A few weeks ago I posted about the purity and compassion paradigms that existed during Jesus’s ministry and the ways that Jesus frequently rejected the purity paradigm in favor of compassion. As discussed in that post and its comments, this is a paradigm that we often see in contemporary religion and even in secular culture. In the LDS Church, I see it most commonly framed as a conflict between “love” and “laws.” Oaks in particular is known for preaching repeatedly that we cannot let the second great commandment (“that shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”) conflict with the first (“that shalt love the Lord thy God”). The second commandment seems to me to be rooted in the love and compassion paradigm. Although the first could also be rooted in a compassion paradigm, I think it is generally co-opted by conservative religions to support purity rules. The most salient example, of course, being that we can love our LGBTQ friends and family but we should not love them too as that would make us impure and violate the injunction that we are to love God.
I don’t believe that the first and second commandments ever need to come into conflict. I don’t believe in a God that would ask their children to hurt one another in order to prove our fidelity, and I agree with the interpretation of these two commandments that posits that the second commandment is not lesser but in fact describes the way that we keep the first: we show our love to God by loving our neighbor. Not by obeying arbitrary rules as loyalty tests. Jesus taught pretty clearly that how we treat others is proxy for how we treat him.
Many Mormons I know feel threatened by a compassion paradigm, thinking that it would mean there are no rules, only love, and people would start misbehaving. I disagree. I do believe in commandments, but I believe any true commandment should be aimed either at helping us lead a healthier life or at helping us care for one another. A commandment that doesn’t meet one of those aims isn’t a true commandment in my view. It’s a man-made rule that is either aimed at benefiting the people who proclaimed the rule or at enforcing purity codes that come from humans, not God.
So, with that out of the way, I’m going to give some examples of rules in the LDS Church. And what I want to consider is: Is this rule rooted in compassion or purity? If there’s some purity aspect of it, could it be reframed in a way that it serves compassion aims?
- Word of Wisdom: I think this often framed as a purity rule (we must keep our bodies pure and holy so that we can have the Holy Ghost, and we must obey 100%), but is also commonly discussed as a rule intended to help us live better lives here. That said, to fully abandon purity components, the rules would need to reframed or relaxed. For example, responsible alcohol use may not really hurt people, but irresponsible use (like drunk driving or drunken misbehavior) or addiction does. Coffee and tea don’t really hurt anyone, although excessive caffeine can increase anxiety and interfere with sleep (hurting one’s own welfare and potentially family members). Meat consumption could be reframed in terms of environmental stewardship, and we could think generally about eating local, sustainably-sourced food from companies that do not employ exploitative environmental or labor practices. Of course, none of this will work unless the Word of Wisdom is relaxed to be a “guideline” and we have real conversations about the values that underlie its elements and how we can best meet them.
- Chastity: This one is pretty obviously framed as a purity rule, but I think can be reframed as a compassion rule if we focus on sexual ethics, consent, and healthy intimacy (both emotional and physical). That rule might look less like “no sex before marriage” and more like “no sex unless and until you are in an emotionally intimate, healthy, committed relationship, after which sex needs to be safe and consensual.” (I’m just making this up on the fly, I’m sure there are better ways to frame this). Chastity rules would also apply equally to same-sex couples; rules against gay marriage seem entirely rooted in purity codes (preserving the “purity” of traditional marriage) and not rooted in compassion. (I get the Church’s “compassion” argument–about same-sex marriages not being eternal, so it’s actually cruel to support them here–but I don’t buy it.) Bright-line rules about dating (like the 16-year age minimum) would give way to a flexible standard based on emotional readiness and maturity.
- Modesty: Another purity rule. This one, insofar as it relates to women’s clothing, needs serious overhaul to meet compassion aims. I believe we can reframe it to correspond with what the actual definition of the word is – i.e., not boastful – and ask whether we are behaving or presenting ourselves in a way that is appropriate for the circumstances we are in and whether we are drawing undue attention to ourselves at the expense of others. It should have little to do with our clothing; if anything, I would ask myself whether my clothing is appropriate for the occasion, comfortable, and self-expressive as opposed to intended to make myself seem superior to other people. We will not judge other people based on the number of earrings they wear–such judgment would make us the immodest ones.
