Would JS be a porn addict?

[LaMachina]

I've gone on record in the past mildly defending Joseph for at least trying to legitimize his philanderings as marriages (I viewed it as better/more noble than just sleeping around).

Thank you for sharing alas and GiT. Hearing your takes has literally left me sick to my stomach that I ever defended what this guy did in any way whatsoever.

[Jeffret]

Those are some good ideas, about the impact of earlier polygamy on latter strict conservative sexuality. Polygamy has had a long and significant impact on Mormonism. Since the Church finally fully disavowed it, they've put a lot of effort into stopping it and distancing themselves from it.

Don't forget, though, that those people you mention, Peterson, SWK, JFS, etc., can also be understood as products of their time. They came from a rather conservative time from a rather conservative region. Much of their comments and reactions come from the Sexual Revolution, when people, most importantly women, began discussing sex and sexuality more openly and acknowledging the existence of far more variety than was previously mentionable. The Church and culture selected for that sort of person in response to some of the things going on "in the world".

[Rob4Hope]

Those are some good ideas, about the impact of earlier polygamy on latter strict conservative sexuality. Polygamy has had a long and significant impact on Mormonism. Since the Church finally fully disavowed it, they've put a lot of effort into stopping it and distancing themselves from it.

Don't forget, though, that those people you mention, Peterson, SWK, JFS, etc., can also be understood as products of their time. They came from a rather conservative time from a rather conservative region. Much of their comments and reactions come from the Sexual Revolution, when people, most importantly women, began discussing sex and sexuality more openly and acknowledging the existence of far more variety than was previously mentionable. The Church and culture selected for that sort of person in response to some of the things going on "in the world".

Understood.

I have and do see how the culture was influential in this. I do, however, think that some of the positions these men had were extremes nonetheless, beyond just the culture.

I know, for example, that JFS taught that it was serious sin to use contraception, and he used the word "serious". The ONLY legitimate use of sexuality (according to him) was procreation.

There is still a type of madonna / whore dichotomy that transfixes mormon culture today. I remember hearing D. Michael Quinn briefly discuss this problem, of how women are treated by leadership as a-sexual beings who automagically become something else on their wedding night. And it causes all kinds of problems. Laura Brotherson has written about this in a LDS best-seller on sex, and others have as well.

One person who has discussed this was Dr. Finlayson-fife. In her dissertation, she gave a true example of a discussion between a woman and her SP about sexuality for pleasure. The SP was given a binder of material from headquarters that contained instructions to share with her, but to NOT give it to her. The SP read the documents and they were basically quotes from GAs over the years that stepped around the issues and so forth. But hthis woman's questions were not answered.

She stumped her SP with this specific ( as near as I can remember it): "So, your telling me that unless I'm supposed to have children I shouldn't be sexual with my husband? What if I had a problem with my tubes and was unable to have a child because this part of my body didn't work. Would I simply never be with my husband and not be able to have that type of relationship with him then, even though there was nothing I did wrong?"

This discussion happened years ago when there was still this massive debate over this contraception thing. But the idea of sex for children still being absolutely the primary reason for sex, if you ask me, is still going on, and is part of the this entire Family Proclamation deal and the war on gay marriage.

Its also one of the totally incongruent components of why JS would be getting with extra wives since the BoM sais that the purpose of such things is to "raise up seed".

My point is I believe that the big swings in the moral compass that have and continue happening in the LDS church have more to do with shame and attempts to compensate for abusive damage than they have to do with any kindof revelation.

[Jeffret]

My point is I believe that the big swings in the moral compass that have and continue happening in the LDS church have more to do with shame and attempts to compensate for abusive damage than they have to do with any kindof revelation.

I largely agree with you. I think you've identified many of the issues that arise. Some of it though, is more a matter of degree than specific differences. Many of the issues you describe are common in conservative Christianity in general. (Or even generally in conservative society or conservative religion.) Some of it is a natural consequence of the authoritarian, hierarchical, or patriarchal nature of the church. For example, the madonna / whore thing is pretty standard, not unique to Mormonism.

Your insights have identified some interesting factors that provide some unusual twists to the flavor. As you point out, the polygamy, its abuses, and all of the associated lying play significant roles in how all this has evolved for the church.

