Projection (Moved from Another Thread)

[peter_mary]

I moved this from the "Temple Nekkidness :) thread, 'cause I thought it was a) off-topic, and b) worth talking about.

STURGDW said:
That raises the point that in my adult life, the two most powerful learnings that have contributed to my healthy functioning have been:

1. Projection
2. Boundaries

And when I looked to see what Moism offered in these two vital areas, I found that they were not only not helpful, but ACTIVELY modelled and promoted continual projection, and constant boundary violations.

I would be particulary interested to see what other ex-Mo counsellors, psychologists and the like make of that observation.

I have often thought about the issue of projection myself, and have wondered if that isn't in fact the lasting power of the Scriptures (and really ALL wisdom literature). They are sufficiently ambiguous that they might simply serve as a screen upon which we project our own lives, our own experiences, mixed with the interpretations of others (a little doctrine mixed with the philosophies of men :D Sorry! Couldn't resist. Inside joke for the 'temple initiated'...). Hence we ALWAYS seem to be able to interpret them for our time, because it's always just been a projective exercise, as effective 1000 years ago as it is today.

For that matter, Faith could also possibly be a projective exercise. We maintain an image of what God is, what hope is, what "salvation" is, what perfection is, what good is, all of that inextricably wound with our own paradigms and perceptions, and voila! we get a "faith package" that is really just a reflection of ourselves...

Anybody have an informed thought on that?

Paul

[Born Free]

I moved this from the "Temple Nekkidness :) thread, 'cause I thought it was a) off-topic, and b) worth talking about.

STURGDW said:


I have often thought about the issue of projection myself, and have wondered if that isn't in fact the lasting power of the Scriptures (and really ALL wisdom literature). They are sufficiently ambiguous that they might simply serve as a screen upon which we project our own lives, our own experiences, mixed with the interpretations of others (a little doctrine mixed with the philosophies of men :D Sorry! Couldn't resist. Inside joke for the 'temple initiated'...). Hence we ALWAYS seem to be able to interpret them for our time, because it's always just been a projective exercise, as effective 1000 years ago as it is today.

Anybody have an informed thought on that?

Paul

I have been actively involved in men's work for over a decade. Interestingly many of the men doing some of the best work there had religous upbringings.

In that context, I first discovered n completely different way of seeing 'story'. In the west, we tend to believe that the meaning is in the story, and that the meaning comes at us, a unidirectional process. (This is easier to do with passive entertainment like movies, I suspect than books and theatre.)

We have relatively little to awaken and excite us to the other possibility; that we project meaning onto stories, and that we can make a journey of self-discovery along the way.

I have heard several great stories out of Africa used to this end. So the process goes:

1. Story is told.
2. People are asked what they saw in the story.
3. They then discuss, what insight they got into themself through noting the variety/range of responses.

One of the best examples I have seen used in training and values settings, is a story that is told about a woman who feels she has no choice but to "sleep with' another character in the story, to enlist their support (the only boat) in rescuing her loved one from a remote and isolated location. When the rescued then finds out what their loved one did to rescue them, they then reject them.

The group members are then asked to rate the 'morality' of the characters in the vignette.

When the dust has settled, one more fact about the story is added. The character who assisted with the rescue, at the price of a snog, is then clarified as being of the same gender as the first party.

And people are asked to then review their "morality" ratings. They frequently alter, of course, so people are then asked why. It is a great eye opener.

I have no doubt that plenty of literature and art, make great projective tests. Does that make them right or wrong? My sense is that the problem comes if we fall into the trap of taking them as literal, and having one meaning for all time. Or of believing that one group of people have a monopoly on the correct meaning. Of course that assumes that it has only a single meaning.

Why else can we read a great book, and then later at a different stage in our development, see complete additional layers of meaning and information, and in the best cases, come back and repeat the process numerous times.

Great works have layers. That is why Shakespear is loved across generations. But when a work is found to claim to be one thing, and then turns out to be fraudelent, or even plaigerised, around its foundation, then only the foolish will persist in looking for layers of meaning.

It is the people, frequently with little education, and/or low intelligence, who are insistent on the literal interpretation of scripture. I am mindful that Spong quoted a 1st centry AD scholar who laughed at the notion that anyone take many of the old testament stories literally (Jonah is a good one). Yet here we are 2000 years later and some are still insistent on that.

I believe that projection is a human faculty. It comes with our higher brians in large part. And it has many useful applications. But in its unconscious forms, it can be destructive. That said, I am sure even animals are capable of it. My cat, after it has been reprimanded for inappropriate behaviour, will sulk, and then the first time my small dog walks by, project his frustration onto the dog.

But we humans seem particularly prone. If we feel great joy, we want to share it, a behaviour that society sees as virtuous. But if we feel frustrated, or bitter, we are also likely to project it out, as if that is going to ease our pain. Interestingly, in both cases, the projection can involve a boundary violation. I have no more right to 'share' joy with another, than I do my pain , without the other parties consent. IMHO anyway!

You said "They are sufficiently ambiguous that they might simply serve as a screen upon which we project our own lives".

Most the great literature involves humanity, and of course we connect with/project onto human stories across time, with great ease. Jung and Joseph Campbell on archetypes are an intersting resource at his juncture, but surprise, surprise, most Mormons are highly ignorant of the work of both.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I moved this from the "Temple Nekkidness :) thread, 'cause I thought it was a) off-topic, and b) worth talking about.

STURGDW said:


I have often thought about the issue of projection myself, and have wondered if that isn't in fact the lasting power of the Scriptures (and really ALL wisdom literature). They are sufficiently ambiguous that they might simply serve as a screen upon which we project our own lives, our own experiences, mixed with the interpretations of others (a little doctrine mixed with the philosophies of men :D Sorry! Couldn't resist. Inside joke for the 'temple initiated'...). Hence we ALWAYS seem to be able to interpret them for our time, because it's always just been a projective exercise, as effective 1000 years ago as it is today.

For that matter, Faith could also possibly be a projective exercise. We maintain an image of what God is, what hope is, what "salvation" is, what perfection is, what good is, all of that inextricably wound with our own paradigms and perceptions, and voila! we get a "faith package" that is really just a reflection of ourselves...

Anybody have an informed thought on that?

Paul

I won't claim that I have informed thought, just thought.

Interesting comments Paul. I think you're on to something. I would only add that I think faith's role (belief in the absence of evidence) is like a magic wand that's waved over one's belief system to bridge projected beliefs with actual, evidence, facts and the real world. Maybe that’s why challenging a faith based belief system is often met with such strong resistance. The pieces of any belief system must appear to fit or the mind rejects it, leaving one in a very uncomfortable, semi-disoriented state. It’s funny though how easy it is to fool a mind (our minds too) with the magic, make-believe of faith. I saw a program on Discovery channel that covered the issues of faith vs. science. Near the end of the program a Catholic priest gave his final reply to the discrepancies between his religion’s doctrines and the science that was presented in the program. His reply, “It’s a matter of faith not science.” Sheeeeeng! Wave the magic wand and all the pieces fall into place.

Jeff

[peter_mary]

I

I would only add that I think faith's role (belief in the absence of evidence) is like a magic wand that's waved over one's belief system to bridge projected beliefs with actual, evidence, facts and the real world. The pieces of any belief system must appear to fit or the mind rejects it, leaving one in a very uncomfortable, semi-disoriented state. It’s funny though how easy it is to fool a mind (our minds too) with the magic, make-believe of faith. I saw a program on Discovery channel that covered the issues of faith vs. science. Near the end of the program a Catholic priest gave his final reply to the discrepancies between his religion’s doctrines and the science that was presented in the program. His reply, “It’s a matter of faith not science.” Sheeeeeng! Wave the magic wand and all the pieces fall into place.

