Ah, isn't the LDS church wonderful?

[_Coggins7]

With a son turning 8 in a few weeks, it's baptism time in the Who Knows household. So with that, brings the wonderful experience of the sobbing parents - since daddy isn't doing the baptism, and grandpa (my dad) is, instead. The joyous times of christmas and the new year are behind us. It's time, instead, to focus on the tragedy that is Who Knows' loss of faith, and dissapointment to his family.

Isn't the LDS church wonderful?

And, pray tell, who made the choice in that family that created the above dynamics you have just mentioned?

Oh, I see. If everyone else in your family would just lose their testimony and leave the Church, all would then be well again.

You know, this was actually the traditional Soviet concept of peace--the absence of any opposition.

[_Tori]

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-

First of all, Wade, our relationship is indeed a "formal commitment" and has been for quite some time. Our marriage which will happen this summer only declares that commitment in a 'legal' form. I am completely devoted to this wonderful man and my children know this and adore him as well.

Secondly, I really don't think my son thinks about mine and Rick's romantic relationship. I would imagine that visual would pretty much gross him (and any other kid) out. Our example that we set for him is one of love, commitment and respect. That is what he sees. Nothing else.

Sooo......you really don't have to worry your pretty little head about such matters, as they are our matters and nobody elses.

I always find it interesting the curiosity among TBM's about the Single life in Mormondom, (and curiosity escillates even more if your an EXMO). What is up with that? Is is frustration with their own lives? Are their lives so mundane that they have to make assumptions and fantasize about the so-called sinners? Just wondering.

[_Moniker]

With a son turning 8 in a few weeks, it's baptism time in the Who Knows household. So with that, brings the wonderful experience of the sobbing parents - since daddy isn't doing the baptism, and grandpa (my dad) is, instead. The joyous times of christmas and the new year are behind us. It's time, instead, to focus on the tragedy that is Who Knows' loss of faith, and dissapointment to his family.

Isn't the LDS church wonderful?

And, pray tell, who made the choice in that family that created the above dynamics you have just mentioned?

Oh, I see. If everyone else in your family would just lose their testimony and leave the Church, all would then be well again.

You know, this was actually the traditional Soviet concept of peace--the absence of any opposition.

Huh. Well if Who Knows regained his testimony and rejoined the Church wouldn't that also fit the "Soviet concept of peace"?? :)

[_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.

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

Well, I'm not willing to go through the sex change operation to speak for women so I'll back away ;)

[_harmony]

Well, I'm not willing to go through the sex change operation to speak for women so I'll back away ;)

Well, the surgery is definitely something to think twice about, but it's the hormone shots that really sideline ya.

[_BishopRic]

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?

I prefer rules that are logical, reasonable, and based in reality, rather than guilt-based, allegedly from "God" with serious after-life threats attached. As the more educated cultures are transitioning away from antiquated, magic-based religious dogmas, we see that there are more effective means of teaching healthy sexuality than what some have attempted to do. From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence ... _education

"Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association,[15] the American Medical Association,[16] the National Association of School Psychologists,[17] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[18] the American College Health Association,[18] and the American Academy of Pediatrics,[19], and the American Public Health Association,[20] who all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.

The AMA "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..."[16]

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control."[19]

On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high income countries".[21]

A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners.[22][23] "

The common LDS approach to relationships is, in my opinion, quite unhealthy. It inspires people to get married, making a life-long commitment to each other and their future children while engrossed in intense sexual tension that often clouds reasonable judgment of compatibility. Add to that the common two year mission, devoid of any dating or romantic expression, at the highest hormonal time of a person's life, and tell them to delay any sexual activity until after marriage...and somehow these kids are supposed to make one of the most important decisions of their life?!

Yeah right!

My previous experience as an addictions counselor was quite enlightening to me as to the incidence of pornography addiction in the LDS church. I was referred many patients from LDS Social Services for this (and other) addictions, and the stories were almost always the same...got married too young, were not sexually compatible, had kids early, going to school and working...before they knew it, they didn't know each other. Sad, but common.

I think it's easy to see why these things develop. So, in reference to Tori's son, I want him to have a happy, healthy relationship when he is ready. I hope he'll learn more from science than religion, but that's just me.

[_wenglund]

The common LDS approach to relationships is, in my opinion, quite unhealthy. It inspires people to get married, making a life-long commitment to each other and their future children while engrossed in intense sexual tension that often clouds reasonable judgment of compatibility. Add to that the common two year mission, devoid of any dating or romantic expression, at the highest hormonal time of a person's life, and tell them to delay any sexual activity until after marriage...and somehow these kids are supposed to make one of the most important decisions of their life?!

Yeah right!

My previous experience as an addictions counselor was quite enlightening to me as to the incidence of pornography addiction in the LDS church. I was referred many patients from LDS Social Services for this (and other) addictions, and the stories were almost always the same...got married too young, were not sexually compatible, had kids early, going to school and working...before they knew it, they didn't know each other. Sad, but common.