[Give It Time]

You know, I wrote what I did about Joseph purposely sleeping with women that Emma loved just kind of off the top of my head, only realizing it kind of as I was writing about predators. But then I got thinking. I worked professionally with domestic I violence victims, had several who were at times afraid for their lives, had been beaten so bad they were hospitalized, broken bones, bla bla bla. After a while, one gets jaded, like my brother who is an emergency room doctor, and talks about blood and gore like people talk about lunch. Anyway, I have heard it all, seen much of it as I was called to the hospital twice to be with clients who had been badly beaten. Anyway, in my time working with domestic violence, the women got so nothing the man could do could hurt them anymore, they were just sort of numb. But part of domestic violence is the abuser proving that he can still get his victim to react with pain because the pain she feels is his proof that she cares about him and how he treats her. It is sort of like proof she loves him when she reacts with hurt. So, this is why things escalate. The abuser is like an addict who needs bigger and bigger hits, and his partner's emotional pain is the proof she cares for him.

So, in all the numb women I saw who were sort of past feeling anything, there were a few who talked about what was the thing he did that hurt the most. And that biggest emotional betrayal was sleeping with her best friend. It not only was him treating her like dirt, but he got her best friend to betray her trust also. Double whammy. Worst thing an abuser could do was get her best friend in on abusing her by sleeping with the best friend.

And Joseph did that with most if not all of the women Emma got close to. It was like telling her that no one would be loyal and she could not trust anyone. It was a huge power trip for him.

It sort of blows my mind how he isolated her by sleeping with her friends.

This is the first time I've come across this, also. I think you've really hit on something. I've been told the first thing an abuser does is isolate his victim. Interesting to see it's actually an ongoing process. You are right about the abuser causing the hurt, because it's proof the person cares. My ex had a sadistic bent. He used to laugh at news stories where people got hurt. He also told me the reason people are mean is because "they are so happy". A viewpoint that, to me, that indicates sadism. However, bringing in the more benign interpretation you give, I think is valid. My ex used to smile when he saw he had cut me in some way or another. I do believe the seeing that I cared was part of it. Sick, but part of it.

You are all blowing my mind with some of this personal stuff. Blowing my mind, not in a bad way, but in a mind-opening way!

There is a pattern here. And it jumped generations and has caused all kinds of backlash, polarization, and problems galore.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned my opinion that some of the ultra conservative apostles who clamped down on the idea of "pleasure for pleasure's sake" as being evil, were raised, almost exclusively by their mothers who were forced into polygamous marriage and treated as "less than" by their GA righteous polygamous husband. Its my opinion that some of these women vowed in their hearts they were NOT going to imbue the same detestable system onto their sons as they themselves were being forced to live in. So they went to work, raising young sons who were taught that self control trumped all else, self denial was required for all passions, especially those involving pleasure, etc. And low and behold, nepotism brought some of these young sons into the ranks of leadership, and the pendulum of virtue swung with lightening speed to the other extreme.

On one side you have JS shagging everyone he could and being abusive, even threatening in couched terms to kill his wife if she didn't let him do what he wanted. And on the other side, you have someone like Mark E. Peterson telling people in a stake conference that he has never seen his wife's naked body. http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... &sk=t&sd=a

I don't know for sure if this statement about Peterson is true, but I have read the Dialogue article on contraception, and have looked up statements by Joseph Fielding Smith--and I am pretty sure that these guys had an adverse opinion about sexual pleasure.

The extremes make sense to me, when I look at them in the context of the conflict between liberal hedonistic polygamous ideals, and the damage and subsequent retrenchment to stop the progress of that system through virtuous teachings to counter the trend by those hurt.

I think you hit on a good point. Before I move on to wider cultural influences that could have impacted what you heard, I'll just say I have a brother and some of the things I heard him say about relations with his new bride have me inclined to believe Peterson.

Also remember, that a lot of us grew up during the time of the sexual revolution and all religions, not just ours, retrenched. Right now, a humorous sketch of "The Church Lady" from Saturday Night Live that was contemporary to our youth comes to mind.

[Rob4Hope]

Its off topic a little,...but I think many would agree the cultural ideals are emphasized sometimes more with orthodox type religions. Many have said that the ultra conservative perspective is not uniquely LDS. I understand and agree with this. Catholics, for example, have also had a tradition against contraception, for example.

I want to bring out 2 specifics. Hopefully I can articulate it clearly enough it will make sense.

1. I've often heard that the LDS church is like other churches,...just on steroids.

For example, Christian Orthodox churches believe that Christ is the savior of this world. Along comes the LDS tradition, who believes Christ is not just the savior of this world, but the savior of ALL Worlds out there in the universe!