Jeff

You know, I was watching a program the other night on The Learning Channel on crop circles. And the things people were saying in support of their belief of this particular "phenomenon" were amazing to me. Absolutely amazing! Even when faced with the people who step forward and say, "We made those, thank us!" they still believe! And when they muddy it up with science, that's when I have to laugh. In fact, one guy who claimed to be a scientist of some brand (I don't recall which flavor), talked about how chaos "could" produce geometrically intricate patterns and so "presto!" there you go. (I could go on, but most of you don't want a dissertation right now on chaos and complexity). Powerful, alien agents sending immense energy "donuts" down to the planet to create intricate patterns...or, a couple of guys with a couple of beers in their bellies and a few ropes and boards at their disposal. People have faith sufficient to believe in the alien, and in anything else they want to, in spite of the evidence.

Then again, I am accused of the same thing by those who see the miracles all around them and cannot for the life of them understand why I can't see the hand of God, because to them, it is as plain as the nose on my face! Ah, faith...

Paul

[Born Free]

Then again, I am accused of the same thing by those who see the miracles all around them and cannot for the life of them understand why I can't see the hand of God, because to them, it is as plain as the nose on my face! Ah, faith...

Paul

I have come to regard the whole idea that someone must die 'for my sins' as deeply offensive and a classic projection. What is more central to theistic notions of religion, than the idea that a magic exists whereby I can be relieved of sin. Particularly a magic, that can shift it onto someone else.

Of course, that belief cannot be uncoupled from the idea that God is some fickle character who can be bribed and induced to give preferential treatment to different folks.

I was in Bali a few years back, and observing their largely animist religion (a variant upon Hinduism), I wondered how I would have responded/reacted had I made that trip when I was still a Mormon.

I suspect I would then have seen it as a completely different 'pagan' belief system. By then however, I could see it as on the same continnum. Both believe that God can be persuaded to favour, fertilize and water, and becalmed to not punish. The Balinese start their days with offerings to the various Gods, and you have to take care not to trip over the offerings to the Gods, that ward off evil, that are placed outside their premises.

So, in the traditional Christian model, we are seen as small children, with an elder (more powerful) brother, who has some special qualities, which enable us, for a price, to displace our human foibles (after we have been brainwashed to believe that mere mortality is a sin in God's eyes) onto him, thereby maintaining our acceptability to God.

If we hadn't been so well indoctrinated with it as a viable, and normal, idea from early on, we would ask "You think you can do what?"

So, in my mind, a massive projection sits right at the very heart of Christianity, certainly as commonly practiced.

Now Christianity, particularly the Catholic variety, has done a nasty job over the years of developing a doctrine around sin. Women started it (Eve), in that they brought it into the world by accepting Satan's invitation, and have, they argued authoritively, passed it down over time.

So we find a less powerful subset of society and project responsibility for our sins onto them. Projection.

Any other thoughts?

[free thinker]

This is a book by Carl Sagan that covers some of the crop circle mentality. I really enjoyed it.

I think Maslow was right with his heirarchy of needs. You cannot be discussing things like the above, until you are fairly secure, both physically , and mentally. I would not have been able to open myself up to these ideas 20 years ago. I am enveloped in the the idea of discovering truth wherever it may be now. Perhaps we are on our way to better things.

I do not suppose to know much anymore. I knew everything when I was an active LDS member. I find this irony somewhat overwhelming!! Thanks again for all your thoughts.

Free Thinker

[peter_mary]

Now Christianity, particularly the Catholic variety, has done a nasty job over the years of developing a doctrine around sin. Women started it (Eve), in that they brought it into the world by accepting Satan's invitation, and have, they argued authoritively, passed it down over time.

So we find a less powerful subset of society and project responsibility for our sins onto them. Projection.

Any other thoughts?

There are volumes that have been written from a feminist perspective regarding the eons of projection on the part of men regarding the sexual nature of women. Most of the monotheistic world has done a pretty good job of blaming women for the inability of men to get sex off their brains...and I suppose the pagan world is equally filled with similar traditions. :rolleyes:

Paul

[Born Free]

There are volumes that have been written from a feminist perspective regarding the eons of projection on the part of men regarding the sexual nature of women. Most of the monotheistic world has done a pretty good job of blaming women for the inability of men to get sex off their brains...and I suppose the pagan world is equally filled with similar traditions. :rolleyes:

Paul

Paul,

From what I have read, the 'pagan' beliefs tended to be polytheistic, and in most cases the Gods included females entities.

So if female Gods were seen as having a fair slice of the power on the go, and feminine energies were given due respect, then I would hazard a guess that there may have been less room for projection.

It was when the power of normal women was perceived as a threat to the power of males, that women got divided up into whores and madonnas, reduced to shallow charatures of real feminine humanity.

Hey, isn't it marvellous what happens when we take/make the time to research and cross reference and think and feel for ourselves? Thanks to all who have shared thus far. I find others journeys inform mine.

Daryl

[peter_mary]

Paul,

From what I have read, the 'pagan' beliefs tended to be polytheistic, and in most cases the Gods included females entities.

So if female Gods were seen as having a fair slice of the power on the go, and feminine energies were given due respect, then I would hazard a guess that there may have been less room for projection.

It was when the power of normal women was perceived as a threat to the power of males, that women got divided up into whores and madonnas, reduced to shallow charatures of real feminine humanity.

Hey, isn't it marvellous what happens when we take/make the time to research and cross reference and think and feel for ourselves? Thanks to all who have shared thus far. I find others journeys inform mine.

Daryl

Maybe I'M the one projecting here, but I can't help but think that the earliest culture's fascination with the fertility cults HAD to include a great deal of interest on the part of the men who were enjoying the sexual benefits of cult membership! :p When I see the little clay goddesses, of which there are legion, with the enormous breasts and hips, I can't help but also think of similar exagerations in our culture, for instance, Barbie TM, Jessica Rabbit (from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit), the heroine of Tomb Raider (what's her name? Dang...), Pamela Anderson, and that stupid silhouete of the woman sitting in profile that you see on the mudflaps of every redneck's truck in the country (do you have them in Australia?). Those gross exagerations stimulate a deep-seated biochemical reaction in the male brain, even though the images are actually mutations! All I'm saying is that it was probably men who invented Goddesses, too, and decided that they were going to be beautiful, desirable, and sexual... :)

I'm not trying to take away from women here, but I'm guessing most would feel rather relieved if society was as unconcerned about their appearance as they seem to be about the appearance of men (for which I, personally, am ETERNALLY grateful! :D ) Now where's that jelly donut and Rogaine...

Paul

[Born Free]

I'm not trying to take away from women here, but I'm guessing most would feel rather relieved if society was as unconcerned about their appearance as they seem to be about the appearance of men (for which I, personally, am ETERNALLY grateful! :D ) Now where's that jelly donut and Rogaine...

Paul

Paul,

Ah ha! We are getting close to one of my favouriite subjects, that I haven't thrown in the pot yet - that of the connection between spirituality and sexuality.

Some of what you said seems to assume that great looks and great sex are a package deal. I worked out of that assumption for years as a young man, and certainly our culture promotes the notion, but I came to understand that there is no correlation, and that in fact, many visually attractive women make lousy lovers, as they always had a que of admirers regardless how competent/incompetent in the armorous arts.

I don't see fertility cults as serving men any more than women. In a high mortality environment, both in child birth and the environment, death was a regular companion, so it does not surprise that high fertility was valued to offset the losses.

Futher, in absence of social security, plenty of offspring was your best bet of surviving in less productive advancing years, for aging men and women.

