that way either by those being excluded or those doing the excluding, or both.

One thing that I think should be pointed out is the vast differences in personalities we all have as it relates to this. One person may have this kind of "offensive" experience, and never step foot in a church again, and a person like you won't be phased by it. I think it is wise to do all that is possible to avoid potential surprise "attacks" like Tori mentioned. From what I've seen, steps are being taken to accomplish this.

So, if one wishes to correct the problems of ostricizing, it would make sense to change the perceptions and attitudes that lead to ostricizing. It then behoves each of us to look inward for ostricizing perceptions and attitudes (I would think that belittling the beliefs and practices of others may provide a clue), and view ourselves as the point of change and the perfect agent for that internal change.

For those so offended, it may be helpful to do as you suggest. However, I don't think it is the place of an institution to coerce psychotherapy on a non-believer...wouldn't be received very well.

For those of us who wish to eliminate ostricizing, it would then make sense for us to react with, or advocate reacting with kindness and understanding.

Always...and it's always helpful to put yourself in the other's position for true empathy to occur.

That is at least how I see it--as someone who has been on both sides.

And I as well.

[_wenglund]

I know your comments are not judgmental Wade, so I'll attempt the same. First, just for clarification, Tori's "son" is 13 now. He lives in the heart of Orem, and his best friend is the bishop's son. He (Tori's son) has been exposed to some real biases against inactives/nonmembers in his "ward area," so he is not overly active at this time. He does enjoy ward basketball, but that's about the only connection he has to the church today.

Neither Tori nor I speak negatively of the church to him. We also keep our romance outside his home.

Yes, I believe there are many man-made rules in the LDS church (and others, I'm sure) that serve to hinder a teenager's natural sexual maturity, and often create problems of intimacy in adult life. The guilt associated with sexual feelings, masturbation, etc., in my opinion is extremely damaging to healthy relationships. I know this paradigm is quite foreign to LDS members, but I personally feel that many European cultures instill a much healthier approach to sexuality and relationships -- and have fewer STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I'm not much of a fan of using guilt as a tool to hinder behaviors. I've seen too much depression, suicide, and drug addiction in LDS families where this approach is used, and I think there is a better way.

BUT, I am not his father, and don't feel the "calling" to teach him about this. I WILL set the example to love, adore, and respect his mother around him...and I think you ARE right that this is the best way to teach him anything.

Hi Rick,

I very much appreciate you taking my comments in the non-judgemental spirit in which they were intended.

By way of further clarification, though, are you saying that you aren't so much against man-made rules per-se when it comes to procreative intimacy, it is just that you prefer the European man-made rules?

And, are the rate of STD's and unwanted pregnancies (as well as unwed mothers, marital infidelity, etc.) actually lower in Europe than among believing and practicing LDS> (I ask because I would guess the opposite to be the case, by a wide margin.)

Also, do you think that the proportional instance of suicide and drug addiction is lower among Europeans than it is among believing and practicing LDS? (Again, I would have guessed just the opposite)

Granted, the level of depression may be higher among LDS than certain European countries (though lower than some Scandinavian and Germanic countries), but that is because depression has more to do with genetics and bio-chemistry and cognitive distortions, and little or nothing to do with strong moral adherence (this Freudian myth has long been debunked by scocial science studies and competing sociological phylosophies like Reality Therapy, Choice Theory, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).

Finally, I applaud you for setting an example of love, adoration, and respect towards Tori. Such is to your credit. I wonder though, what those laudable sentiments mean outside the bounds of a formally commited relation. But, that may be because I am viewing things from a different paradigm, where formal commitments are integral to, and enhancing of, love, adoration, and respect.

And, I am not sure that "keeping the romance outside of the home" is sufficient to avoid sending certain unintended messages or setting certain other unintended, examples. Kids (particularly as they get into their teens) have an uncanny way of figuring things out--if not while they are happening, then putting things together in due time. I am here speaking here from experience. ;-)

Just some thinkgs to consider. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

In other words, certain practices within the Church, while unavoidably exclusionary (children are exluded from being baptised until they reach the age of eight, male youth are excluded from holding higher offices of the priesthood until they come of age, women are excluded from performing priesthood ordinances, etc.) are not, in-and-of-themselves ostricizing, but become such when viewed that way either by those being excluded or those doing the excluding, or both.

Do not ever speak for women, Wade. You have no idea what being marginalized means until you've been an LDS woman.