For example, Christian Orthodox churches believe that it was an evil and misguided group of people who crucified Jesus. Along comes the LDS tradition, who believes not only were they misguided, but this world has the most evil of ALL creations in the entire creation process, and ONLY this world and those people were so wicked they would crucify their God!

Make sense?....see how an idea is taken and pushed to the next level? Many other examples can and do exist.

2. The church takes the ideas of virtue, and applies some of the same extremes. Now I mentioned this in a previous post, but here it is again (and this is NOT uncommon at all!)

I know of a woman who, on her wedding day, sat in the bathroom of the hotel where her and her husband just had sex, and cried her heart and eyes out. She was no longer a virgin, and in her mind, she had fallen off a pedastool of virtue and piety that she would never ever again be able to obtain. Her whole life she was taught that virtue (including celibacy as she was taught) was next to godliness and the most desirable possession she had. And, as MANY OTHERS were taught, virtual and sexuality are taught as mutually exclusive opposites.

Now, many would argue that this is the fault of her parents. But, don't parents teach what the church tells them to teach?

I have heard, for example, multiple times, over and over and over and over, that porn is wrong. We are to teach our children about it, that its "addictive" (this is the Church's position), and that we are to avoid it like the plague. But, I have never, not a single time, heard a GA tell parents that they should teach their children about the goodness of sexual relations in marriage.

The message is lop-sided and one-sided. And virtue is put at variance with sexuality, as though they can't coexist. This woman's story I mentioned above?....imagine my baffled position when I have seen this type of attitude in OTHERS AROUND ME! Its more pronounced, IMHO, in the LDS church than in other churches, particularly among those who are the TBM followers.

Where does this culture come from? Its not healthy. And its my opinion that in an attempt to again rebalance the huge swings between virtue and vice, all in the name of religion, the church is trying to adjust to an agnostic type of perspective with regards to marital sex--yet at the same time they poison the well with regards to anything that is considered outside the norms they believe were set by God.

Does the church even have a perspective on masterbation at this point?....or has this been relegated to the agnostic heap?

[Jeffret]

1. I've often heard that the LDS church is like other churches,...just on steroids.

I argue that both of your examples are kind of minor and they're "I don't know that we teach that stuff". Yeah, sure these things have been taught by Mormon leaders at some time, but they're pretty insignificant, particularly at this point. How long has it been since you've heard either one at an official church level? They're both along the lines of Hinckley's famed, "I don't know that we teach that" comment, and the thing he was talking about was definitely something we did teach, at least before his comment.

Other churches have other wacky, extreme beliefs or traditions. Transubstantiation, in Catholic doctrine, is pretty extreme by Mormon standards. So is the Immaculate Conception. Stigmata. Cilice. The fascination with relics and saints. And that's just within the fairly mainstream and traditional Catholic Church. Broaden the search to include other high-demand, fringe churches and you get any number of extreme beliefs. The JW's don't celebrate holidays including birthdays. They won't accept blood transfusions. Their last days obsession continues strong, even though in Mormonism, it has faded somewhat. I'd consider these beliefs to be much more extreme than those of Mormonism.

2. The church takes the ideas of virtue, and applies some of the same extremes. Now I mentioned this in a previous post, but here it is again (and this is NOT uncommon at all!)

These examples are not at all unique to Mormonism. They're pretty common in conservative, high-demand religions of various types. Particularly those dominated by patriarchy. Again, take a look at Quiverfull. In some ways Mormonism looks practically progressive compared to some portions of the Quiverfull communities, in the way they teach about sex and the way they treat women. Or again, look at JWs. Or Hasidic Judaism. Or some evangelical communities.

The Church's stated position on abortion is somewhat permissive. Many anti-abortion activists consider the Church's approach to be far too soft, in that it allows for abortion, when approved by men. Many of them are far more extreme than Mormonism. It's similar to contraception (in many ways, actually). The Church's policy on contraception, at least these days, is pretty permissive compared to a number of religions and people.


Mormonism wants to be in the world but not of it. Its leaders desperately seek acknowledgement and consideration by other religious and secular leaders. This means Mormonism has to be a little different from others, but not too different. They want to not be seen as weird, unlike some religions who don't care.