Have you ever taken/made the time to check out anything on Annie Sprinkle (back a few years now, probably the 80s), who used to run a workshop stateside entitled Sluts and Goddesses, which by all accounts was life altering for many women who attended. Apparently, it taught women to reclaim the power of their sexuality, and because our sexuality is a major component of our life force, such an act invigorates and enables in all sorts of ways.

Many sepcialists I have read reached the conclusion that women are as much or more into sex than men, given their natural healthy development. In parts of our culture, not unlike in the ugly parts of Islam, womens sexuality is feared, and shamed until is shuts down or distorts. In Islam, it is the women who perform genital mutilation on young women.

Seen any emasculation of young women go on in Moland?

Re that "silhouete of the woman sitting in profile that you see on the mudflaps of every redneck's truck in the country (do you have them in Australia?)"

We have our share, but I guess I'd more alarmed if they started having ewe profiles, like in New Zealand! (Sorry, cross Tasman joke, that may get lost in the longer journey across the Pacific, but I think you will get the gist!)

Sounds a little like you may have taken on a bit of feminist guilt. Pick up what is appropriate; but don't be afraid to leave some on the table, as the "little girls are sugar and spice and everything nice" is part of the way society dehumanises women. Disconnect them from their natural sexuality and their natural healthy anger, and you render them powerless, and voiceless.

Sound like any group of women you know?

Daryl

[bigeddy]

My mind is spinning and I am struggling to know where to start. It is such a trip to read what you are all writing on this thread (and others). What a treat to follow keen minds unfettered by Boyd's bullshit.

I have spent the last 18 months learning (finally) what the patterns are that underly (or seem to underly) my sexuality. This has been an area that has caused me much trouble and certainly contributed to my need to grow beyond Momoness.

I looked to the hindu (and other) system to find some answers. It all started with David Dieda. He talks a lot about the need to balance male and female energy and the ease with which I (as a male) can feel female energy whenever it is around me. I remember being 5 years old and playing in my basement with a girl next door. We played a game where she was riding my tricycle around the unfinished basement and then would "run out of gas." She would push the trike over to where I was with the vacuum hose that to us was a copy of a hose on a gas pump. She would take the hose and shove it down her pants and then say she had more gas and would return to riding the trike around. I had no clue as a 5 yr. old why I loved that game, but when she shoved that hose down her pants something inside me went PYAAAANG!!! Later that same year I attended, with my mother, a school performance of my older sister. She was in first grade and her class did something or the other. I remember the third graders coming and and dancing to a song in costumes. I remember watching one girl in particular. I recall the song, the girl, the costume. I was fascinated by the way she wiggled her body. I had no clue what all these feelings meant. Then, as a family we went to the drive-in one night and saw one of the "Tammy" movies with Debbie Reynolds as a young starlet. Her feminine energy screamed at me from the screen. I still see the scene of her in jeans and a flimsy shirt tied around the waist sitting on a limb of a tree. The "Tammy" song ("I hear the cottonwoods whisper above; Tammy, Tammy, Tammy's in love. . . ") still holds me speechless. Again, I had no clue what these feelings meant. (Tell me that I chose heterosexuality!! It chose me and I was powerless to argue.)

Well, these feelings continued and I came to learn what they meant. But as a little mo boy, I came to learn that they mean that I was a perverted, hypersexualized, wicked dude. I am often still angry that there was/is so little wisdom among those who "know the truth" about sex.

Since leaving the church I have come to understand my need to balance my male energy with female energy in order to live optimally. I have used this understanding to make sense out of so much that afflicted the sex offenders I work with and the students I teach.

i.e. a wonderful 20 year old student handed in an assignment wherein she revealed what her terrible act was that proved to her that she is a worthless piece of shit. (I had asked her to push to understand why she felt this so strongly) She had been fully sexual with a young man she did not fully love and knew she did not love him. She was exploring the power that her feminine energy (she exudes tons of it) had always seemed to give her. Here is a bright, powerful young woman striving to understand herself in a world full of sexual energy. As she has done so she has to feel the shame and fear of what her parents (TBMs to the max) will think of her if they knew, and feeling the dread of a belief that she now has to go tell a Bishop (with all his, possible, voyeuristic sloberings). I was once again pissed as hell that such a one as this would suffer so in order that Boyd and his ilk can hold on to being powerful.

Anyway, it is so clear to me now what is really going on. I drove up Weber canyon, reveling in the beauty of Mother Earth/nature (after all the earth is feminine in energy, which is why so many cultures refer to "Mother" nature) and turned a corner and saw where a cement plant had ripped away a whole mountain side to use the gravel underneath. A huge gash on the body of Mom to feed the powerlust of a masculine energy industry. I see why the Hindus believe that it will be only by balancing male and female energy that we will save the earth.

Gotta run, have more to say on the issue of projection. Later

Ed

[peter_mary]

Paul,

Re that "silhouete of the woman sitting in profile that you see on the mudflaps of every redneck's truck in the country (do you have them in Australia?)"

We have our share, but I guess I'd more alarmed if they started having ewe profiles, like in New Zealand! (Sorry, cross Tasman joke, that may get lost in the longer journey across the Pacific, but I think you will get the gist!)

Sounds a little like you may have taken on a bit of feminist guilt. Pick up what is appropriate; but don't be afraid to leave some on the table, as the "little girls are sugar and spice and everything nice" is part of the way society dehumanises women. Disconnect them from their natural sexuality and their natural healthy anger, and you render them powerless, and voiceless.

Sound like any group of women you know?

Daryl

RE: the ewe profile in NZ...I burst out laughing when I read that, but then, around here we have the same joke about sheepherders from Montana! :)

RE: feminist guilt--I live in a feminist household, and we try pretty hard to be cognizant of the healthy things to be gained from feminism, and get past the not-so-healthy things. Most of my post was really about the acknowledgment that men have called the sexual shots for a long time, and not with equanimity. But really, I agree with virtually all you've said.

Now we should check in with Silverfox and see if she's breathing heavy still... :D

Paul

[Born Free]

RE: feminist guilt--I live in a feminist household, and we try pretty hard to be cognizant of the healthy things to be gained from feminism, and get past the not-so-healthy things. Most of my post was really about the acknowledgment that men have called the sexual shots for a long time, and not with equanimity. But really, I agree with virtually all you've said.

Now we should check in with Silverfox and see if she's breathing heavy still... :D

Paul

Paul,

If you look at most societies where women are deprived of and excluded from healthy overt power, then a very unhealthy power struggle seems to start and self-perpetuate.

It appears (IMO) to go: Women do not like the way men behave and threat women, so when they become mothers of sons, they covertly and possibly even unconsciously attempt to raise their sons to be different. This is experienced (unconsciously) by most sons as controlling, so they grow into adulthood afraid of being controlled by women, and as a consequence they replicate the unhealthy treatment of women.

The cycle self-perpetuates until something raises the level of consciousness of the possibilities of more health and fair behaviour.

Moism seems particularly effective at draining women's belief in themselves. I recently did a tour of the new McTemple here (with all its Caucasian Christ artwork) with my wife, and we were struck with the lifeless eyes and broken posture of most the women. To refer to the Branden definition of spirituality I posted on another thread, the life-force was at a low ebb on many of these women.

As for Silverfox, she must still be catching her breath. (Reminds me of the joke of the researcher who asked a woman if she smoked after intercourse. She answered "I don't know. I've never looked!")

Daryl

[bigeddy]

I think many men, especially men who are way off to the side of masculine on the continuum of sexual energy (we are all somewhere on the continuum, some men have more female energy than male energy, etc.) are scared of the power female energy has over them (us, me).

A commonality I noticed in all the men I treated who were charged with exhibitionism is that they had a love/hate thing going with female energy. They were fascinated by it and responded by being pulled toward it while at the same time resenting the power it had over them. They had to expose themselves to the object of their fascination and see the reaction in order to regain their power. (This was true with many offenders of various types criminal behavior, but I saw it most strongly and most vocally from those charged with exhibitionism.)