- Media: No “Rated R” movies seems also to be a purity rule. I do believe we can think about whether our consumption of media is ethical and uplifting, whether we are seeking media that provides diverse perspectives and representations, and whether we are learning critical thinking skills to apply to the media we consume.
- Sabbath Observance: This one can also at times be framed as purity (keep us “unsullied” from the world on Sundays), but can be expanded to be about personal physical, mental, and emotional health, and time with family. I actually think the Church has done a good job at getting rid of checklists here and focusing on the real purpose of the Sabbath.
Now, it’s your turn.
- How else would you reframe the rules I’ve listed in this post to focus on care for self and others?
- Do you have other examples of rules we have at Church that should be eliminated or reframed in service of compassion?
- Can you think of rules (guidelines, really, as “rules” seems sort of purity-centric to begin with) that we do not currently have in Church that we should if we want to keep the commandment to love others as ourselves?
Wheat & Tares 
Elisa: I love the way you have contrasted purity-based thinking with compassion-based thinking as it pertains to LDS standards. And as the father of three adult daughters, I want to make a very simple (and probably not unique) observation. Here goes:
Unlike me, my three adult daughters (all in their 20s) all left the Church for reasons that had little to do with Church history. Sure, they are bothered by polygamy and our history with black members. But the reasons why they left correspond strikingly to what you’ve written. They simply see the world through a lense of compassion and inclusion as opposed to exclusivity and arbitrary rules. The LGBTQ issue alone serves a reason to disassociate in their eyes. And based on what I have observed since they left home for college, this is how their thinking applies:
Word of Wisdom: they have no problem with the concept of drinking as long as it is done so responsibly. They would say my old line that “every alcoholic started with one drink” is a little cliche. And the idea that coffee and tea are out of bounds seems absolutely absurd to them. In sum, act reasonable and don’t engage in self harm and stop with the self-righteous notion that Sprite is morally superior to Diet Coke.
Chastity: they reject the LDS mentality that all sexual activity outside of marriage is 2nd only to murder in the eyes of God (shout out to Alma 39:5). But they also reject any notion of promiscuity or casualness with respect to this topic. Again, the idea is to be safe and loving and to do no harm to others with consent as a cornerstone value.
Modesty: in their eyes, modesty has little to do with how you dress. It’s more about how you act. They will openly admit that they don’t welcome the judgement of others. All three of them had YW leaders who preached modesty as they drove their Cadilac Escalades / Lincoln Navigators (literally) around Draper to and from boob job appointments.
Media: hardly worth commenting on. An f-word line doesn’t make a movie “bad”. Neither does a sex scene. But gratuitous sex in movies is obnoxious.
Sabbath Observance: they never got over the idea that we couldn’t recreate on Sunday, even as a family but dad can attend hours of leadership meetings alone and then come home and watch football the rest of the day on TV. Sorry, I’m a product of my culture.
I now see things the way they do. Another example of learning from my kids.
Elisa is absolutely correct on two fronts: 1) there must be rules, and 2) there should be a re-examination of the rules.
Some modern Church leaders have lost sight of what rules regarding marriage are for. The irrefutable fact is that sexual expression is good, when exercised among consenting adults in marriage. But unrestrained copulating like crazed weasels with anyone and everyone at any time is not. The rules against same sex marriage only serves to discourage loving and committed relationships, while pushing people toward short term indiscriminate liaisons.
Some modern leaders have also lost focus on the purpose of modesty rules. Unfortunately, the focus has shifted from respecting oneself by dressing properly to a focus on being responsible for the actions of others. I cannot abide the false teaching that young women are responsible in the way they dress for the thoughts and actions of young men. This takes responsibility away from young men for their own thoughts and actions.