The ingredients of Mormonism are all pretty common, standard ingredients. They exist in many other recipes. The ingredients and proportions that go into Mormonism result in a product that is unique in the aggregate but lacking in anything that is truly unique or exceptional.

[Rob4Hope]

The ingredients of Mormonism are all pretty common, standard ingredients. They exist in many other recipes. The ingredients and proportions that go into Mormonism result in a product that is unique in the aggregate but lacking in anything that is truly unique or exceptional.

Polygamy practiced for as long as it was, as a foundational teaching, is exceptional and rather unique in my opinion. Things like transubstantiation, no blood transfusions, and even extremes like Jim Jones--those all exist in "religious organizations". Institutionally, in my mind, I believe polygamy and the defensive position over it, in a church that has been around getting close to 200 years in America....well, that is kindof defining, even unique.

But yeh, there are other churches out there that are different, some strange and weird.

And inside the LDS church you have extremes as well. If I recall, Bruce McConkie taught that its not in the mind of God to allow Blacks the Priesthood. And Mark Peterson said some interesting things. This was in my lifetime...but it brings up a different question: is it morally justifiable?

The biggest problem I have with the LDS church is NOT the horrible things they have done or practiced. Nope. Its the continuous lack of accountability they wilfully exhibit, while at the same time requiring accountability of others. Things have been taught and done by the church that hurt and continue to hurt people. But, as Oaks has said, there is no precedence for apology in the LDS church. The church as an organization will NOT apologize.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've heard many leaders apologize either.

WOW.

If the church doesn't apologize, is it a fair conclusion, considering the doctrine, that the church doesn't believe it has ever sinned? Uchdorf has said mistakes have been made...but Oak, who is a senior apostle, says there is no precedent for an apology, which negates what Uchdorf said.

The church has NEVER sinned...if you question that, just ask them.

[Jeffret]

Polygamy practiced for as long as it was, as a foundational teaching, is exceptional and rather unique in my opinion. Things like transubstantiation, no blood transfusions, and even extremes like Jim Jones--those all exist in "religious organizations". Institutionally, in my mind, I believe polygamy and the defensive position over it, in a church that has been around getting close to 200 years in America....well, that is kindof defining, even unique.

I kind of agree with you, but I think there are a few other important factors for consideration.

1) Polygamy is more common than you seem to think. According to marriage historian Stephanie Coontz, "But through most of human history and in most cultures the most widely accepted tradition of marriage has been polygamy -- one man and multiple women. We're not just talking about exotic island cultures or lost tribes in the African jungle. Polygamy is the family form most often mentioned in the first five books of the Old Testament." Polygamy is a lot more common than people recognize. I know that in the U.S., Mormons are kind of known for polygamy but they're not the only ones who have practiced it.

2) The Church no longer practices polygamy. In the Brighamite branch of Mormonism, polygamy hasn't been accepted or practiced for a long time now, nearly a hundred years. Engaging in polygamy is one of the quickest and surest ways to get kicked out of the church. That, and now, gay marriage.

3) Polygamy isn't the thing; it's a manifestation of the things. To continue my earlier metaphor, polygamy isn't the ingredient; it's a concoction of the ingredients. The ingredients are a hunger for power, attempts to build a dynasty, a desire to consolidate power, lies, a broad sexual appetite, abuse of power and people, and a desire for sexual conquests. The exact details of how these all interacted in Mormon history are unique and some of Mormonism is flavored because of those details and proportions. But the same ingredients have been involved in lots of religions and other organizations. The examples you used earlier aren't directly tied to polygamy and are pretty common in other, similar religions.

[Jeffret]

The biggest problem I have with the LDS church is NOT the horrible things they have done or practiced. Nope. Its the continuous lack of accountability they wilfully exhibit, while at the same time requiring accountability of others. Things have been taught and done by the church that hurt and continue to hurt people. But, as Oaks has said, there is no precedence for apology in the LDS church. The church as an organization will NOT apologize.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've heard many leaders apologize either.

WOW.

If the church doesn't apologize, is it a fair conclusion, considering the doctrine, that the church doesn't believe it has ever sinned? Uchdorf has said mistakes have been made...but Oak, who is a senior apostle, says there is no precedent for an apology, which negates what Uchdorf said.

The church has NEVER sinned...if you question that, just ask them.

I agree that's a fundamental problem in the Church. It's built into its hierarchical and authoritarian nature, into its leaders. The leaders are trained that they speak for god. They want everyone to treat their words as truth. When they speak in conference, they want the members to treat that as scripture, as inerrant truth. Even when they have to change what is published and archived from what was actually said.