Ed

[Jeff_Ricks]

Several years ago I purchased a book called Mind Reading by Sanjida O’Connell. It’s about the almost exclusive ability of humans to develop what O’Connell calls, theory of mind. It’s been awhile since I read the book but as I recall it is not know for sure if any animals have the ability. It’s a cognitive ability of we humans (most humans) to put ourselves in the shoes of others and speculate as to how they might see the world, and see it from a different perspective than we do. This of course is also called empathy.

The reason I purchased the book is because after 22 years of marriage I began to look for books that helped me understand the dynamics of my failing marriage. Actually it wasn’t the marriage so much that was failing (although it was no picnic either) but the relationship with my children to their mother was failing. I noticed this first with my oldest son when he became a teenager and reached the stage in his development where he needed to try out his newly developing wings that were there to help him leave the nest when it was time for him to do so. In other words, he needed more space the think for and make decisions for himself, and his mother was unable to give him that space without freaking out, thinking she was losing control. She was an incessant dictator and nagger. Something was very unhealthy about the relationship and I needed to understand what it was because it was forcing my son into a place where he felt he had to get his space one way or another – he rebelled big time. Then when my middle child, also a son, a few years later started following the same pattern and he needed some space to stretch his wings and wasn’t getting it, I started to realize that the problem was at least partly the fault of my now ex-wife. It was at that time that I swore I’d find out what that problem was and get it fixed before my little girl who was 7 years behind in age of my middle child, reached the point where she needed to try out her wings and was likewise forced into rebellion.

To make a much longer story shorter, I felt I made a breakthrough when I discovered a book on alcoholism and how the disease stunts the development of children of alcoholics, and who the effect lasts for a lifetime. Her behavior exhibited many of the symptoms and she was raised the child of an alcoholic. Bingo! I thought. Now we can fix this! I started going to regular meetings of ACOA, Adult Children of Alcoholics, because while it was sponsored by AA, in this group they talked specifically about the problems that develop from being children of alcoholics, not from being alcoholics. She, of course, wasn’t interested in going. She had everything under CONTROL and nothing was wrong. But after about a year of attending these meetings, as I continued to study, I learned Bingo again! I found O’Connell’s book and finally found the answer to I was looking for. The mother of my children lacked the cognitive ability to have a theory of mind. I also learned that some people physically lack this ability. For whatever reason, developmental of physical, she was very deficient in this ability. She could not see the world through my children’s eyes, and it was then that I also realized that she could not see the world through my eyes either. I reached this realization privately in a flood of emotion one day as I was driving. I had to pull over and stop the car because I began to sob uncontrollably, partly out of regret and partly out of joy! It was then that I realized that I had missed so very much in my marriage by being bonded for eternity to a woman who lacks empathy, and that makes for a very one-sided marriage, believe me! But coming to this realization caused a weight I didn't know I was carrying to be released.

(Sorry for the length of this but this feels good to get out. If you’re bored move on to another thread. ;) But it does tie into our Mormon experience too. )

At the time I made that realization we were in marriage counseling. At some in the therapy she (the counselor) explained to my ex that she needed to give Jeff hugs and not always take them. That was in response the previous week to me trying to articulate a problem I felt in our marriage that I was essentially ignoring for lack of what else to do with it. After 22 years of marriage I mentioned in our session that I could not remember one time in our marriage with my ex gave me a hug. When hugs were exchanged between us I was always the giver and she the receiver. She would often come to me and say, I need a hug, so I’d give it. I told the counselor that I felt like a vending machine. When she needed something from me she’d find me, push the right button, and out would come what she needed. But I explained that this vending machine was near empty and needed filling from time to time too.

So the counselor had to explain the rudiments of how to give hugs, not always take them. Then a few days later when my ex had a particularly bad day with the kids she came to me with arms outstretched and said, “I need a hug……. I mean you need to give me a hug……. I mean, I want you to give…… Oh I don’t know what I mean!!” And she stomped out of the room, because I couldn’t keep myself from breaking out laughing.

My point is this. That, and a number of other experiences solidified for me that my ex was lacking in a basic human ability – to put herself in the shoes of others, and that was precisely the reason for all the other unhealthy symptoms she exhibited in our marriage and with the kids. I believe her deficit is partly physical (a tinge of Asperger’s syndrome) and partly developmental due to the alcoholism.

We all get along great now that she lives across town and I and the kids live on the other side. Okay, end of long story. Here’s what I meant to write: It wasn’t until this morning, after reading Daryl’s and Ed’s posts, that I realized another perspective on this problem I lived with for so long. My ex lacks basic imagination. She has to have things specifically spelled out for her or she doesn’t get it. She has trouble with jokes that imply things rather than state them. She just doesn’t get them. Once explained to her she will sometimes fake a laugh but it the clueless look on her face betrays her. She lacks imagination and therefore lacks the ability to but herself in the shoes of others.

O’Connell states that “Imagination and self-awareness are crucial to developing empathy and, without empathy, human society as we know it could not function.” Here’s my point. Mormonism stifles imagination. Members are discouraged from thinking outside the box. Mormon art sucks. It’s more like illustration. It generally lacks imagination. It’s ironic that in order to find an artist who had sufficient imagination to qualify as the chosen artists to illustrate the book of Mormon they had to look outside the church. Arnold Friberg is not Mormon. Neither is the guy who painted all the large murals hanging in the temple square visitor’s center (most of them I should say -- orginially it was all of them, now there are other's work who may or may not be Mormon artists). These are some of the most significant paintings in Mormonism, and the artists are not Mormon because Mormons tend to lack imagination. This deficit is bound to spill over into other areas such as developing true empathy, and love – and it does in the Mormon culture. Need I say more?

Jeff

[silverfox]

This deficit is bound to spill over into other areas such as developing true empathy, and love – and it does in the Mormon culture. Need I say more?

Jeff

That was an emotional post, Jeff. It brought me to tears for a number of reasons.

My parents were both alcoholics, not while pregnant but when I was older...maybe it started when I was age 4 or so. I have suffered a great deal because of this. I also read the book you mentioned and also "Toxic Parents" (I highly recommend both books)

I'd like to clarify that not all children of alcoholics suffer the same issues. I myself didn't have the same issues your wife did. (I tend to sympathize TOO MUCH with others and lived deeply within my imagination to escape my childhood)

You make a valid point about imagination. I like to joke and can be quite sarcastic. I've found with TBMs my sense of humor is unappreciated. They usually just don't get it. I always thought maybe they wanted to do as commanded and "avoid loud laughter" but reading these posts I may be wrong. (either that or my jokes and sarcastic remarks just plain SUCKED)

[Jeff_Ricks]

That was an emotional post, Jeff. It brought me to tears for a number of reasons.

My parents were both alcoholics, not while pregnant but when I was older...maybe it started when I was age 4 or so. I have suffered a great deal because of this. I also read the book you mentioned and also "Toxic Parents" (I highly recommend both books)

I'd like to clarify that not all children of alcoholics suffer the same issues. I myself didn't have the same issues your wife did. (I tend to sympathize TOO MUCH with others and lived deeply within my imagination to escape my childhood)

You make a valid point about imagination. I like to joke and can be quite sarcastic. I've found with TBMs my sense of humor is unappreciated. They usually just don't get it. I always thought maybe they wanted to do as commanded and "avoid loud laughter" but reading these posts I may be wrong. (either that or my jokes and sarcastic remarks just plain SUCKED)

I make you cry, and I make you want to smoke!! :eek:

I want to acknowledge that just because ones parent is alcoholic doesn't mean that the child will have developmental issues. That's one of the things I learned by going to ACOA. From what I can see, Silverfox, I like your sense of humor. You have it -- they don't.

