posted
I think the thing about the men/women meeting alone in regards to Mormons discussion that is missing is this (at least as much as I read and from my point of view). You guys are focusing too much on the idea that its wrong for them to meet together because something bad is bound to happen. There may be truth in that in some extremes, but I think its rather more like this... Why set yourself up for that at all? Anybody can misunderstand a situation they are seeing. Why put yourself in a situation that you have to later explain? Its not that we aren't adults, we are. But if you can avoid the appearance of wrong doing, wouldn't you do it. I personally think that is where the church is coming from. Don't leave anything for chance.
Its like my old Bishop told me once. He loved beer before he was Mormon. And one day much later after he became Mormon he grabbed one of those non-alcholic beer clones. Just a simple innocent thing. But someone saw him in his yard drinking one, and next thing you know there is this huge rumor running around that he was drinking beer. (This was before he was Bishop btw). Did he do something wrong? No. Did that stop people from thinking he did?
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know those LDS ads back in the 80s that ended with: "Brought to you by The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints... The Mormons"? Well, you guys should have gone with another choice: "Brought to you by The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints... God's Ninjas!"
posted
"You are saying that they can't have leadership roles because this interferes with Motherhood roles"
I said nothing about getting in the way of motherhood roles. I said because of proscribed roles. A mother is a mother and a father is a father. To interchange is to create a mixing of the roles - no matter how much better a woman or man might be in those positions.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but he was making them sin, like the young women in immodest clothing make the young men sin. Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree Bok, my point is still the same though. Avoid the appearance of evil is the way to go, at least as a policy for a group.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's an indictment of your culture if a man and a woman meeting is likely going to spur a round of gossip about how they must be sleeping together. The fault lies in the people whose minds go immediately to "They must be having sex." and spreads that around.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a certain paranoid preoccupation with sexual propriety in LDS culture. There is also a lot of busy-body gossiping. I'm not sure from whence it comes, but it's there nonetheless.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS. it is the "fault" of the culture, but not in the way you imply. It isn't about gossip, but about getting in a situation to start with that creates a possibility of sin. yes, I can see that going in the direction of talabanism. However, there are also other ideas of equal imprtance in Mormon culture that I think keeps it going to that extreme.
MattP., I think its more than meme, but actual theology. One that is shared with other Christians I think.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Squicky you can condemn our culture if you wish. I however don't think its much different than any other in that regard. My point is still the same, if you can put something in place to keep that "gossiping" to a minimum why wouldn't you do it?
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can keep asking that; I'm still not going to meet with you, Squicky. [edit: comma splice]
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS. I think at this point you are just coming from a different moral direction than Mormons and even other religions. A man and a women together *can*, not saying "will," bring up the possibility of sex. You know, the birds and the bees. Sex outside of marriage is considered a grave sin, and therefore situations that might increase the likelihood are to be avoided if possible.
Now, I am not buying into that reasoning why women don't hold the Priesthood. My beliefs on that question are different. However, that doesn't mean I don't agree with avoiding such situations when we can.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I can't even tell you how much I disagree with most of the LDS posters on the later part of this page. I agree with the structure and leadership of the church, but I find the representation of the church culture as pruriently obsessed with who might be breaking their covenants with whom here both revolting and not in accordance with my own experiences.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reasons you wouldn't do it are that it is unfair stereotyping and it discrimininates against women and men who might be very capable and called to certain leadership roles otherwise. In addition to being unfair, it is an enormous waste of potential.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, think about it in a broader sense. Man and woman meeting at Ice Cream shop, or Coffee Shop, or at one of their houses. No problems, they are doing it on their own. But now add a church agenda to it. If said people are meeting about an upcoming event, or discussing a family in the ward. Its now considered church business.
Now if one says the other made an advance, in the first scenario, thats between the two of them to work it out. But in the second scenario an organization now has to get involved. As an organization why not set up rules that prevent this type of thing from happening?
I'm speaking in very general terms here people, so don't take this as official policy. This is just my view of why such regulations are in place.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to church sponsored events, we also have a rule against forming a book group "as a church event". It is a combination of not wanting people to blame the church for anything that happens in a book, and on the other hand not wanting folks to be excluded if they can't afford to order in books from the church owned book company.
However, reading "good" literature is strongly encouraged by the church.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by striplingrz: As an organization why not set up rules that prevent this type of thing from happening?