They maintain that the Church is run by Christ, that it is his church and it does what he wants. If they say that the Church was wrong in the past, they throw that all into disarray. If the Church was wrong, then Christ must have intended his church to be wrong or else he isn't really leading it the way they claim. If Christ intended the church to be wrong then how can we be trust in the Church today. The same if he isn't really leading it as claimed. All Church leaders, indeed all men in the Church, claim their authority by direct priesthood lineage by those who came before them. If those who came before them were wrong then their own authority is in doubt.

This has had very real consequence throughout the Church's history. Joseph faced people claiming that he was a fallen prophet, no longer worthy of being followed, particularly over polygamy. Brigham managed to establish his claim as Joseph's successor to a substantial number of Joseph's former followers. In leading them to a new land and establishing some efficient, effective management he kept the group together as a recognizable entity. Significantly through polygamy, he managed to establish a recognized cultural identity. When Woodruff announced the end of polygamy this shook the Church to its core and caused a serious authority crisis. It took a while for the Church to recover from that one and regain its footing. The pattern has continued with a variety of offshoots or claims that the main Brighamite church no longer has authentic authority. The Snufferites are just one of the latest examples.

[Rob4Hope]

We are pretty close to agreement on things. I 100% believe you with regards to the power issues and concerns, but along those lines disagree a little with the polygamy concerns. After I explain I think you will understand.

The LDS church has never done away with polygamy. Section 132 is still out there. The physical practice of polygamy as far as "earthly life" no longer exists; however, the spiritual practice DOES. Here are some points along those lines:

1. Dallin Oaks is a polygamist. According to LDS teachings, he is married to multiple women "for time and all eternity", and as such, is a polygamist.
2. Men are allowed to marry for time and all eternity if they no longer have a living wife; however, women are not. Unless the policy has changed, doesn't a woman who is divorced have to appeal for a temple divorce before she can be remarried to a man for the "time and eternity" portion of things? So, along these lines, sure does appear that at some level, polygamy still exists in LDS theology and practice.
3. This treating of the sexes different is, in my opinion, a type of discrimination that is more concerned with power than with anything spiritual. It comes from this idea of "men are the head", and spills over into the disparity of power between men and women in the LDS faith. You have the Q15 calling the shots, and the RS, though touted as an autonomous group with power and authority by Hinkley (I remember that interview), they are not. They don't have the priesthood, they don't set their own budgets without oversite from men, they are given assignments by men but don't make assignments to the men...etc. If I'm mistaken here, please enlighten.

Etc.

Anyway...what you said about power holds. But, from the perspective of how temple ordinances must be canceled and such for remarriage and all that, how offensive. I believe its discriminatory. But, it also serves to demean those it affects, and hence, is about power and domination.

[Jeffret]

At this point, we're pretty well just talking about how the unique aspects of Mormon history and doctrine flavor the outcome in the little ways. Other religions and groups clearly demonstrate that polygamy (or even the specific details of Mormon polygamy) are not necessary for controlling, patriarchal, misogynistic power structures to exist. They exist in lots of places. In some places they're a lot worse than they typically are in Mormonism (Quiverfull, for example).

Indeed, there are lots of aspects of how it all manifests that are based on specifically Mormon aspects. Polygamy has been a major factor in these details. It's interesting to better understand how all those things play together, but it's also very disturbing to see how prevalent and thorough these discriminations and problems are.

Polygamy per se, doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is that polygamy is so often infused with deceit and abuse, inside and out. Certainly this was true with Joseph. Even at that, I'm not nearly as bothered by Joseph's failures long ago as I am at the Church's propagation of these failures and refusal to ever address any of them. Whether they arise from polygamy or the Church's unique history or they just come from along with the ride as part of the conservative, patriarchal, authoritarian religion can be interesting but not nearly as important as how the Church clings to them and proclaims them godly.

[2bizE]

I think he would be a pedophile and in jail...like warren Jeff’s

[Rob4Hope]

... as how the Church clings to them and proclaims them godly.

This is the #1 thing that bothers me. The inability to learn from the past--yet clinging to it and forcing it to be "wholesome" and "of god" is most disturbing.

Its a perpetual denial of abuse, and reminds me of how a child, even if beat, will tolerate the abuse in order to not be separated from the parent.