Some modern leaders have also lost focus on the purpose of the Word of Wisdom. Certainly, drunkenness an inebriation are harmful and should be prohibited. But those are not the only things that are bad. The standard modern Church activity has become little more than an excuse to shoot sugar straight into the vein. Blessing the cupcakes and brownies doesn’t do anything to stop the wave of gluttony that is sweeping the land.
I generally don’t like to criticize, but I must join Elisa in pointing out just a few rules that should be re-examined.
The aim of temple worthiness and attendance is an outgrowth of purity culture? Obedience to the rules and beliefs in order to obtain a recommend fosters loyalty and reinforces ego. Where a more nuanced faith approach to worthiness fosters love and a more compassionately minded person.
Temple attendance became for me a place to check off as a to do list. I felt comfort thinking I was in a holy place whose spirit made me more holy and pure within. Wearing white cloths primed my mind into purity thoughts. After two hours in the temple I gained an air of superiority, a purity feeling, an ego fulfillment.
Temple could be pushed as a place of true contemplation and communion with deity and less about cleanliness, worthy, holy, purity?
Another great post, Elisa. So there’s a lot to say here. I’ve been thinking about potentially submitting a guest post on chastity, so I’ll try not to go overboard. Taking the 10,000 foot view, I think what you’re outlining is some really foundational and unfortunate Mormon thought and belief. And I think it actually starts not with purity per se, but with the purpose of purity in Mormon theology. The reason why purity is so important is tied to the ability to access the Holy Ghost. Many church leaders preach and teach (wrongly, IMHO) that keeping one’s self “pure” means that one can be, in a quite literal, bodily sense, closer to God. If we are “pure,” the thinking goes, we are more able to access the spirit, stay on the Covenant Path (copyright pending) and be closer to God. If our bodies are “clean”, in other words, we’ll be more inspired, uplifted, less likely to be deceived by Satan, etc. We don’t really make that connection a lot any more because purity has become this bizarre thing to try to achieve for its own sake, but I think this is some of the thinking behind it. Hence, the fact that many true mainstream Mormons will choose a purity-based approach to these issues rather than one rooted in compassion. That may be an additional factor of the phenomenon you note about people being afraid of a compassion-based approach.
As I said, I’ll stay away from some of the points you raised, but I’d add another one: tithing. Given that those who make less money actually end up donating more of their spending power under the flat 10% rate the church mandates, there is no possible way that Christ would approve of the way we currently have tithing set up. How on earth could someone who advocated for the poor during his entire earthly ministry approve of what is essentially a flat tax that disproportionately disadvantages the poor? Not to mention the leaders who advise everyone, even the most economically disadvantaged among us, to pay tithing before doing anything else. This one is a real sore spot for me. I no longer attend the temple because it simply doesn’t do anything for me, but to take the sincere desire of a financially struggling person to attend the temple and turn it into a money-generating scheme for the church is, in my view, unconscionable. There are many similarities, I think, between the notions of purity and worthiness. And for our leaders to focus on abstract, impossible to prove things, like someone’s purity or worthiness as a way to increase the church’s coffers is unconscionable. How about something more along the lines of “pay what you can, when you can”? That surely is a more compassionate approach.
I agree with James’s thoughts on the temple. The recommend questions do not ask about kindness, or honesty, or giving to the poor. And being in the temple was an exercise in self righteousness, just as James explained, that it made him feel superior to others who were not worthy to be there.
The emphasis on purity over agency that the young women get in chastity lessons is very damaging. I know a young woman who after hearing that she was a licked cupcake and there was nothing she could ever do to fix it because virginity isn’t something you can get back by repenting and she would never be worthy of some returned missionary taking to the temple, she just gave up and decided it didn’t matter who she had sex with. The lessons treat the YW as things that must be kept clean so some man will want that thing to take with him to the temple. They imply that repentance doesn’t make you worthy, because virginity is the all important proof of purity. You own choices are not necessarily what makes you unclean, as there is no mention of the possibility that the girl didn’t cause whatever to happen, just like the cupcake didn’t lick itself, but the making it unclean was done to a thing. So, as a sexual abuse victim, I decided God was stupider than a jacka** because I knew I knew I didn’t choose the abuse. But then after six years of hearing those lessons, I started feeling like it didn’t matter if I wanted it or not, God still didn’t love me because I was unclean. Who I was didn’t matter, what I did or didn’t do didn’t matter, I was unclean and God didn’t want me because of what someone did to me. I was the licked cupcake nobody wanted. The object lessons used are all damaging because they pick a thing that gets dirtied, or damaged. Talk about objectifying women.