Jeff

[Born Free]

We all get along great now that she lives across town and I and the kids live on the other side. Okay, end of long story. Here’s what I meant to write: It wasn’t until this morning, after reading Daryl’s and Ed’s posts, that I realized another perspective on this problem I lived with for so long. My ex lacks basic imagination. She has to have things specifically spelled out for her or she doesn’t get it. She has trouble with jokes that imply things rather than state them. She just doesn’t get them. Once explained to her she will sometimes fake a laugh but it the clueless look on her face betrays her. She lacks imagination and therefore lacks the ability to but herself in the shoes of others.

Jeff

Jeff,

I am increasingly fascinated how many of us seem to gravitate toward similar interests.

There is a model used in several areas, and it is in Tony Webb's Shame Affect work, that has boundaries on a continuum. It goes from overly rigid boundaries with no gates (as in like the Iron Curtain) at one extreme, through firm and well maintened fences, with sound gates with oiled hinges and functional catches in the middle, and all gates with few catches, and no fences (poor boundaries) at the other extreme.

Alcohol and drug-dependent people, and the children of same, frequently appear of the "what boundaries" end of the spectrum. I have never read anything that postulates how much of that is hard/firm wired and how much is learned. Certainly I observe in myself and others, that exposure to poor modelling re boundaries in youth can create a later stretch in grasping same. I commented elsewhere the similarlies I found between my mother and the Church.

One of the more recent books added to my library is Baron-Cohen's The Essential Difference, which deals with his Oxford research that concluded that the major gender differences are 'systemizing' and 'empathizing', and he argues that it suggests strongly that Aspergers and high-function Autism are extreme male-brain patterns. Certainly lower capacity for empathizing seemes to suggest impaired or underdeveloped Theory of Mind. (Before anyone nails me on teh above, there are huge overlaps in the curves, so his research does NOT say men are systemizers and females empathizers, but that the centre of the bell curves for each are offset, and Aspergers and high function Autism are futher offset - higher again on systemizing and lower on empahizing.)

I empathize with your pain and joy as you came to grasp where your ex was at, and the limits of her capacity. That remark also casts more light on your remarks elsewehere re feeling like a dog with one of those zapper collars when you first left your marriage. Being in relationship with people in that space screws with ones head, frequently producing a very unsure sense of where the boundaries are in their partners, finding the boundary in a different place every day.

Daryl

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

I am increasingly fascinated how many of us seem to gravitate toward similar interests.

There is a model used in several areas, and it is in Tony Webb's Shame Affect work, that has boundaries on a continuum. It goes from overly rigid boundaries with no gates (as in like the Iron Curtain) at one extreme, through firm and well maintened fences, with sound gates with oiled hinges and functional catches in the middle, and all gates with few catches, and no fences (poor boundaries) at the other extreme.

Alcohol and drug-dependent people, and the children of same, frequently appear of the "what boundaries" end of the spectrum. I have never read anything that postulates how much of that is hard/firm wired and how much is learned. Certainly I observe in myself and others, that exposure to poor modelling re boundaries in youth can create a later stretch in grasping same. I commented elsewhere the similarlies I found between my mother and the Church.

One of the more recent books added to my library is Baron-Cohen's The Essential Difference, which deals with his Oxford research that concluded that the major gender differences are 'systemizing' and 'empathizing', and he argues that it suggests strongly that Aspergers and high-function Autism are extreme male-brain patterns. Certainly lower capacity for empathizing seemes to suggest impaired or underdeveloped Theory of Mind. (Before anyone nails me on teh above, there are huge overlaps in the curves, so his research does NOT say men are systemizers and females empathizers, but that the centre of the bell curves for each are offset, and Aspergers and high function Autism are futher offset - higher again on systemizing and lower on empahizing.)

I empathize with your pain and joy as you came to grasp where your ex was at, and the limits of her capacity. That remark also casts more light on your remarks elsewehere re feeling like a dog with one of those zapper collars when you first left your marriage. Being in relationship with people in that space screws with ones head, frequently producing a very unsure sense of where the boundaries are in their partners, finding the boundary in a different place every day.

Daryl

Thank you for empathizing with what I experienced in my marriage. You seem to understand it well. It feels good to know that someone else can relate.

For such a bad marriage it's ironic that it's turned into about the best divorce one could hope for. I'm happier, my kids are happier, and even my ex is happier. We all get along quite well now. She will never marry again because she is so much happier being on her own and always will be. She's just not cut out to exist in a situation where the capacity for theory of mind is almost a requirement. I think it would be like playing a board game with a group but you're the only one in the group that hasn't been told all the rules, leaving you in the position of constantly making embarrassing mistakes. I’m sure that living with us was very frustrating for her. But it’s all-good now.

Relative to my marriage one thing that particularly angers me about Mormonism is the way it hustles young people into marriages. I blame the Church to a degree for my marriage. It was not a well thought through decision to marry when I did and whom I did. I just knew that this was what the Lord wanted me to do (not to mention my mission president, stake president and father wanted me to do) so did it.

This afternoon I watched The Village with my kids. I quite liked it. It’s not a complex story but was done in such a way that it makes you think. If I told what I gained from watching it (besides being entertained) I’d give away too much of the story so I won’t. It has a real fun twist to it that relates well to our experience with Mormonism.

Jeff

[Born Free]

Relative to my marriage one thing that particularly angers me about Mormonism is the way it hustles young people into marriages. I blame the Church to a degree for my marriage. It was not a well thought through decision to marry when I did and whom I did. I just knew that this was what the Lord wanted me to do (not to mention my mission president, stake president and father wanted me to do) so did it.
Jeff

I subscribe to email newsletters from an online source called Smart Marriages. One recent piece of data that came from them was this (partial extract only):

"BOSTON - If blue states care less about moral values, why are divorce rates so low in the bluest of the blue states? It's a question that intrigues conservatives, as much as it emboldens liberals.

As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also often the areas where many conservative Christians live.

Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, according to figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.

The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.

In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas."

The failure to get a grip on sexuality means that young Mormons frequently go into marriage confusing sexual desire with something more sustainable as a foundation.

Early marriages are statistically linked to high rates of failure, so the fact that the marriage failure rate amongst Mormons is not higher than the average could suggest that there are a lot of Mormon marriages being held together by high social pressures - fear of failure in a pro-family, pro-marriage environment. That in turn becomes another factor in high depression rates.

I too married way too early - just 2 days after turning 21. It was good luck (and lots of hard work) that we made it through. Fortunately we were prepared to walk away from the Church at the same time.

[peter_mary]

Early marriages are statistically linked to high rates of failure, so the fact that the marriage failure rate amongst Mormons is not higher than the average could suggest that there are a lot of Mormon marriages being held together by high social pressures - fear of failure in a pro-family, pro-marriage environment. That in turn becomes another factor in high depression rates.

I too married way too early - just 2 days after turning 21. It was good luck (and lots of hard work) that we made it through. Fortunately we were prepared to walk away from the Church at the same time.

No, Daryl, obviously it's the magic of the temple, you know, being anointed and all, that makes those marriages work! The Lord doesn't work by social pressure, he works by spiritual glue! (Where IS that damn barfing smilie when you need it...)

My wife and I were married at 20, first baby at 21 (I was baptized the day I got engaged, that's why I could sneak in earlier than most...) We "followed the Prophet" and had those babies one right after another, even though we were full-time students, and cranked out three in 5 and a half years. Now, I love my kids (we added a fourth 6 years later), but MAN I wish I would have followed my instincts instead of some old man preaching "spiritual children who need mortal tabernacles."