This whole thing over JS abuses reminds me a dysfunctional abusive family where those who are beat defend the abuser. I can't extricate this thought from my mind whenever I hear people like Neal Anderson defend JS.

[no1saint]

His home videos would be lit! lol

[alas]

... as how the Church clings to them and proclaims them godly.

This is the #1 thing that bothers me. The inability to learn from the past--yet clinging to it and forcing it to be "wholesome" and "of god" is most disturbing.

Its a perpetual denial of abuse, and reminds me of how a child, even if beat, will tolerate the abuse in order to not be separated from the parent.

This whole thing over JS abuses reminds me a dysfunctional abusive family where those who are beat defend the abuser. I can't extricate this thought from my mind whenever I hear people like Neal Anderson defend JS.

Coming from an abusive home background, this is what makes me crazy when I am too involved with Mormonism. It has abuse just kind of built in from the foundation up, but I can't explain that to people who see only the need and dependency they have on the church. It is like explaining to my siblings why I didn't like being around my dad. They didn't see him as abusive, and how do I get them to understand when he no longer abuses me? It is like my husband "gets it" but then again, he is still TBM, so he just doesn't get it, does he?

[Give It Time]

... as how the Church clings to them and proclaims them godly.

This is the #1 thing that bothers me. The inability to learn from the past--yet clinging to it and forcing it to be "wholesome" and "of god" is most disturbing.

Its a perpetual denial of abuse, and reminds me of how a child, even if beat, will tolerate the abuse in order to not be separated from the parent.

This whole thing over JS abuses reminds me a dysfunctional abusive family where those who are beat defend the abuser. I can't extricate this thought from my mind whenever I hear people like Neal Anderson defend JS.

Coming from an abusive home background, this is what makes me crazy when I am too involved with Mormonism. It has abuse just kind of built in from the foundation up, but I can't explain that to people who see only the need and dependency they have on the church. It is like explaining to my siblings why I didn't like being around my dad. They didn't see him as abusive, and how do I get them to understand when he no longer abuses me? It is like my husband "gets it" but then again, he is still TBM, so he just doesn't get it, does he?

Rob, your statement, other than the part about Neal Anderson, was basically the thesis statement for my faith crisis. It's been my experience, along with alas's along with others, that people just don't get it. There are some who are compassionate and get it, but don't GET IT. But hey, I didn't even used to get it until my rude awakening. So, I get where they're coming from, but they apparently won't get where I'm coming from unless they have their own rude awakening and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

So, Robert Frost's poem.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood.

The main road went one direction and the other went another.

I took the other.

And that will make all the difference.

[Rob4Hope]

I've got a friend who is on her way out of the LDS faith tradition. She is working hard to understand the problems experienced in her own upbringing, and trying to tie that in with her TBM conflicts. She has discovered something called "Narcissistic Personality Disorder". I didn't know what that even was until reading more, but I do recall from past posts and podcasts that there are several people who have and do consider JS to have this concern. It made more sense to me when I read "Rough Stone Rolling".

I have a sibling who has this: he is aggressive, needs to be in charge of things, and will NOT tolerate challenges to his ideas let alone decisions. I've had a microcosm of experience growing up, watching how my family "insulates" around this person, to understand that sick people often create sick environments, all geared at mitigating and controlling the sickness that can and does spread. The idea is: "Give him what he wants" so we can have peace around here, even though its the kind of silence that is fraught with anxiety and dysfunction.

This whole thing has come full circle for me. When someone is held up as "The Prophet" (pulling in interpretations from the Bible, as well as the plagiarized and fabricated material in the BoM), it creates a kindof of focal point, a head that requires deferment. I've heard several in threads here mention that JS biggest desire appears to be power. Rape is about power. Abuse is about power. Sleeping with your wife's best friend is about power.

And all of this points back to a narcissistic personality problem. One that had an institution build around it--a cult--and even some 200 years later, that cult still must defer, pay homage to, and defend the abuser.

WOW. What a study in sickness and decay at a social level. It plays into all kinds of things IMHO. A ying/yang struggle between hedonism and piety, between celibacy and sexual excess, even passion vs purity (which is a dynamic the church tries to harmonize but sends out mixed signals that just confuse).

What a mess.....

In hindsight, it's not a question about whether JS would have been a porn addict: it's about what did JS NOT do. He swindled people, lied, slept around, tried to have people killed, claimed to speak for God, had himself ordained a king, created a conspiracy of insurrection, silenced those who opposed him, etc. And he did it in the name of God.

