Question for Mormons

[Jazz Spazz]

Great thread so far. The stuff I've found most interesting is the debate about what may or may not be permissible in the bedroom between 2 married people and the role(s) bishops and other higher ups in the LDS church play as far as being able to counsel couples in matters of the bedroom. Serious question for the LDS folk in the know:

I understand that the LDS Church has volunteer, non-payed clergy and that most of your bishops hold regular full time jobs just like the rest of us. That being said, do they have actual qualifications in regards to marrige counseling, sexual therapy, etc? When they are given the calling of Bishop, do they get any specific training that will help them in those areas, or are they just handed religious doctorine and told to stick to the guidelines?

Not a poke at the LDS church, but if there isn't some type of training in place, it seems pretty dangerous to be seeking marital and sexual counsel from Larry the funiture salesman who just happens to be a Bishop on the weekend.

This is just my opinion.

They do not give people "sexual therapy", and limit marriage counseling to the doctrinal teachings of how to respect each other and how to be in good standing with the Church in regards to morals. They are not left alone to do as they please in this, they have Stake Presidencies that can help them if they are unsure how to handle situations, and they refer people to professionals when needed. I say this to clear up what it sounds like to me you think. No, Bishops do not give people professional advice for their marriage or other situations when a professional is needed. There is also training for them to be able to handle certain situations in the best way possible, and training to know when they will need help from others to help people. A Bishop should never ask people about what goes on in the bedroom, and if it came up either the Bishop did the wrong thing in asking, or the couple or person brought it up.

**I was going to answer that Bishops ask Catholic Priests for help in this counseling, but figured instead I would actually answer the question.

 

[Stoked]

I am glad to see that it is a healthy mix. I think that is good for the Mormon church in Utah.

All this talk about exposing the world to Mormons. Well the general Mormon populace here in Utah could do with gettign exposed.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

To my knowledge there are no qualifications beyond being a member in good standing and be married in a 'temple' marriage. I am aware of training that is given after the fact. I expect when a new bishop accepts a calling I expect that local leadership (stake presidency) will provide a primer on what to do. In the end, the expectation is that the Lord will provide counsel provided the Bishop in question is righteous and doing his part to prepare himself for his calling.

As for the bedroom stuff- in my mind that is between the couple. The only time a Bishop should be involved if there a dispute the couple cannot resolve on their own.

That all seems to make sense. I've always been fascinated by the fact that LDS Bishops have such lofty responsibilities for being basically being part time, volunteer clergy. Seems like a pretty heavy burden to bear. Props to those who take it on.

 

[Bronco70]

I would guess that most bishops (I certainly don't know them all) would like to know as little as possible about the intimate details of another couple's marriage. The church actually has a counseling arm (LDS Family Services) that is run by paid, trained professionals.

 

[Scat]

Larry the funiture salesman who just happens to be a Bishop on the weekend.

FWIW, it's hardly a thing that you only do on the weekend. It oft times turns into a second, full time job.

 

[CONAN]

Great question about bishops. The key being their access to revelation (to me one of the key differences between LDS and other religions). So while a bishop might not have a masters in couples therapy or whatever, he does have access to revelation regarding the people under him. Just like I have access to revelation regarding my kids.

 

[CONAN]

I would guess that most bishops (I certainly don't know them all) would like to know as little as possible about the intimate details of another couple's marriage.

Agreed. I think a big concern is if one side is doing something they don't want to do. I think that is big (regarding sex or otherwise). Like a guy demanding oral or something.

But for sure I know no porn and dirty talk is frowned on.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

FWIW, it's hardly a thing that you only do on the weekend. It oft times turns into a second, full time job.

While I may have limited knowledge on the subject, I totally agree with you. I work with a guy who's dad was the bishop for their ward during his teenage years. He said he almost never saw his father during that time. It really seems like one of the most demanding things a man could do. Not only do you have your regular work week and a family of your own to maintain, you are put in charge of helping/guiding hundreds (if I'm guessing correctly on ward size) of other individuals.

