liz3564 wrote:Actually, I don't really see the LDS Church emphasizing sexuality as a sin anymore than other hard line Christian denominations do.
Adultery is considered a sin for everyone who believes in the Ten Commandments. So is sex before marriage.
I don't think this is really a big shocker to anyone who attends Church.
I think the difference comes in with the frequency that Mormons attend Church. The Mormon faith is more of a culture than a religion in a lot of aspects. I'm in my 40's, and grew up in the Church. It was not uncommon for me to be at some type of church related activity 2-3 times per week, sometimes more. When I was in High School, then you had seminary. Basically, you were involved in Church every single day at that point.
I don't usually disagree with you, but I do here. I know of no other church that "interviews" teenagers every six months to ask about their sexual habits, among other things. I had never heard the word "masturbation" until my bishop asked me about it when I was 12. From that time forward, I was asked about it in every bishop's interview. When I went on my mission, I was again asked and was told that if I had such a "problem" I was not worthy to serve. During my mission, I was asked at every interview whether I kept the law of chastity, including masturbation. Even after I got married, our bishops delved into personal sexual issues. One bishop held a special priesthood meeting to rail against people who masturbated and others who dared to buy lingerie for their wives.
The only religion even remotely as sex-obsessed as Mormonism is Catholicism, but we beat them by a mile.
Runtu wrote:The only religion even remotely as sex-obsessed as Mormonism is Catholicism, but we beat them by a mile.
Since most of my close friends are Catholics, I guess that's why I didn't see a huge distinction. You're right, though. Even the Catholics don't have to confess sexual sins face to face. They still carry an extreme amount of guilt, though.
I think that men, in general, are badgered more than women are as far as bishop's interviews are concerned. I was never asked about masturbation in an interview. Ever. Of course, I would have lied if I was. ;)
The whole interview process with teen-agers involving sexual questioning is something that I don't approve of either.
Runtu wrote: I don't usually disagree with you, but I do here. I know of no other church that "interviews" teenagers every six months to ask about their sexual habits, among other things. I had never heard the word "masturbation" until my bishop asked me about it when I was 12. From that time forward, I was asked about it in every bishop's interview. When I went on my mission, I was again asked and was told that if I had such a "problem" I was not worthy to serve. During my mission, I was asked at every interview whether I kept the law of chastity, including masturbation. Even after I got married, our bishops delved into personal sexual issues. One bishop held a special priesthood meeting to rail against people who masturbated and others who dared to buy lingerie for their wives.
The only religion even remotely as sex-obsessed as Mormonism is Catholicism, but we beat them by a mile.
When I lived in Provo, I was also asked several times to confess to everything that I had previously taken care of. Not only did they want you to confess you new sins, but they wanted you to tell them about sexual sin that you had already confessed and "taken care of". This goes beyond helping the individual to establishing a relationship of power over the individual. Anyone who knows your sexual history and can make you suffer for that holds a great deal of power in a shame based community.
John Larson wrote:When I lived in Provo, I was also asked several times to confess to everything that I had previously taken care of. Not only did they want you to confess you new sins, but they wanted you to tell them about sexual sin that you had already confessed and "taken care of". This goes beyond helping the individual to establishing a relationship of power over the individual. Anyone who knows your sexual history and can make you suffer for that holds a great deal of power in a shame based community.
This is completely against Church policy and shouldn't have happened at all. I'm sorry you were the victim of some idiot on a power trip.
Runtu wrote:I don't usually disagree with you, but I do here. I know of no other church that "interviews" teenagers every six months to ask about their sexual habits, among other things. I had never heard the word "masturbation" until my bishop asked me about it when I was 12. From that time forward, I was asked about it in every bishop's interview. When I went on my mission, I was again asked and was told that if I had such a "problem" I was not worthy to serve. During my mission, I was asked at every interview whether I kept the law of chastity, including masturbation. Even after I got married, our bishops delved into personal sexual issues. One bishop held a special priesthood meeting to rail against people who masturbated and others who dared to buy lingerie for their wives.