[_wenglund]

Hi Rick,

Not to put too fine a point on what I am suggesting in regards to ostricizing, but essentially what I am hoping to convey is that, while I think all parties (including the leadership of the Church) have a genuine interest in diminishing, if not eliminating, the instances of ostricizing, there are effective and ineffectual ways of encouraging change in that direction, and there are effective and ineffectual places to begin working on that change.

To me, it makes most sense to use kindness and understanding to promote change from ostricizing, rather than ironically using certain ostracizing behaviors (like ridiculing other people's beliefs and practices) to accomplish the same. In fact, I would think such ostracizing behaviors would actually add to the problem of ostricization instead of helping to resolve it.

And, I think it makes most sense to begin the process of change by each individual looking inward to detect and eradicate thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes that may cause them to ostricize or be ostricized, or misperceive ostracization either way; rather than voicing objections about other people and institutions not within the hearing or seeing range of those empowered to affect the change in those other people and institutions.

In short, I think boards like this may work as a force for good when used to affect positive change within those participating here, and when done so in kindness, love, and understanding. However, I think the opposite tends to occur when the board is used to ridicule, criticize, judge, and gossip about other people's beliefs and practices (not that all of that has occured on this thread by any or all participants therein), particularly when in reference to those empowered who don't participate here.

At least that is what I have determined for myself and found to be a functional strategy. Others are welcome to see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

In other words, certain practices within the Church, while unavoidably exclusionary (children are exluded from being baptised until they reach the age of eight, male youth are excluded from holding higher offices of the priesthood until they come of age, women are excluded from performing priesthood ordinances, etc.) are not, in-and-of-themselves ostricizing, but become such when viewed that way either by those being excluded or those doing the excluding, or both.

Do not ever speak for women, Wade. You have no idea what being marginalized means until you've been an LDS woman.

I wasn't speaking for anyone whether they perceive themselves to be marginalized or not. But, I appreciate you telling me not to do something I didn't do. Very helpful.

Hopefully, you will also follow your own advise and not speak for LDS woman, since you are only one of millions of that diverse group.

But, since you seem inclined to telling people not to speak for others, it may prove more benefitial to direct your self-appointed edicts towards those on this list who have actually presumed to speak for others. Start, for example, with Beastie, who has repeatedly presumed to speak for me, and has mistakenly put words into my mouth. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

In other words, certain practices within the Church, while unavoidably exclusionary (children are exluded from being baptised until they reach the age of eight, male youth are excluded from holding higher offices of the priesthood until they come of age, women are excluded from performing priesthood ordinances, etc.) are not, in-and-of-themselves ostricizing, but become such when viewed that way either by those being excluded or those doing the excluding, or both.

Do not ever speak for women, Wade. You have no idea what being marginalized means until you've been an LDS woman.

Yet you choose to retain that status.

[_harmony]

In other words, certain practices within the Church, while unavoidably exclusionary (children are exluded from being baptised until they reach the age of eight, male youth are excluded from holding higher offices of the priesthood until they come of age, women are excluded from performing priesthood ordinances, etc.) are not, in-and-of-themselves ostricizing, but become such when viewed that way either by those being excluded or those doing the excluding, or both.

Do not ever speak for women, Wade. You have no idea what being marginalized means until you've been an LDS woman.

Yet you choose to retain that status.

Indeed. Very female of me, I'm sure some of our more TBM men here would say.

[_harmony]

In other words, certain practices within the Church, while unavoidably exclusionary (children are exluded from being baptised until they reach the age of eight, male youth are excluded from holding higher offices of the priesthood until they come of age, women are excluded from performing priesthood ordinances, etc.) are not, in-and-of-themselves ostricizing, but become such when viewed that way either by those being excluded or those doing the excluding, or both.

Do not ever speak for women, Wade. You have no idea what being marginalized means until you've been an LDS woman.

I wasn't speaking for anyone whether they perceive themselves to be marginalized or not. But, I appreciate you telling me not to do something I didn't do. Very helpful.

Uh huh. So this " ...women are excluded from performing priesthood ordinances, etc.) are not, in-and-of-themselves ostricizing, but become such when viewed that way either by those being excluded or those doing the excluding, or both" is not you speaking for LDS women. R-i-i-ight.

If it's not, I suggest you find another way to express your thought. Because you don't have a clue what at least some LDS women consider ostracizing, in and of itself, of course.

[_beastie]

So I wonder just how much is in the eye of the beholder? Perhaps this is what DCP had in mind when he referred to as the "so-called mountains meadow massacre". Perhaps those who view it as a massacre simply need to focus on readjusting their own perception, so as to have a more positive outlook.