Mormon couple on Moment of Truth

[_SatanWasSetUp]

But the weird thing - she was asked if she'd ever had sexual fantasies about her best friend, and also answered YES to that and explained how that's "normal".

Was she hot?

[_Jason Bourne]

It is easier to simply assume that Bishops do not counsel divorce because of lack of GA counsel on such grounds. That Cult Bishops are untrained individuals with no background in psychology or sociology and are unpaid does not come into view.

It shows that the Cult has no control over its Stakes and Wards and makes no attempt to improve.

I conceded about four times that some bishops do this and that better training would help prevent it. in my opinion any bishop who tells a believing spouse to leave an unbelieving spouse is way out of line and ought to be released.

Much better response than calling me names.

My point was that you won't find any GA giving this counsel - yet there are hundreds if not thousands of Bishops in the field who are telling members to divorce the Apostate. You turned around and called me a liar and whatnot.

Fine. Just because a GA doesn't condone it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Why is it when Ex-Mormons say that it happened, Mormons jump in and dismiss the claim that because it isn't cannon, it doesn't exist?

Infymus

Perhaps this is belaboring the point.

But here is how this thread went between you and me:



Infymus:

Absolutely. I have seen this hundreds of times over the last three years. Mormonism teaches adult Mormons to choose the Cult over a loved one. When the so-called "loved one" realizes the Mormon Cult is nothing more than an absolute CULT, the spouse chooses the Cult and begins divorce proceedings.

Jason:

While I understand that because of the heavy emphasis on a temple marriage that will last and take one to the celestial kingdom can create a culture where the spouse may choose the religion over an inactive spouse and seek a divorce, and I understand that some bishops give horrible counsel on such things (which flies in the face of instructions to bishops that they are not to recommend divorce-a couple is to decide that for themselves) I do nto think the LDS Church teaches "Mormons to choose the Cult over a loved one." I challenge you to find teachings from any GA, scripture or other LDS source that teaches this.

Note no name calling there. Just a simple response to your claim of hundreds of times.....

Then infymus says:

And the Mormon Cult Lapdogs on MDB come running in to proclaim that NO GA has ever spoken about members counseled to divorce their apostate spouses - therefore, it does not exist. Who cares if hundreds of Bishops have counseled wives and husbands to divorce - because a GA didn't write/say it, it can then be dismissed. The twerch is twoo, go back to your comfort zone, all is well, all is well.

How very predictable.

Let me see, you called me cult lapdog and then made nasty condescending remarks. As a result I degenrated into more nastiness back at you.

I am happy to move past the name calling. But I would request you do the same.

[_Scottie]

Unless a Bishop is a trained therapist he should NOT be counseling anyone! Period! Like you the idea of untrained men playing therapist is disturbing to say the least! :-(

So true. In my short stint as an acting bishop, I was amazed at what kinds of issues the members came to me with, expecting that I would have the answers that would help them. There was an attitude that "we bishops" could get inspiration for about anything. I suppose that might have been possible if it was really true, but "we" are just people trying to do the best we can. I was about the best referral source for therapists they could have had!

However, I've found that some bishops do cross the line. Stereotyping here, but they are generally the ones with less education. The phrase "you don't know what you don't know" applies, and I've known a few that offered very poor advice that caused some problems. One example was a bishop who was very involved in herbs (an MLM company), and "treated" most problems with his herbs. One had cancer, and it spread to a point that it was incurable. Sad.

Part of the problem is that some (hopefully less of an issue today than previously) bishops let the calling go to their head, and don't know good boundaries. I guess it's a problem with a lay ministry....

Or recommending to my wife that we divorce? That might be bad counsel.

[_Dr. Shades]

Yes, I hate myself for watching this show, but in my defense, it's only the second time I've ever watched it. . . Ok, ok, I SAID I was ashamed to be watching the show. It truly is evil. I blame my boyfriend, he exposed me to it, and I just happened to see it on again tonight.