Then the modesty lessons objectify us even more. We are things that need to be covered up because if men see us, they will want us. So, hide all signs that you are female, and if you happen to have more of a figure than a string bean, then shame on you for being immodest, just for owning boobs. The more voluminous girls get it far worse than the skinny ones that look like Twiggy. They are shamed because no matter how they dress, they still show a female figure.
But, at the same time, girls have to be attractive and sexy enough to catch a man, so, if you are too thin, get that boob job so you look sexy, oh no, you look too sexy. So, we are damned if we look attractive and told to paint the old barn if we don’t. Out worth is totally in our looks, and we need to keep the perfect balance between modest and sexy because THE most important thing in our life is catching a man to take us to the temple.
As a person who graduated high school in Utah at 16 years old nearly 20 years ago, I can attest that the “cannot date until 16 years old” was not compassionate at all. My parents understood my maturity and encouraged me to use my agency; however, I had three different guys who weren’t allowed to go to dances, in a group, with me because I wasn’t 16. It seemed more like boundary keeping and reinforcing purity culture then a rule based in compassion.
I once heard Richard Rohr quote Matthew 5:48 in this manner: “Be ye therefore COMPASSIONATE, even as your Father which is in heaven is COMPASSIONATE.”
I like the distinction between purity and compassion, particularly as it applies to the Mormon church, but I can’t get past feeling that it leaves out related perspectives that don’t fit neatly into either area. I can’t see the WoW as anything but an obedience test, for example. Members frequently point to the damage caused by alcohol and drugs as evidence of Joseph’s inspiration and, hence, good reason to observe the WoW; would that it were so simple. Alcohol did fairly ravage the United States in the nineteenth century, but this was largely based on different cultural mores oriented around the fact water was often not safe to drink, e.g., cholera outbreaks in Nauvoo. Drugs, of course, are not mentioned in the WoW because they were a non-factor when it was written, and the prohibition against tea and coffee is just a flyer, in my opinion, based on the mention of hot drinks that somehow herbal remedies and soup managed to escape. Caffeine in large quantities is harmful, yeah, but not really when compared with huge quantities of sugar and processed foods, so put a check box in the not-inspiration column for that one. So, to sum up, part is accurate (alcohol) in terms of purity, part is actually obstructive (tea and coffee) with regard to health, the rest is ignored, and truly damaging things in a modern context like sugar and processed foods are never mentioned. I’ve always labored under the assumption that actual prophecy was enduring, i.e., it would not be relevant for a bit and then fall by the wayside. That’s not how revelation has worked in this church.
Equally, temple attendance is a demonstration of commitment and obedience. It’s weird, most people who go don’t like it, and few who go really understand it. But go many do because it is obedient to do so. Listening to Bill Reel recently discuss the temple ceremony, his guest asked a good question: What is the value in doing something repeatedly that you never really understand the value or importance of? There has never been a clear answer other than obedience.
The church frames many of these issues are matters of purity, which seems like false to me. These are matters of obedience and they always have been. It’s a fear-based belief system that appeals to people who want to know what steps they have to take to get to heaven. If that’s how God actually organized the universe, I’d think him an authoritarian not worthy of veneration. Elisa, I think the animating belief underlying purity is actually obedience. Turning the organization to a compassion focus seems more difficult than the Queen Mary doing a 180 in the Panama canal, however necessary and correct it may be. I hope young people like josh h’s kids prove me wrong.
@jaredsbrother, I don’t really see a distinction between purity and obedience tests. I think they are basically the same. An arbitrary rule we have to obey in order to be pure.