Hint to those of you who are not yet parents...WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE NOT A BABY YOURSELF!!! There, I feel better...

Paul

[lsands]

You guys can't have all of the fun! What a relief to find this place to discuss things at an advanced level!! Thank you, thank you, Jeff. I posted on the exmo board again last Saturday for the first time in a long time, and I was stunned at the level of animosity leveled at me because I said that I had actually had a good experience doing initiatories in the temple! No matter that I was very careful to validate the fact that many have had negative experiences, and that I made two additional attempts to clarify that this was just my experience. Most of the posters simply couldn't seem to hear what I was saying, but could only hear what they felt.

Talk about projection!!! I tried to express what is a central tenet of this board: that there is good AND bad in Mormonism, and that we can experience the pain and anger and MOVE ON to remember and value the good parts of our experience while recognizing the bad. I wanted people on the board to see that real RECOVERY can include getting past black-and-white thinking. I wasn't hurt by what was said---I didn't take it personally. But it was very disheartening to be so completely misunderstood.

Thanks for letting me share my feelings about this a little bit---and thanks for a forum that allows me to explore and express my experiences and thoughts fully and in depth. I will be spending a lot more time here, since I'm feeling a need to connect and communicate with others in thoughtful ways. The exmo board doesn’t seem to be a good place to do that.

On to the subject that Paul brought up: early female-based religion and sexuality. A few years ago I began reading about goddess-based religions and found it so HEALING to my patriarchal-sodden soul. Because the idea of a male god, male prophets, etc is so ubiquitous, I don't think women fully realize what it does to us emotionally and spiritually. When I started reading about Goddesses I felt as if the other half of me had been restored, as if I now had two arms and legs instead of just one. It was a profound relief to me and incredibly empowering; it fed a deep, unrealized need in my soul. That there is equal divinity in both male and female seems so incredibly obvious that since then, on the rare occasions I have gone to LDS meetings, it seems odd to me that all they talk about is “Heavenly Father”. How in the hell can you have a father without a mother?

One book that opened my eyes then, and that I will refer to now, is Merlin Stone’s, When God Was a Woman (1976). It is one of the first and definitive books on this topic. On pages 154-155 she says, “In the worship of the female deity, sex was Her gift to humanity. It was sacred and holy….But in the religions of today we find an almost totally reversed attitude. Sex, especially non-marital sex, is considered to be somewhat [for Mormons, more than “somewhat”] naughty, dirty, even sinful. Yet rather than calling the earliest religions, which embraced such an open acceptance of all human sexuality, ‘fertility cults’, we might consider the religions of today as strange in that they seem to associate shame and even sin with the very process of conceiving new human life. Perhaps centuries from now scholars and historians will be classifying these as ‘sterility-cults.’ “

So I would propose that, in order to have a healthy sexuality, we have to take it from the naughty/dirty realm and restore it to a joyous celebration both of the creation of new human beings and for the life-enhancing, loving power it has for each of us. In my opinion, it is a marvelous gift to us from the Divine, whoever or whatever He/She may be. Our sexuality is to be enjoyed and explored and held sacred not because of guilt or shame, but because it can be such a powerful expression of life and intimate connection with other human beings, and even connection with divinity in ourselves and others. That’s why sex was part of the temple rituals in the goddess-based religions. With this in mind, pornography and the attitudes surrounding it is not the opposite of Christian guilt/shame, but the just another expression of it. If we all had positive feelings about our bodies and sexuality, pornography would not exist (I define pornography differently from erotica, which seems to me to be positive rather than negative.)

Now speaking from my own experience and thinking: It seems to me that (no surprise here) male-based religious rules about sexuality are really about power and control. If you can get an individual to give control of these most primal of needs over to someone else, you can control every aspect of his/her life. If you shame people over their sexual feelings and tell them that they are bad for having them, you can create a self-distrust and self-loathing that reinforces dependence on the controller, since your only hope of feeling good is to follow strictly the rules they have set.

Another aspect to the power-and-control use of sexuality has to do with male-over-female control. If women and children are a man’s property, then he wants to make sure that no other man gets to “spoil” or use HIS property, and he also wants to be sure that his children are really his. In fact, in the female goddess-based religions, when sexual relationships were not exclusive, the male parentage of children was uncertain and children were supported and parented by the whole community instead of just a mother and father. (This is also really the issue at the heart of the abortion debate as well: A woman having control over her own body and fertility.)

I have only recently become aware that in my marriage I felt owned, even though this idea is never explicitly taught or promoted in the church, and would be denied vehemently. I felt that way because I was!!! What does the temple ceremony ask women to do? “Give themselves” to their husbands! And all of this is kept secret until you’re actually at the altar with all of your friends and family sitting there, and you’re probably too nervous or distracted to even hear what they’re saying! But the roots of this sank deep into my subliminal consciousness. It’s better for a controller that way, anyway, because if you don’t know how controlled you are, you won’t try to fight it. Men are owned, too, of course---“Bow your head and say YES”---but they are not owned sexually like women are.

After my first sexual experience outside of marriage (I was divorced) and therefore outside of the church’s rules, there came to me an overwhelming resolution that no one else would EVER be in control of my body or my sexuality again. This was not the result of conscious thought; it was my spirit breaking from the shackles that had bound me. Now I have complete choice over what I do or not do, and whom I do it with.

So, if anyone is still reading after this “rant”, thank you. I want to post more about projection from another aspect of it, if I haven’t scared everyone away with the length of my post. I feel much better now, thank you.

[Jeff_Ricks]

But in the religions of today we find an almost totally reversed attitude. Sex, especially non-marital sex, is considered to be somewhat [for Mormons, more than “somewhat”] naughty, dirty, even sinful. Yet rather than calling the earliest religions, which embraced such an open acceptance of all human sexuality, ‘fertility cults’, we might consider the religions of today as strange in that they seem to associate shame and even sin with the very process of conceiving new human life. Perhaps centuries from now scholars and historians will be classifying these as ‘sterility-cults.’ “


First I want to say that I VERY MUCH enjoyed reading your post.

Second I want to say that I almost spit out my coffee when I read ‘sterility-cults.’

An lastly, I want to say, NEENER NEENER NEENER, I know who you are! I'm glad you started posting my friend.

Big Hug!!
Jeff

[peter_mary]

One book that opened my eyes then, and that I will refer to now, is Merlin Stone’s, When God Was a Woman (1976). It is one of the first and definitive books on this topic.


Speaking as one of the "long-posters" (oh, wait, no inuendo intended there... :) ), no need to appologize for the number of words.

I enjoyed Merlin Stone's book, too, and HIGHLY recommend "The Chalice and the Blade" by Riane Eisler. For whatever reason, it was a major paradigm shift for me when one or both of these authors made the point that for thousands of years, the creative principle was associated with the female, for obvious reasons. It was only with the advent of a war god, when people felt it was more important to secure your safety by killing other people rather than producing more of your own tribe, that for some strange reason people associated the creative principle with the male. I mean, talk about counter-intuitive! Our FATHER is the producer of our lives? It's a huge concession on the part of Mormons (contrary to the rest of Christianity) to even admit the probability of a female principle involved in the creative process, and even there, you can get your butt kicked out if you attempt to address that female principle.

It's bizarre, when you think about it.

And I believe you are right, that the oppression of sexuality is about fear on the part of men regarding that which holds the most power over them: women. And we probably have St. Augustine in particular to thank for helping to shape that aspect of Christianity. It is my understanding that he "struggled with the ladies" himself, and like many modern zealots, we often find that those who fight the hardest against these sorts of things are often the ones who are hiding their own weeknesses (Jimmy Swaggert comes to mind).

Very interesting indeed.