I think it's easy to see why these things develop. So, in reference to Tori's son, I want him to have a happy, healthy relationship when he is ready. I hope he'll learn more from science than religion, but that's just me.

I am not sure of the wisdom in abandoning religion for science to form the foundation for one's moral compass (is science even geared towards, let alone in the business of, morals and ethic?)

However, if one makes that choice, I would hope that they would do so NOT with the intent of finding justification for acting on certain carnal impulses, but with the intent of determining what works best for all parties over a broad range of relationship issues. While LDS are certainly not free from relationship problems (as you may have seen in your addiction councelling), I think you would be hard pressed to find a group of people who, on average, have more healthy, lasting, and fulfilling relationships (check the statistics in terms of teen pregnancies, marital infidelity, divorce, etc.). Regardless if one believe LDS moral principles are "magical" in origin, those principles evidently work better than the alternatives--certainly far better, relationship wise, than the secularist movement of "free love" that was pervasive during the 60's and 70's. I know that at least for me, my biggest heartaches and failures in relationships were the result of not adhering to my LDS moral compass. I would gladly exchange the hurt and suffering I caused myself and others through disobedience, for the relatively mild guilt and frustration I may have experienced through obedience--though, to each their own.

I am not sure how much of a fan you may be of Dr. Laura, but she has a wealth of science-based information on her website that not only strongly advises against sexual relations outside of marriage, but also against divorce (except in cases of abuse, adultry, and serious addictions), though when divorce does occur, she advises that, for the sake of the children, that the parents remain focused on their children and put off developing other relationships (particularly of a sexual, non-committed kind) until after the kids are grown up and on their own. For what it is worth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

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.)

I don't think we will be able to find concrete evidence of this as far as "active LDS members" goes (maybe it's there somewhere, but it might take some major research...), but I will paste what I have found. First, regarding "unwanted pregnancies," the best I can do is comparre Americans to Europeans. From http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html ,

"Although it is well known that unintended pregnancy is common in the United States, the statistics presented in this article show just how widespread the experience is..."

and from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... ract&list_ uids=11804433

"Darroch JE, Singh S, Frost JJ.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, USA.

CONTEXT: Adolescent pregnancy, birth, abortion and sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates are much higher in the United States than in most other developed countries...Adolescent childbearing is more common in the United States (22% of women reported having had a child before age 20) than in Great Britain (15%), Canada (11%), France (6%) and Sweden (4%); differences are even greater for births to younger teenagers. A lower proportion of teenage pregnancies are resolved through abortion in the United States than in the other countries..

A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21% and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: Data on contraceptive use are more important than data on sexual activity in explaining variation in levels of adolescent pregnancy and childbearing among the five developed countries; however, the higher level of multiple sexual partnership among American teenagers may help explain their higher STD rates."

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)

I won't paste a link here (busy at work), but the Utah teenage suicide rate is among the top in the country, and If I recall correctly, the US rate is higher than in Europe. Addiction rates are higher in Utah than the national average, and having worked in the field, I would guess it is equal in LDS compared to non-LDS.

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.

We likely approach this from vastly different perspectives, and that's okay. I have no doubt the kids are astute enough to know much of what goes on, but because of our openness regarding healthy intimacy (from our perspective), and don't subscribe to using guilt as an effective means to teaching behavior, I suspect they will turn out just fine.

But I could be wrong....

[_harmony]

We likely approach this from vastly different perspectives, and that's okay. I have no doubt the kids are astute enough to know much of what goes on, but because of our openness regarding healthy intimacy (from our perspective), and don't subscribe to using guilt as an effective means to teaching behavior, I suspect they will turn out just fine.

But I could be wrong....

Somehow I think your critieria for "just fine" would be diametrically different from Wade's. Just an observation.

[_BishopRic]

We likely approach this from vastly different perspectives, and that's okay. I have no doubt the kids are astute enough to know much of what goes on, but because of our openness regarding healthy intimacy (from our perspective), and don't subscribe to using guilt as an effective means to teaching behavior, I suspect they will turn out just fine.

But I could be wrong....

Somehow I think your critieria for "just fine" would be diametrically different from Wade's. Just an observation.

Perhaps so. I see a healthy approach to a committed relationship as one where there is often dating of many for a time, then when there is mutual attraction and good compatibility, a commitment to monogamy for a time (often a few years), then if there is still mutual chemistry and common goals and interests, make the life-long commitment. I've seen studies where this approach is the most succesfull, all things considered.

The common Utah approach to quick marriage doesn't allow the people to really get past the infatuation stage...calling it "the Spirit," rather than hormones, then later the couple realizes they really don't know their partner after the sexual tension is past.

I think the commitment the church teaches does keep couples together longer...this can be good, and bad. In some cases, love can be developed despite minor differences, but in other cases, it traps two very unhappy people together, and I think everybody suffers in that case.

Just my opinion....