Elisa, I understand what you mean, which is why I was hoping the WoW example would help. It doesn’t seem hard to me to make the case for purity in many contexts–sexual purity versus unwanted pregnancy and disease, abstinence versus dependence and destruction, uplifting entertainment versus dark thoughts and aberrant behavior. But the WoW apart from alcohol is not just disconnected from the benefits is supposedly provides, it is also in some instances counterproductive. I feel like I can connect some benefit in the material world to most displays of purity, but with much of the WoW I cannot. And then the temple is just a bizarre display, so perhaps I should not have mentioned.
I think the reasons WHY we keep the commandments are very important (e.g. purity vs compassion). Sometimes the same commandment is kept by one person for purity reasons, and kept by a different person for reasons of compassion. I’ve recently been reviewing Kholberg’s stages of moral development. In my opinion, the early stages of moral development (avoid punishment, earn a reward/blessing, look good/be considered a good person) seem to correlate with purity, and are focused on one’s individual self.
The later stages of moral development (considering individual rights, promoting the general welfare, abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles), seem to correlate with compassion and are focused on others (which ultimately is also good for the self).
At church, the commandments are often taught from a point of view of the early stages of moral development (avoid punishment, get blessings, etc…). That’s fine for the primary kids since we need to start somewhere and progress through our moral development- but it should not be an ending point. Sometimes I think that church can stunt people’s moral development by keeping it too simplistic and focusing on the purity aspects (early levels of moral reasoning). Church correlated material doesn’t help people progress through the later stages. I guess that’s something we need to do on our own, (and something that people often do when they leave the church.)
@aporetic1, I’m familiar with stages of development (both generally, and then the way people like Thomas McConkie and Brian McLaren have applied to faith stages). I am still figuring this out, but I really don’t think that we have to essentially lie to kids or teach them things we don’t believe because it’s developmentally appropriate. I think there are ways you could take a nuanced and compassion-based set of rules or guidelines and teach them to kids that way.
Probably a post for another day, but McLaren for example talks about how instead of a linear set of stages we can imagine developmental stages as bigger and bigger boxes. And maybe kids start in the small box, but you still construct the box in a way that fits inside the larger box so that they develop by climbing out of one box into the next rather than basically having a faith crisis and realizing everything you were taught was a lie and not being able to integrate previous stages.
Likewise, I think it would be possible to create a curriculum that is more helpful to later stages and preparing people for later stages. But the Church doesn’t trust us to be adults or make choices.
@Elisa Yep. It’s a big tricky topic, and probably worth another post. I agree with you. I don’t think we should lie to kids. I like the idea of building bigger boxes so they can climb out of one into the next one without a crisis of faith. I am trying to do that with my kids, and I would love a curriculum that is more helpful. Often times after church I feel like I’m doing damage control, and trying to teach the gospel as a nuanced and compassion-based set of rules, but at their developmental level the concrete church messages seem to resonate more right now, and I’m okay with that. I do hope they grow into a bigger box soon.
I know someone who left the church and developed into more of a stage 5 of moral reasoning. They don’t want their kids to feel manipulated, so they are all about “You don’t have to follow a rule just because someone said so. Follow your own moral compass.” It seems to be working well for their older kids (who have gone through the previous stages) and would be in the youth program. But for their younger primary aged kids “following your own moral compass” looks a lot like doing whatever is best for “ME!”
It’s up for debate, but Kohlberg says people can only pass through these levels (specific to moral development) in the order listed. – The better you are at one stage, the better you’ll be at the next stage. I’m hoping that my friend’s kids will still develop their moral reasoning and not just remain in the natural selfish state of childhood. I bet they’ll figure it out. If/When they do, it’ll probably be out of compassion rather than purity rules.
Aporetic1 says it well: “…. Often times after church I feel like I’m doing damage control, and trying to teach the gospel as a nuanced and compassion-based set of rules,”…. This. I was feeling this before the pandemic, but even more strongly since, which may explain why I rarely attend anymore. I’m tired of doing damage control for myself, let alone my kids.