Totally delusional.

[alas]

I've got a friend who is on her way out of the LDS faith tradition. She is working hard to understand the problems experienced in her own upbringing, and trying to tie that in with her TBM conflicts. She has discovered something called "Narcissistic Personality Disorder". I didn't know what that even was until reading more, but I do recall from past posts and podcasts that there are several people who have and do consider JS to have this concern. It made more sense to me when I read "Rough Stone Rolling".

I have a sibling who has this: he is aggressive, needs to be in charge of things, and will NOT tolerate challenges to his ideas let alone decisions. I've had a microcosm of experience growing up, watching how my family "insulates" around this person, to understand that sick people often create sick environments, all geared at mitigating and controlling the sickness that can and does spread. The idea is: "Give him what he wants" so we can have peace around here, even though its the kind of silence that is fraught with anxiety and dysfunction.

This whole thing has come full circle for me. When someone is held up as "The Prophet" (pulling in interpretations from the Bible, as well as the plagiarized and fabricated material in the BoM), it creates a kindof of focal point, a head that requires deferment. I've heard several in threads here mention that JS biggest desire appears to be power. Rape is about power. Abuse is about power. Sleeping with your wife's best friend is about power.

And all of this points back to a narcissistic personality problem. One that had an institution build around it--a cult--and even some 200 years later, that cult still must defer, pay homage to, and defend the abuser.

WOW. What a study in sickness and decay at a social level. It plays into all kinds of things IMHO. A ying/yang struggle between hedonism and piety, between celibacy and sexual excess, even passion vs purity (which is a dynamic the church tries to harmonize but sends out mixed signals that just confuse).

What a mess.....

In hindsight, it's not a question about whether JS would have been a porn addict: it's about what did JS NOT do. He swindled people, lied, slept around, tried to have people killed, claimed to speak for God, had himself ordained a king, created a conspiracy of insurrection, silenced those who opposed him, etc. And he did it in the name of God.

Totally delusional.

I really like your last paragraph. "it's about what did JS not do."

And to say that the institution was built around JS and his narcissism and sociopathy, is not to say that there are no good people in the church or that the church does no good. It is like my family of origin, there were a lot of good people and good things about my family and even good things about my father. But our attachment to him made us behave in ways that were sick, adaptive and coping, but still distorted. A family as a small social group behaves just exactly like a larger social group. So, one learns in sociology classes that there are laws by which all social units operate. Sort of like a mobile, those hanging things that people put above a baby bed. They are balanced, so when you pull on one piece, all the pieces adjust. If you put a paper clip on one piece, it changes the balance, and all other pieces will hang higher. So, a family or church will either change to accommodate the "sick" member, or they change by casting out the "sick" member. But they adjust to maintain balance.

You can see today that the church kicks out members that disrupt its balance, either by being different, or advocating for change. It is so big, that adjusting to one member, or even a percentage of members is hard, so if the percentage of members are "disposable" they are either kicked out or forced out by shunning, or just marginalized into nonexistence.

But if the member is not "disposable" such as a Q12 or 15 that goes narcissistic on them, the rest will adjust. Look at how Oaks is pushing the church through a paranoia about how gays are going to take over the world and get rid of his religious rights, and how within one generation there will be no more babies born because everyone will be gay. That is really paranoid, yet the church is adjusting to his paranoia.

And to maintain its origin story it has to maintain all of the adjustments that were made to accommodate JS.

[Rob4Hope]

And to maintain its origin story it has to maintain all of the adjustments that were made to accommodate JS.

This succinctly said and UTTERLY true.

I still think there are accommodations being made, and they span multiple topics and multiple generations. I've said before (and I maintain) I think the polygamy days engendered a kind of hedonistic philosophy in the early leadership: they justified what they did at the expense of a whole class defined by gender; and there was a rebalance attempt by that marginalized class (women) who tried to raise moral sons who swung the pendulum strongly in the opposite direction and pushing morality ideals to the other extreme -- ie. SUPER CHASTITY. This isn't general in the whole church from my observation, but during the JFS, HBL, and SWK days, there certainly was an influx. I've heard some claim this movement happened across the United States as an adjustment to the sexual revolution; however, I still believe that the LDS church had internal cultural reasons for the shifts THEY made, and it all fits into this adjustment thing we are talking about.