Why make excuses? It's a GREAT show!

I watched a bit of that show one time. Why would anyone go on a show that could destroy their marriage, their reputation, etc... For money?

Because it's potentially a lot of money.

I haven't watched this show, and I won't. Sounds like one of the worst instances of encouraging pleasure at the expense of someone's pain (usually the spouse or family member caught unawares, if the reviews of the show are to be believed).

Which is precisely what makes it such a fantastic show.

I think this show and Breaking Bad (the crystal meth show) are two of the worst things on TV at the moment. . . The whole show is a total farce. I don't want to use the term morally bankrupt, but damn this show is very near it.

Why would you say that about a show you've never even seen?

Oh! I went over to MAD to look and Orpheus started a thread on moderation titled "Warning -- Low tolerance moderating"

I'd post it here, but I'm afraid I'd be banned. :(

Go ahead and post it. I guarantee I won't ban you.

The only time I watched it I could see the spouse getting upset and I had to turn it off. It was upsetting to me. I don't understand why people would hurt people they supposedly love on national t.v.!

Because there's potentially a lot of money in it for them.

[Guest]

Unless a Bishop is a trained therapist he should NOT be counseling anyone! Period! Like you the idea of untrained men playing therapist is disturbing to say the least! :-(

So true. In my short stint as an acting bishop, I was amazed at what kinds of issues the members came to me with, expecting that I would have the answers that would help them. There was an attitude that "we bishops" could get inspiration for about anything. I suppose that might have been possible if it was really true, but "we" are just people trying to do the best we can. I was about the best referral source for therapists they could have had!

However, I've found that some bishops do cross the line. Stereotyping here, but they are generally the ones with less education. The phrase "you don't know what you don't know" applies, and I've known a few that offered very poor advice that caused some problems. One example was a bishop who was very involved in herbs (an MLM company), and "treated" most problems with his herbs. One had cancer, and it spread to a point that it was incurable. Sad.

Part of the problem is that some (hopefully less of an issue today than previously) bishops let the calling go to their head, and don't know good boundaries. I guess it's a problem with a lay ministry....

Or recommending to my wife that we divorce? That might be bad counsel.

I think what happens is that the bish is trying to see the "eternal picture" when giving advice, and as we know, Mormonism is very much about living for eternity rather than today. If one has a firm conviction that this life is a "test," and "preparatory state" for the eternities, it is easy to advise a person to only be married to a fellow believing partner, and if the other changes, it may be better eternally to find a better one!

But yes, I saw this quite a bit as well, and I see it as a matter of priorities -- live for today, or for the life after. Ideally we would hope they are the same, but with more people leaving the church than ever, it becomes a dilemna as to which one to choose!

[Guest]

Closing Tarski's thread with 0 responses.

I'm not the biggest fan of the moderating, either, but for what it's worth, there were several responses to Tarski's thread before it was locked.

At the risk of sounding crazy, there weren't any responses when I peeked into the freshly-closed thread.

Orpheus wrote in the final post "I could have sworn I closed this."

For once, I agree with him/her—I could have sworn he closed it, too. I don't know what to make of the post-initial-closure, pre-secondary-closure responses.

?

Maybe I am crazy. Or, maybe I'm Orpheus.

Chris

[_beastie]

I'll verify that tarski's thread was originally closed before a single comment was made. Then somehow it magically opened back up and comments were added before the final closure.

[_cksalmon]

I'll verify that tarski's thread was originally closed before a single comment was made. Then somehow it magically opened back up and comments were added before the final closure.

Well, I'm certainly glad to know I'm possibly not crazy.

Thanks, Beastie.

Chris

[_skippy the dead]

Well, I'm certainly glad to know I'm possibly not crazy.

Well, I don't know if that's the logical conclusion. ;o)

[_Scottie]

I have seen Ex-Mormons testify that bishops have counseled their spouses to divorce.

I'll go on Moment of Truth and testify to that!!