 

[Stoked]

While I may have limited knowledge on the subject, I totally agree with you. I work with a guy who's dad was the bishop for their ward during his teenage years. He said he almost never saw his father during that time. It really seems like one of the most demanding things a man could do. Not only do you have your regular work week and a family of your own to maintain, you are put in charge of helping/guiding hundreds (if I'm guessing correctly on ward size) of other individuals.

Bishops do i their spare time what fulltime paid pastors do. The have full time jobs and families themselves. It takes a high level of dedication to be a good Bishop.

Nothing but respect.

 

[nightmare3983]

While I may have limited knowledge on the subject, I totally agree with you. I work with a guy who's dad was the bishop for their ward during his teenage years. He said he almost never saw his father during that time. It really seems like one of the most demanding things a man could do. Not only do you have your regular work week and a family of your own to maintain, you are put in charge of helping/guiding hundreds (if I'm guessing correctly on ward size) of other individuals.

I believe wards typically have several hundred households.

 

[colton]

I believe wards typically have several hundred households.

No, probably not quite that many. Several hundred individuals, probably, but not several hundred households.

(quick check on lds.org) I just looked at my own ward directory. I think it's a fairly typically-sized ward. We have 115 households. I'm guessing that corresponds to about 300 people total.

Not that this takes anything away from the unpaid labor of an LDS bishop. It's still a huge commitment.

 

[Stoked]

No, probably not quite that many. Several hundred individuals, probably, but not several hundred households.

(quick check on lds.org) I just looked at my own ward directory. I think it's a fairly typically-sized ward. We have 115 households. I'm guessing that corresponds to about 300 people total.

Not that this takes anything away from the unpaid labor of an LDS bishop. It's still a huge commitment.

Well I think this brings up an interesting point. I am sure that the ward membership is actually quite higher. That ward list usually reflects active members.

Now for example I am inactive, very much so. However if something comes up and I feel the need for spiritual counceling I am going to my Bishop. He just added 1 household without even knowing it. I'd say there are closer to hundreds of households within each ward boundry and only hundreds of individuals are active.

 

[colton]

Well I think this brings up an interesting point. I am sure that the ward membership is actually quite higher. That ward list usually reflects active members.

Now for example I am inactive, very much so. However if something comes up and I feel the need for spiritual counceling I am going to my Bishop. He just added 1 household without even knowing it. I'd say there are closer to hundreds of households within each ward boundry and only hundreds of individuals are active.

Depends strongly on where you live. In my case (Orem), the ward list really does reflect all members. Of course, there are only about 5 houses in my ward that have families who are not active LDS. Seriously.

But you're likely correct for a more typical ward. In my previous wards outside of Utah there were usually 100-300 active members (let's say about 50-100 households), and roughly the same number of non-active members. Most of those would have been known by the bishopric, although there's always the possibility of non-active members living in the ward boundaries that the church didn't know about.

 

[bigb]

While I may have limited knowledge on the subject, I totally agree with you. I work with a guy who's dad was the bishop for their ward during his teenage years. He said he almost never saw his father during that time. It really seems like one of the most demanding things a man could do. Not only do you have your regular work week and a family of your own to maintain, you are put in charge of helping/guiding hundreds (if I'm guessing correctly on ward size) of other individuals.

My dad has been Bishop twice. The first time he was released right before I turned fourteen. I don't have any memories of him not being around for things. He still managed to coach us in baseball and he ate dinner with us EVERY night. I have no doubt that required an even bigger sacrifice on hid part as he would have to do his Bishop stuff after everything else. I think what changed the most is that we probably didn't get to go camping as often. The second time was after I got married, so I have no real knowledge of it.

 

[Mr. McGibblets]

From gibblets neg rep of me: Why don't you address the actual sources used for the quotes and not just the website that posts them? It makes us Mormons look bad when we don't address the actual issue and just attack the site or intentions of the person quoting our prophets.

I still stand by this.

You seem like one of those guys that likes to engage the haters. I'm not saying there are haters here (there might be but I'm not talking about that). I'm saying like at Temple Square or maybe at the Manti pageant. Or maybe anti-mormon websites. I'll never understand that part as far as looking for those fights (going to those websites or walking up to those people). If that's not you then sorry. I just don't think that's a healthy approach to these types of discussions.