From information received in a stake meeting last night, I can say that there will be an unfortunate push to come down on the rules. Specifically, President Oaks is pushing for more disciplinary councils and harsher outcomes. It makes me sad. The response should be love, not harshness.
@rudi, Jesus LOVED disciplinary councils.
Doesn’t Oaks seem to believe that the harshness disseminated by the church is love? He’s the velvet BR McConkie. I have to believe he wasn’t breast fed.
I don’t think telling members they must wear an extra layer of clothing in warm/humid climates/seasons shows much compassion.
Or shows good stewardship over the earth.
I don’t think garments that don’t easily accommodate needs of menstruating women shows much compassion.
Same for lactating and postpartum mothers.
Same for people with many physical disabilities.
Same for age-related declines.
I don’t think telling newlyweds they must wear the garment night and day promotes physical intimacy.
Same with married couples.
I don’t see at all, based on embroidered symbol locations, why garments need sleeves, even cap sleeves. Heck, the tops could be camisoles.
I don’t l think men should tell women what underwear they must wear.
Same with telling other men.
Basically, I’m an unfan of temple garments.
I have come to realise that we are not here to keep rules; but to BECOME…… Christlike.
Compassion being an aspect of love it is part of who we need to become.
Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect. Is not talking about doing things but being/becoming(be ye). If you look at the preceeding verses they are about loving your neighbour. So being a person who loves perfectly, is who you are/ like our heavenly parents are.
Unless rules/laws are presented with the understanding of helping us to BECOME better more Christlike/loving, they are not helpfull. Compassion is not something you do, but who you are.
Great post. I’m just gonna throw out there that telling gay adults they have to remain celibate to remain pure is beyond cruel. The first time I kissed a guy I was *really* into was mind-blowing. I still find myself occasionally worrying that I’m going to the Telestial Kingdom for kissing another guy, but then I imagine how sweet it will be to be receive a Telestial Kingdom home teaching assignment to visit Dallin H. Oaks each month. Jesus made plain the Telestial Kingdom is the eventual home for the Pharisees.I’ll be sure to bring Oaks a rainbow sugar cookie each month and count it as my visit. (Oh yeah, and for those of you correcting me in your heads, “It’s ‘ministering brother’,” you’re wrong! God knows the one true branding for his heavenly moving company.)
I believe President Oaks is not neurotypical. I don’t know what is “wrong” with him, but I think it’s possible that he is on the spectrum, just based on what seems to be a lack of empathy and the way he approaches gospel topics in general. His talks seem structured and delivered in a way that reminds me of the Start Trek character Mr. Spock, very analytical and “logical”, without much beauty or emotion and again, without much empathy.
Elisa, I like McLaren’s stages of spiritual growth the very best of all of the various ways that spiritual writers have tried to explain the spiritual growth process. The first time I read the chart with my husband, after I’d finished reading stage 1 we both looked at each other and said “That’s the church right now!” For all that “The glory of God is intelligence.” is found in the D&C as well as the main entrance to BYU-Provo you would never know it by the way lesson materials for RS, PH, YW, and YM are formulated as well as for the seminary, Institute, and BYU religion classes. In the scriptures we read about making sure that converts and young children begin with the milk” or the simple things of the gospel and then they gradually are to be introduced to the “meat” or more advanced matters. Unfortunately, the way the church is now run all we get is milk regardless of how long we’ve been members of the church. I personally feel like I am suffering from both spiritual starvation and malnutrition when I attend church. For this reason and also because I deal with chronic health issues I no longer attend church.
Why do the church leaders feel that they need to keep everyone back at the investigator/new member/Sunbeam level of gospel instruction? Why can’t there be classes set up for members to teach them at the various levels that they’re on? Christ never meant for us to be kept in a state of spiritual or intellectual infancy. Growth is part of His plan for us. Why are the Q 15 so afraid of the members growing spiritually and intellectually? Intelligence, according to Joseph Smith, is truth and light and the ability to recognize truth and light. If this is true why then are the brethren afraid of us receiving truth and light? It really makes one wonder.