The only religion even remotely as sex-obsessed as Mormonism is Catholicism, but we beat them by a mile.
The problem with these types of religions/cultures is they turn good people into liars. Of course teenage boys masturbate, but they are forced to deny it. Of course men enjoy seeing their wives in sexy lingerie, but we have to pretend sex is a spiritual thing between you and your wife while the lord watches. And god forbid we actually enjoy watcing erotic films together. Even if a teenager or married couple confesses these things to a bishop, they'll eventually want to do it again. What teenage boy can stop masturbating forever? It just adds guilt the next time he does it and eventually he'll stop confessing to the bishop, turning him into a liar during interviews, which adds more guilt.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
John Larsen wrote:When I lived in Provo, I was also asked several times to confess to everything that I had previously taken care of. Not only did they want you to confess you new sins, but they wanted you to tell them about sexual sin that you had already confessed and "taken care of". This goes beyond helping the individual to establishing a relationship of power over the individual. Anyone who knows your sexual history and can make you suffer for that holds a great deal of power in a shame based community.
Maybe he was gay? The only purpose I can imagine this serves is to satisfy the bishop's perverse curiosities. The bishops who ask members (particularly young women) to reveal every detail of their sexual sins are probably jerking themselves under their desks. What else could possibly be the purpose?
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
SatanWasSetUp wrote: Maybe he was gay? The only purpose I can imagine this serves is to satisfy the bishop's perverse curiosities. The bishops who ask members (particularly young women) to reveal every detail of their sexual sins are probably jerking themselves under their desks. What else could possibly be the purpose?
I have a hard time trying to imagine any other explanation for it. You're right; what "official" purpose could it possibly serve?
And I'm willing to bet that the cuter the bishop thinks the young woman is, the more detail he wants. Nothing like having a little mental image to recall in those late night struggles with temptations of the flesh. It's like a temple recommend interview is the Mormon version of Penthouse Forums.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
John Larson wrote:When I lived in Provo, I was also asked several times to confess to everything that I had previously taken care of. Not only did they want you to confess you new sins, but they wanted you to tell them about sexual sin that you had already confessed and "taken care of". This goes beyond helping the individual to establishing a relationship of power over the individual. Anyone who knows your sexual history and can make you suffer for that holds a great deal of power in a shame based community.
This is completely against Church policy and shouldn't have happened at all. I'm sorry you were the victim of some idiot on a power trip.
And this points to a big problem in the Church, there is absolutely nothing a member can do about it. There is no process of appeal or protest. If I had written a letter to the brethren, it would have been sent right back to the bishop.
this happened in more than one ward, so I believe it was more than a single rouge individual. Although it never happened outside of Utah County.
John Larsen wrote:And this points to a big problem in the Church, there is absolutely nothing a member can do about it. There is no process of appeal or protest. If I had written a letter to the brethren, it would have been sent right back to the bishop.
this happened in more than one ward, so I believe it was more than a single rouge individual. Although it never happened outside of Utah County.
Yep, this is the danger of a top-down organization. Even the most rigidly authoritarian corporations usually have something akin to an ombudsman to allow the underlings to appeal their situation or at least provide feedback. Not so the LDS church. If you try to appeal, you are almost always treated as if you're being rebellious. This kind of structure invites abuse.
John Larsen wrote:And this points to a big problem in the Church, there is absolutely nothing a member can do about it. There is no process of appeal or protest. If I had written a letter to the brethren, it would have been sent right back to the bishop.
this happened in more than one ward, so I believe it was more than a single rouge individual. Although it never happened outside of Utah County.
Yep, this is the danger of a top-down organization. Even the most rigidly authoritarian corporations usually have something akin to an ombudsman to allow the underlings to appeal their situation or at least provide feedback. Not so the LDS church. If you try to appeal, you are almost always treated as if you're being rebellious. This kind of structure invites abuse.
The old cliché applies: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
(It’s only cliché because it’s been use often. The validity of the truism stands unchallenged.)