Not at all. I do not like to engage "anti-Mormons." My definition of "antis" are the crazy evangelicals who are trying to convert me to another strand of Christianity. That does not interest me at all.

Why not start from the truth?

Happily. That's why I posted quotes from church leaders. I attempted to bring some "truth" into it by showing exactly what Mormon church leaders have taught and published. I also wanted to help PKM understand why his leader friends might believe that oral sex is wrong, but other Mormon posters here thought it was crazy. That is why I posted quotes from manuals produced for church leaders - the very people PKM was speaking with.

You cannot find anything official from the Church so you go to an anti- site to find it. Ya, that's not suspicious at all.

I found lots of official stuff. I will post sources below for every quote I used in my original post. I still do not understand what is suspicious about my quotes by church presidents and Apostles.

As far as others having a neg opinion of mormons because of me, well, if they're that shallow then so be it.

You started personally attacking people who were asking honest questions. It shouldn't be surprising that they found that off-putting.

But no question I'm not a perfect mormon and not a good example for others to look at.

Nobody is perfect and nobody expects you to be a good Mormon example. Which is precisely why I found it a bit disappointing that you said that I was making Mormons look bad. Multiple non-Mormons in this thread thanked me for my thoughts and for the quotes I listed in my original post. Maybe the non-Mormons thought the quotes were whacky, but I think they appreciated me being up front and trying to explain to them why some Mormons believe oral sex is wrong.

I don't sugarcoat and can be very blunt (I like talking here versus via PM or neg repping people). No question there.

This does not excuse being impolite when people are having a friendly discussion about a topic, just because the topic makes you personally uncomfortable. There is a way to disagree with someone on a topic without being an *** like you were to PKM and others.

But I'm not going to meet people halfway by using an anti-mormon website to try to bridge the gap. That's not right. There are better ways.

Again, what "Anti" website are you upset about? The one I listed at the end that compiled a bunch of quotes? I'm sorry that this website upset you, but the quotes are all 100% accurate. However, I cited these very same quotes to pro-Mormon sources below. All sources, except for one or two, are to byu.edu or LDS owned websites.

As for a better way, how about you try to contribute some statements from church leaders that would portray a different understanding or refute the quotes I listed, rather than a general ad-hominem towards me or a site.

I didn't neg rep you for posting statements. I neg repped you because I don't agree with your methods.

My methods? Because I listed quotes from church leaders over the past 50 years? I'm sorry you disagree. How else would you suggest that I explain the evolution of our church's stance on sexuality between couples besides using quotes from church manuals and church leaders?

Oh... are you still upset about the website I listed at the bottom of my post that compiles many of these? If that is so, then I am sorry that you deem that an unworthy method. But, surprisingly, when you search for "oral sex" on lds.org they do not include any of these past statements. Kind of like the same way when you search "polyandry" on lds.org you will not find any relevant articles either. Yet, there is no denying that polyandry existed in our church's history.

Which honestly I couldn't care less about but since you engaged me I'll play ball.

I don't want to play ball. You win.

I don't think anyone cares, but I was a research assistant for a history/religion professor while an undergrad at BYU for 2 years. His main area of research, which I was fortunate enough to help with, was/is the development of LDS theology and the way LDS theology has changed and developed over the years. I find this topic very fascinating. Since I am already familiar with many of the sources, I often decide to jump into the discussion when it involves Mormon history and how some things are different between the generations.

I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable that I also speak "bluntly" like yourself, but I am not going to sugar coat statements in a way that attempts to downplay the changing of Mormon doctrine/thought. Rather, I am going to post the facts as I view them/understand them in an effort to help non-Mormons and some Mormons understand WHY/HOW Mormon beliefs changed. I am not going to pretend they never did.


---------------------
As I mentioned above, here are the quotes I used in my post and their sources:

Quote 1 and 2 come from this book which I have reviewed and also this website (not at all an "anti-mormon website[]"):

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Statements-LDS-First-Presidency-Compendium/dp/1560851953
Site: https://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/17/prophetic-counsel-about-sex-within-marriage-a-brief-history/

Quote 3 came from the LDS Institute manual: https://institute.lds.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/h-l-intimacy-1b.asp

Quote 4 came from the same place, but a different page: https://institute.lds.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/h-l-intimacy-1e.asp

Quote 5 is harder to find a hard copy of the actual source since it was a letter to stake presidents and bishops, but the BYU 100 hour board posted it previously and linked quotes from this church produced book, the 1978 General Handbook of Instruction which was given to church leaders (Bishops and Stake Presidents - the very people who repeated this anti-oral sex stance to PKM).