Paul

[Born Free]

On to the subject that Paul brought up: early female-based religion and sexuality. A few years ago I began reading about goddess-based religions and found it so HEALING to my patriarchal-sodden soul. Because the idea of a male god, male prophets, etc is so ubiquitous, I don't think women fully realize what it does to us emotionally and spiritually. When I started reading about Goddesses I felt as if the other half of me had been restored, as if I now had two arms and legs instead of just one. It was a profound relief to me and incredibly empowering; it fed a deep, unrealized need in my soul. That there is equal divinity in both male and female seems so incredibly obvious that since then, on the rare occasions I have gone to LDS meetings, it seems odd to me that all they talk about is “Heavenly Father”. How in the hell can you have a father without a mother?

After my first sexual experience outside of marriage (I was divorced) and therefore outside of the church’s rules, there came to me an overwhelming resolution that no one else would EVER be in control of my body or my sexuality again. This was not the result of conscious thought; it was my spirit breaking from the shackles that had bound me. Now I have complete choice over what I do or not do, and whom I do it with.

So, if anyone is still reading after this “rant”, thank you. I want to post more about projection from another aspect of it, if I haven’t scared everyone away with the length of my post. I feel much better now, thank you.

lsands

Hear, hear!

As a relatively new arrival here, who has taken a big chunk of airtime, I was reluctant to push this issue. I was also hesitant because it is such a big issue, and right on the leading edge of where I am at at this time, that I did not rush in.

Before starting on the sexuality stuff, let me again affirm the value of defining the ethos for this site. It is not as attractive to those who want to wallow in anger. That said, I have wondered about the value of making the purpose and philosophy more explicit, along with the rationale behind that.

Back to sexuality.

One book I gained a great deal from in recent years was Schnarch's Passionate Marriage. (I do understand from various people who have done workshops with him, that he can be a complete prat, but I have not let that sully my love of his written work.)

It contains one of the best expositions of boundaries I have encountered. Even my 25 year old son was able to grasp what he was on about easily. But the point I was wanting to make about the book was that in the later chapters he discusses how he was taken by surprise by the way the word spiritual suddenly sprung into therapy session (even with aethists) once they got a certain distance down the road on boundaries development (differentiation), and overcame the worst of fusion.

That really fascinated me. My guess is that once we get a healthy sense of who we are, and where we start and stop, we are then more desirous and capable of, intimate (spiritual) connection with others without the fear of engulfment.

If that is close to how it works, it is glaringly apparent that a truely intimate experience is not really possible with a crushed, controlled human being, so grinding women down does not work for men in any positive manner.

On the goddess, for the Jungians out there, Whitmonts Return of the Goddess paints an encouraging picture of emerging consciousness, and also accentuates how scapegoating is so counter-productive.

lsands, I loved your contribution, and your learnings in post-marriage sexuality have some parallels with what I said I learnt in an affair. Mormonism would have us believe these could not be 'breakthrough' spaces. Their loss!

Anything to break out of the crushing control.

Daryl

[Born Free]

No, Daryl, obviously it's the magic of the temple, you know, being anointed and all, that makes those marriages work! The Lord doesn't work by social pressure, he works by spiritual glue! (Where IS that damn barfing smilie when you need it...)

Paul

Paul,

Your tongue-in-cheek remark prompted my thinking in a new direction.

It would be very interesting to see the stats on how many people leave the Church after their 'heavenly sanctified marriage' turns pear shaped. If there is a lot of unnatural, or ancillary force holding the marriage together, one wonders how much wrath unleashed against the 'ancillary forces' once the relationship fails.

I know several women in that space. All believe that they had a completely different standard applied to their post-marriage new relating activities, to what their priesthood possessing ex did. The Church seemed to go out of its way to whack them if there was a hint of extra-martial sexual activity. I guess scapegoating the woman as the 'baddy' takes attention off that there are also failures in Temple marriages.

At the same time, the Church seemed completely indifferent to the men's failures to comply with child support committments, inspite that they are a law matter here.

My guesstimate would be that as in studies of Utard youth sexual activity, there may be a strong polarisation effect - when they're good, they are really, really good, and when they are bad, they are BAD! .

Daryl

[Jeff_Ricks]

Before starting on the sexuality stuff, let me again affirm the value of defining the ethos for this site. It is not as attractive to those who want to wallow in anger. That said, I have wondered about the value of making the purpose and philosophy more explicit, along with the rationale behind that.



Daryl,

Will you elaborate a little more on what you are recommending? I want to make sure I understand it. The Board of Directors will be meeting next week to officially define our mission statement, which includes our purpose and philosophy, so your input and any advice you might offer is timely.

Jeff

[wescape]

Daryl,

I have heard great things about Schnarch's Passionate Marriage. I in the second trimester of graduate school studying Counseling Psychology and it is one of the books for the Marriage & Family class I'm currently taking. I've only had a chance to browse it so far but everyone I've spoken to who's already taken the course said it was one of their all time favorite books and had great effects on their marriage. As someone recently married (just over 8 months) I'm really looking forward to reading it!

Wes

[Born Free]

Daryl,

Will you elaborate a little more on what you are recommending? I want to make sure I understand it. The Board of Directors will be meeting next week to officially define our mission statement, which includes our purpose and philosophy, so your input and any advice you might offer is timely.

Jeff

Many people are used to going to the P,P&MS to get the 'guts' of what an organisation is on about and where it is going. Yes, we know that most are mere wallpaper, but when you find an organisation that really nutted it out and are committed to living it, it has real power, it creates a buzz. To use my values experience, it is a values statement that enables those of a like mind to gather with focus, and those on another wave length to move on.

I have just come in from mowing the lawn (it has only stopped raining & is Australia Day holiday here), so I had some time time think more about this while chasing the mower around.

Much of what exs tend to discuss, is where they came from and why that didn't work for them. That is a valuable process, aids letting go, releases anger, etc. This is the Pain Propelled Model.

But, IMO, just as important as releasing the restraints, or overcoming the inertia that Mormonism is good at creating, is increasing the pull or attraction of the new place. - the Magnet Model.

Look at the energy that the PostMo Spirituality thread generated. For me that is 'pull' power, generating enthusiams and confidence about the new place. I don't see that as any more important than the uncoupling process, but I believe it is critical.

Let me fit that observation/opinion into a broader context. If we regard active Mormonism as a bell-curve, the prospects to move on, are on the right end of the curve. They are ready for something new, have outlived the constraints, but in many cases cannot see the new offering with clarity as yet. Some of that is inevitable. The phase of development when the locus of control gets internalised in probably the biggest 'leap of faith' across the spectrum. The faith required here is in self, in truth, in integrity, but it still can feel like going into freefall. This is the group, that can be offered more IMO.

I would encourage the board to consider being more explicit in such a strategy.

'Nough said? I will gladly expand if necessary, but I am increasingly getting teh idea that we are on a very similar wavelength.

Daryl

[free thinker]

You guys can't have all of the fun! What a relief to find this place to discuss things at an advanced level!! Thank you, thank you, Jeff. I posted on the exmo board again last Saturday for the first time in a long time, and I was stunned at the level of animosity leveled at me because I said that I had actually had a good experience doing initiatories in the temple! No matter that I was very careful to validate the fact that many have had negative experiences, and that I made two additional attempts to clarify that this was just my experience. Most of the posters simply couldn't seem to hear what I was saying, but could only hear what they felt.

Talk about projection!!! I tried to express what is a central tenet of this board: that there is good AND bad in Mormonism, and that we can experience the pain and anger and MOVE ON to remember and value the good parts of our experience while recognizing the bad. I wanted people on the board to see that real RECOVERY can include getting past black-and-white thinking. I wasn't hurt by what was said---I didn't take it personally. But it was very disheartening to be so completely misunderstood.

