Jason wrote: Do I really believe bishops sons often get special treatment. Not at all.
My husband's Dad was the bishop when he was growing up. I know that he always felt that he was under more pressure than the rest of the kids to "always do the right thing". He and his siblings were constantly under the Ward microscope as the example.
I feel sorry for bishop's kids, in general. I think they really get the raw end of the deal in Church. There are some ward members who are jealous of the supposed "higher status" that the bishop's family has, and it's like they are just waiting for one of the kids to screw up.
liz3564 wrote:I feel sorry for bishop's kids, in general. I think they really get the raw end of the deal in Church. There are some ward members who are jealous of the supposed "higher status" that the bishop's family has, and it's like they are just waiting for one of the kids to screw up.
When the kid did screw up, he didn't confess to his father. He buried it. His father was an honorable man. Had the son confessed, he wouldn't have served a mission. Other boys were kept home for similiar sins. He would not have had special treatment from his dad and he knew it, so he didn't confess.
And yes, my source is reliable.
It's been almost 15 years, so I wouldn't expect anything now, nor would I push it. I say, let the guy alone. But saying raising the bar did anything to elevate the caliber of missionaries is bogus; those who lie will still lie.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
In regards to the mans role in adulterous relationships, this from Jeffey R Holland:
In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing"? No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, "He just can't help himself. His glands have complete control over his life--his mind, his will, his entire future."
To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of the young man's too is the least fair assertion I can imagine. In most instances if there is sexual transgression, I lay the burden squarely on the shoulders of the young man--for our purposes probably a priesthood bearer--and that's where I believe God intended responsibility to be. In saying that I do not excuse young women who exercise no restraint and have not the character or conviction to demand intimacy only in its rightful role. I have had enough experience in Church callings to know that women as well as men can be predatory. But I refuse to buy some young man's feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology.
Indeed, most tragically, it is the young woman who is most often the victim, it is the young woman who most often suffers the greater pain, it is the young woman who most often feels used and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as the sun sets and rivers run to the sea.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
cinepro wrote: A quick search of the LDS.org website didn't turn up any of the bad analogies from the OP, so I wonder if they were ever "officially" taught, or if they are just handed down from generation to generation? I had one Gospel Doctrine teacher who always used the "nail in a board" analogy for repentance, but he always used it as an example of what repentance wasn't.
You are not going to find on LDS.org ANYTHING that will purposefully incriminate the church. Official my foot, there's been plenty of things spoken from the pulpits of the LDS church which equals taught, that you won't find on that website.
I wonder if there are still only 13 talks on racism on that site, to the several hundred on the favorite topics of tithing, obedience, etc.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Maybe we need to take a step back and decide what we're going to complain about. Either the LDS culture is too lenient with boys and chastity, or it is too strict.
Gazelam wrote:In regards to the mans role in adulterous relationships, this from Jeffey R Holland:
In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing"? No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, "He just can't help himself. His glands have complete control over his life--his mind, his will, his entire future."
To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of the young man's too is the least fair assertion I can imagine. In most instances if there is sexual transgression, I lay the burden squarely on the shoulders of the young man--for our purposes probably a priesthood bearer--and that's where I believe God intended responsibility to be. In saying that I do not excuse young women who exercise no restraint and have not the character or conviction to demand intimacy only in its rightful role. I have had enough experience in Church callings to know that women as well as men can be predatory. But I refuse to buy some young man's feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology.
Indeed, most tragically, it is the young woman who is most often the victim, it is the young woman who most often suffers the greater pain, it is the young woman who most often feels used and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as the sun sets and rivers run to the sea.
He's not talking about adultery, Gaz. He's talking about fornication. Different level of sin.
As to the talk, I had a bishop who obviously had either never heard it or ignored it. His main theme when my girls were in MIA was "Don't pet the tiger." He placed the responsibility for any and all sexual transgression squarely on the girls' shoulders. It was only one of the things my oldest rebelled against, while she was Laurel president.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
I like licking cupcakes. I have references of my cupcake licking activities for those who are thinking CFR.
"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