Book: First Presidency letter, June 9, 1976, Church Archives; General Handbook of Instructions, supp. 3 to #21 (March 1, 1978), pg. 4 as cited in Kimball, E. L (2005) Lengthen Your Stride, Working Draft.
Site: https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/6853/ ; The bycommonconsent blog, far from an anti-mormon blog, also quotes it: https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/24/a-brief-review-of-mormon-intimacy/

Quote 6 came from the same mormonmatters.org website I cited previously and not at all "anti-mormon." This same quote is found in the instructions given to bishops and stake presidents when interviewing someone for a temple recommend.
Book: Ask your bishop or stake president
Site: https://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/17/prophetic-counsel-about-sex-within-marriage-a-brief-history/ ; https://marvelousworkandawonder.com/cmnblog/2011/02/01/tea-and-crumpets-with-bill-witt/

Quote 7 can be found on the LDS CES (Church Educational System) website and manual. The website is quoting from the book given to Bishops and Stake Presidents.
Book: Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics [1998], 158
Site: https://www.ldsces.org/manuals/building-an-eternal-marriage-teacher-manual/marr-bldg-8.asp

The four quotes listed at the bottom of my post:

Quote 1: Russell M. Nelson 2006 General Conference talk
Site: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/nurturing-marriage?lang=eng

Quote 2: October 2003 Ensign, Your Longing For Family Joy, by Bruce C. Hafen
Site: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/10/your-longing-for-family-joy

Quote 3:
Book: LDS Marriage and Family Relations student manual (the yellow version) from the article "The Gospel Perspective on Morality" page 240.
Site: https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/6853/

Quote 4:
Source: First Presidency letter, Jan. 5, 1982. Can be found in the church archives or quoted online.
Site: https://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/17/prophetic-counsel-about-sex-within-marriage-a-brief-history/

Here is another site from an active believing Mormon who has compiled many of these same quotes. Maybe now you can discuss them instead of attacking me for posting them: https://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/properintimacy.htm

I listed the "anti-mormon site" because it had all the quotes in one place, plus other ones I thought people might find interesting.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I think you've represented Mormonism well, Gibbs .. at least from the perspective of one that is not LDS. You came across with a realness and an interest of real truth .. not just the sugar-coated version for folks that aren't ready for the whole picture.

 

[Mr. McGibblets]

I think you've represented Mormonism well, Gibbs .. at least from the perspective of one that is not LDS. You came across with a realness and an interest of real truth .. not just the sugar-coated version for folks that aren't ready for the whole picture.

Thanks. Mormons have some whacky beliefs. In my opinion, trying to downplay these beliefs or pretend Mormons never believed something does no good. Especially when google brings people answers in seconds. Conan might think these sites are evil and "anti," but to somebody like yourself who just wants an honest answer, these websites are as good as any.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I've never been to an anti-Mormon site and have no interest. I appreciate the truth, but only of it's being delivered fairly. There's a lot of credibility in admitting one's not perfect .. shows sincerity and true concern. I hate it when those of ANY religion act the role of the pharisees and either look down on everyone else, or assume they're too smart/knowledgable to waste their time on the commoners.

The LDS that I work with (except for one) are NOT like that. They are open, honest, and admit their own flaws and the flaws of the LDS church system. Those things don't make me respect them less .. it makes me respect them much more.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mr. McGibblets again.

 

[TroutBum]

I love reading anti-mormon websites. I figure if I get one end of the "wow, we're ****ing crazy" at church, I might as well get the other on the webz. I've seen, read, and watched just about everything there is out there, and I'm happy with the results. Thank Gordon that those anti-mormon sites are there; it takes the simple minded tools out of my EQ class, and makes the people with brains actually think and comment on my lessons.

Hooray for thinking outside the box! (Verlin)