I agree completely. The rule should be "Don't make advances toward your co-workers at church meetings (or anywhere else if either of you are married to other people)."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you can put something in place to keep that "gossiping" to a minimum why wouldn't you do it
No, of course not. I don't believe in submitting to bullies, especially when you aren't doing anything wrong or are doing things that are correct that other people maybe don't agree with.
The solution to unfounded, malicious gossip, to me, is to stop the gossip, not to bend over backwards to not give them something to gossip about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When it comes to church sponsored events, we also have a rule against forming a book group "as a church event". It is a combination of not wanting people to blame the church for anything that happens in a book, and on the other hand not wanting folks to be excluded if they can't afford to order in books from the church owned book company.
However, reading "good" literature is strongly encouraged by the church.
There is a book group for every ward in my stake, every singles ward that I know of, and one just for the Relief Society in my family ward. Some read only stuff from Deseret Book, but my ward book group just read Reading Lolita in Tehran.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, that sort of policy/rule doesn't have anything to do with why the women don't have the priesthood and are subsequently ineligible for the heaviest leadership burdens (Speaking now figuratively and not literally as we did a couple of pages ago.) It doesn't really make sense to speak of callings being higher or lower than one another, as the Branch President (bishop of a smaller congregation) is always reminding me of the scripture about the head saying to the foot "I have no need of thee".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the book policy is just our stake, and we were given those two reasons. We had an unofficial book group on the side, but it kind of died off after someone thought "Self Made Man" looked like an interesting book, and I read it, and mentioned we might want to skip that one.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, I don't know you very well as I haven't conversed with you prior to this. But I'm wondering what world you live in to think that is even possible. I agree completely with your assertion that that is how it should be on a personal level. I think the same thing. But as an organization (and I'm not just speaking about a church here, you could apply this same rule to a business) you have to put up safeguards to keep yourself out of liability. To say people should have good morals and act like adults is spot on. To imply you think everyone does and always will is silly.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A man and a women together *can*, not saying "will," bring up the possibility of sex.
In pretty much the same way, so can a man and a man meeting. And that would be gay sex. Is it considered a bad idea for two guys to meet up?
Heck, a multitude of people all getting together increases the odds of an orgy. Are LDS doomed to a solitary, hermit's existence? Except, in that case, it would be increasing the likelihood of you having sex with yourself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When it comes to church sponsored events, we also have a rule against forming a book group "as a church event". It is a combination of not wanting people to blame the church for anything that happens in a book, and on the other hand not wanting folks to be excluded if they can't afford to order in books from the church owned book company.
However, reading "good" literature is strongly encouraged by the church.
There is a book group for every ward in my stake, every singles ward that I know of, and one just for the Relief Society in my family ward. Some read only stuff from Deseret Book, but my ward book group just read Reading Lolita in Tehran.
Do you mean they are organized through the ward? Or simply that they are made-up mostly of members from the ward? Because I think the former is pretty directly discouraged by church policy and has the potential to create uncomfortable situations like the one pooka alluded to.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annapolis, kat. Our underground book group was where I read Life of Pi which I enjoyed quite a bit.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean that some are organized through the relief society and are announced in relief society, one was started by the activities committee (the Reading Lolita in Tehran one), and I think one might be informal but is advertised through the church listserv.
I know exactly pooka is referring to. That is not my experience - there are at least two official book clubs in two different wards.
---
Okay, I know nothing about the stakes in Maryland. Maybe it is a stake rule there. Whatever it is, it isn't a church-wide rule.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess I'm sort of glad to learn the Church doesn't make a global policy on whether book groups are permitted. That seems a bit of micromanaging.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A man and a women together *can*, not saying "will," bring up the possibility of sex.
In pretty much the same way, so can a man and a man meeting. And that would be gay sex. Is it considered a bad idea for two guys to meet up?
Heck, a multitude of people all getting together increases the odds of an orgy. Are LDS doomed to a solitary, hermit's existence? Except, in that case, it would be increasing the likelihood of you having sex with yourself.