@poor wayfaring stranger, “Faith After Doubt” is IMO the best book in its class / genre. Absolutely loved it.
If you were teaching a “meat” LDS class what would you teach, though? I’ve kinda come to the conclusion that our theology isn’t all that interesting. The “meat” stuff used to be Adam-God, polygamy, getting planets, where is Kolob, etc and we’ve now (probably rightly) abandoned it. And while I know people can try to make meaning of the temple liturgy, I’m quite disillusioned there as well. Can’t tell you how much time I spent trying to understand various symbols in the temple that I now know are either Masonic or refer to penalties. Plus, it’s sexist.
So perhaps the problem is there just isn’t a lot of LDS-specific meat. I dunno.
@E, I agree. No emotion or empathy. Very logical. Obsessed with the same topics.
Seeing people like him and Bednar and frankly a lot of them and I’m like “shouldn’t they be the happiest people in the world if they’re so ‘righteous’”??? And I don’t really want to be anything like them or hang out with them.
Although I’ll be happy to stop by with cookies with @MTodd 🙂
As far as what the meat could look like- or a curriculum, The best church curriculum that I’ve come across is the church’s addiction recovery program manual. I won’t make any claims about it’s effectiveness in overcoming addictions, but I will say that it does a great job of teaching the atonement in a very practical way. Our stake holds a class using this manual called “Atonement in Action” and it’s for all members, including and especially those who are not dealing with addictions. I think all members of the church should study this manual (skip step 1 though) in order to gain a better understanding of the atonement.
Thinking about a curriculum for teaching my kids got me to looking into one. inspirekids.org seems to have interesting lessons and activities I might try. I think it might meet what Elisa said “I think there are ways you could take a nuanced and compassion-based set of rules or guidelines and teach them to kids that way.” Has anybody heard of it or used it before?
I meant upliftkids.org
@aporetic, yes, I use it. It’s great.
Exponent II just published an essay “Teaching the Addiction Recovery Program to Non-Addicted Relief Society Women: Thoughts and Reflections”
https://www.the-exponent.com/teaching-the-addiction-recovery-program-to-non-addicted-relief-society-women-thoughts-and-reflections/
and Jana Riess’ latest Flunking Sainthood article, “A more inclusive Mormon Family Home Evening,” highlights Uplift Kids.
https://religionnews.com/2022/05/02/a-more-inclusive-mormon-family-home-evening/
Many minds with the same thoughts?
I don’t get it. The gents in the red seats must be convinced that the church is and should be like them: Wishing that the queer folk would go back into the closet (because they really don’t exist, do they?), that everyone could acquiesce to the exalted position of white folk (white American folk especially), and that our dear women will stick to their god-given role.
That is what they are holding onto as their target audience – their core membership. The ones they can’t afford to lose. They are the ones they talk to and open their arms for.
That was me for over half a century. But guess what, life happens. I have a Gay kid. I have a Black kid. I have an Asian kid. I have kids with intellectual disabilities. And a couple that have died. I have a take-no-prisoners wife. Eventually, they couldn’t keep my wife and me. Because they couldn’t love what we love. They could only see them in one way. So we parted ways.
Eventually, they and those that are like them will die. Others, like me that were like them once, will come to see things differently and leave. And there is a huge cohort of younger members that aren’t buying what they’re serving at all and they are just gone.
Their money will remain. Good thing that there is a lot. Since my brothers and I have left there have been millions of dollars that haven’t been tithed and future millions (hoping I’ll live a long time) from which they won’t get a dime. Only 27% of our children remain in.
This from confusing purity and strict obedience with love. Open arms or closed doors. They’ve chosen.
@E & @Elisa
Maybe the mannerisms you observe in DHO is more along the lines of one (or more) of the Personality Disorders. The people I’ve known who are on the spectrum have an innocence and naïveté about them. People with PDs are more likely to be calculating and manipulative.