Thanks for letting me share my feelings about this a little bit---and thanks for a forum that allows me to explore and express my experiences and thoughts fully and in depth. I will be spending a lot more time here, since I'm feeling a need to connect and communicate with others in thoughtful ways. The exmo board doesn’t seem to be a good place to do that.

On to the subject that Paul brought up: early female-based religion and sexuality. A few years ago I began reading about goddess-based religions and found it so HEALING to my patriarchal-sodden soul. Because the idea of a male god, male prophets, etc is so ubiquitous, I don't think women fully realize what it does to us emotionally and spiritually. When I started reading about Goddesses I felt as if the other half of me had been restored, as if I now had two arms and legs instead of just one. It was a profound relief to me and incredibly empowering; it fed a deep, unrealized need in my soul. That there is equal divinity in both male and female seems so incredibly obvious that since then, on the rare occasions I have gone to LDS meetings, it seems odd to me that all they talk about is “Heavenly Father”. How in the hell can you have a father without a mother?

One book that opened my eyes then, and that I will refer to now, is Merlin Stone’s, When God Was a Woman (1976). It is one of the first and definitive books on this topic. On pages 154-155 she says, “In the worship of the female deity, sex was Her gift to humanity. It was sacred and holy….But in the religions of today we find an almost totally reversed attitude. Sex, especially non-marital sex, is considered to be somewhat [for Mormons, more than “somewhat”] naughty, dirty, even sinful. Yet rather than calling the earliest religions, which embraced such an open acceptance of all human sexuality, ‘fertility cults’, we might consider the religions of today as strange in that they seem to associate shame and even sin with the very process of conceiving new human life. Perhaps centuries from now scholars and historians will be classifying these as ‘sterility-cults.’ “

So I would propose that, in order to have a healthy sexuality, we have to take it from the naughty/dirty realm and restore it to a joyous celebration both of the creation of new human beings and for the life-enhancing, loving power it has for each of us. In my opinion, it is a marvelous gift to us from the Divine, whoever or whatever He/She may be. Our sexuality is to be enjoyed and explored and held sacred not because of guilt or shame, but because it can be such a powerful expression of life and intimate connection with other human beings, and even connection with divinity in ourselves and others. That’s why sex was part of the temple rituals in the goddess-based religions. With this in mind, pornography and the attitudes surrounding it is not the opposite of Christian guilt/shame, but the just another expression of it. If we all had positive feelings about our bodies and sexuality, pornography would not exist (I define pornography differently from erotica, which seems to me to be positive rather than negative.)

Now speaking from my own experience and thinking: It seems to me that (no surprise here) male-based religious rules about sexuality are really about power and control. If you can get an individual to give control of these most primal of needs over to someone else, you can control every aspect of his/her life. If you shame people over their sexual feelings and tell them that they are bad for having them, you can create a self-distrust and self-loathing that reinforces dependence on the controller, since your only hope of feeling good is to follow strictly the rules they have set.

Another aspect to the power-and-control use of sexuality has to do with male-over-female control. If women and children are a man’s property, then he wants to make sure that no other man gets to “spoil” or use HIS property, and he also wants to be sure that his children are really his. In fact, in the female goddess-based religions, when sexual relationships were not exclusive, the male parentage of children was uncertain and children were supported and parented by the whole community instead of just a mother and father. (This is also really the issue at the heart of the abortion debate as well: A woman having control over her own body and fertility.)

I have only recently become aware that in my marriage I felt owned, even though this idea is never explicitly taught or promoted in the church, and would be denied vehemently. I felt that way because I was!!! What does the temple ceremony ask women to do? “Give themselves” to their husbands! And all of this is kept secret until you’re actually at the altar with all of your friends and family sitting there, and you’re probably too nervous or distracted to even hear what they’re saying! But the roots of this sank deep into my subliminal consciousness. It’s better for a controller that way, anyway, because if you don’t know how controlled you are, you won’t try to fight it. Men are owned, too, of course---“Bow your head and say YES”---but they are not owned sexually like women are.

After my first sexual experience outside of marriage (I was divorced) and therefore outside of the church’s rules, there came to me an overwhelming resolution that no one else would EVER be in control of my body or my sexuality again. This was not the result of conscious thought; it was my spirit breaking from the shackles that had bound me. Now I have complete choice over what I do or not do, and whom I do it with.

So, if anyone is still reading after this “rant”, thank you. I want to post more about projection from another aspect of it, if I haven’t scared everyone away with the length of my post. I feel much better now, thank you.

Enjoyed reading your post.

I agree with the notion of some good coming out of our church membership. I admit it. I think if we are truly comfortable with our post-mormon state, we wont have a problem with current members, or others who liked certain aspects of the church. We have just moved on! :cool:

I do not know how women can handle the second class citizenship offered by the church! Like chattle for the men.

Free Thinker

[Born Free]

[QUOTE=lsands]You guys can't have all of the fun! What a relief to find this place to discuss things at an advanced level!! Thank you, thank you, Jeff. I posted on the exmo board again last Saturday for the first time in a long time, and I was stunned at the level of animosity leveled at me because I said that I had actually had a good experience doing initiatories in the temple! QUOTE]

Isands,

Your post reminded me of an experience my wife had, and has never denied. Let me put that in context. We are both Ex, and have not a smiggin of doubt the Church is a massive con, BUT, she says that when she was doing work for the dead in the Temple, she heard a distinct 'Thank you' in a woman's voice .

My wife is not prone to flights of fancy of any sort, so this was hardly any wild wishfull thinking.

We have never felt a need to rationalise the experience. Like, where would you start, but one cannot deny an experience merely because it does not fit one's current paradigm.

One of my favourite authors has this to say, and I apply it to exactly this sort of experience:

"Branden: Don't deny or disown what you see or experience merely because you can't explain it, justify it, or fit it into some familiar frame-of-reference. Allow a large space in your psyche to accommodate ambiguity and uncertainty. Don't invent explanations prematurely just so you can tell yourself you have the universe all tied up in one neat package. Keep your eyes open, keep observing, and be confident that sooner or later the truth will appear to you, providing, of course, you live long enough. And if you don't, well, hasn't it been an interesting adventure anyway?"

Daryl

[flotsam]

Here's where the great Post-Mo tradition of discussing sex first started. I must admit, I've learned more here than from any magazine pile in the garage. :D

[puff]

This is a book by Carl Sagan that covers some of the crop circle mentality. I really enjoyed it.

I think Maslow was right with his heirarchy of needs. You cannot be discussing things like the above, until you are fairly secure, both physically , and mentally. I would not have been able to open myself up to these ideas 20 years ago. I am enveloped in the the idea of discovering truth wherever it may be now. Perhaps we are on our way to better things.

I do not suppose to know much anymore. I knew everything when I was an active LDS member. I find this irony somewhat overwhelming!! Thanks again for all your thoughts.

Free ThinkerHere here free thinker , i totalt agree , and in my new search for truth there is one type of individual i totaly avoid , that is anyone who stands up in public and begins an address by saying , i know , which usually means just the opposite

[free thinker]

Flotsam thanks for opening some of these threads back up. I had forgotten some of these post's but realize now why I am at home here.

I see here ( and I am not making personal reference) a wealth of collective wisdom. I put a lot of stock into conversation that springs from those who consider themselves on a search for truth.

And puff has stated what I currently feel about those who "know". And let it be remembered here, and I am borrowing from Arza Evans in " The Keystone of Mormonism", that the young men who flew planes into buildings full of innocent people, on 11 Sept 2001, "knew" that they were doing the will of Allah. What distinction can be drawn between these young men, and the men who killed The Fancher Party in southern Utah, on 13 Sept 1857?

" Knowing" can be, and has been, in matters religious, a very bloody tool.

ft