Not the best comparison Mr S. Homosexuality is light years behind heterosexuality in terms of prevalence. Incidentally missionaries are forbidden to sleep in the same bed together in part to prevent that sort of behavior from occuring.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I fail to see how saying a man and a woman meeting increases the chance of them having sex is any different from saying that a man and a man meeting increases the chance of them having sex. Could you explain why this is so ridiculous?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though sometimes folks just ignore the rules. Like the guideline on not having husbands and wives give the opening and closing prayer of Sacrament meeting, or give the two talks in sacrament, so that single people don't feel excluded. There are congregations that make up their own rules, such as that the opening prayer has to be given by a Melchizedek priesthood holder, which I ran into at my in-laws ward.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not the best comparison Mr S. Homosexuality is light years behind heterosexuality in terms of prevalence.
But it increases the chance, correct?
I mean, a man and a woman meeting has very, very little to do with if they have sex or not, but I can't argue that it doesn't increase the chance that they will.
If it's a matter of degree, I don't see how the man and the woman things works. If it isn't, then I see no difference between that and two men.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of wards now have book clubs since the change to the new Enrichment "activities" - small-group whoever's-interested type activities - rather than "meetings" where all the women are encouraged to attend.
We have a RS book group in our ward.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like the guideline on not having husbands and wives give the opening and closing prayer of Sacrament meeting, or give the two talks in sacrament, so that single people don't feel excluded.
From at least my perspective, a remedy to this problem consistent with what people are saying is to abolish the opening and closing prayers so as to prevent this from happening.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kind of books do you read and where are you located? I think if we lived in Utah where Church-owned publisher books are in the Libraries, it wouldn't be an issue. We also had to stop having Girl's night out, which was the only Enrichment Activity anyone was consistently attending.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not the best comparison Mr S. Homosexuality is light years behind heterosexuality in terms of prevalence.
But it increases the chance, correct?
I mean, a man and a woman meeting has very, very little to do with if they have sex or not, but I can't argue that it increases the chance that they will.
If it's a matter of degree, I don't see how the man and the woman things works. If it isn't, then I see no difference between that and two men.
OK look you are right when men and women meet incidentally even at a planned event it might as well be virtually harmless. But say the man and a women work together closely. Say they meet several times a week to discuss policy. Say they start to admire each other as friends. Can you really say that the potential for somebody to step over the line is not substantially greater then it would be if it was two men working together or two women?
You are right there is risk in it being two men or women, but Mormons are not insane in that they avoid ANYTHING that could possibly end with negative results, if we did that we could do nothing, which in of itself would be wrong.
And now my head hurts.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, I have to say your behavior is not consistent with the advice you were giving Mr. Bradley in the PvP WoW thread. Just sayin'.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mr. Squicky, I have to say your behavior is not consistent with the advice you were giving Mr. Bradley in the PvP WoW thread. Just sayin'.
I have no idea what you mean, pooka. Could you explain? It sounds like you are trying to insult me. I would ask if that's what you are trying, could you just come out and say it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it seems a bit like you're jumping up and down and saying "OMG LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" to quote your first post on that thread. I could be wrong.
Also, I looked up the Taliban on wikipedia, and I guess I don't really feel most Mormons are the same, since the Taliban seem to innovate new commandments and restrictions to place on people. Though, there have been those discussions about Mormons, such as with the R rated movie argument.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, it seems a bit like you're jumping up and down and saying "OMG LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" to quote your first post on that thread. I could be wrong.
I don't see that. He's just taking the position that rather than simply agreeing to disagree, he'd like to challenge the validity of the arguments being made in this thread.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But say the man and a women work together closely. Say they meet several times a week to discuss policy. Say they start to admire each other as friends. Can you really say that the potential for somebody to step over the line is not substantially greater then it would be if it was two men working together or two women?
I do this. Every week. As do thousands of other men and women. If there was ever an issue -- if, for example, I started to feel sexually attracted to one of my male colleagues or he to me, then it would be time to take steps to be sure that we were never in a position where we could act on that temptation. But I will NOT avoid perfectly innocent and productive work sessions because two adults of the opposite sex who have taken vows of celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage might be slightly more likely to break those vows, violate their professional ethics, and betray their respective spouses than two people of the same sex are to realize that they are attracted to each other.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw: I admire you for being so mature, I really do. But I honestly don't think the average person does do this. More likely they try to just keep it boxed in, or else look to other means to fulfill those fantasies. It usually results in crisis management rather then prevention.
Many of these rules that Mormonism now has are rules that exist BECAUSE of incidents that neccesitated the creation of specific guidelines. They have not always existed.
edit: Again I am not saying people WILL succumbto lust or even WILL be tempted. But I'd rather be inconvenienced ALOT then to slip up even once.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
