My MIL, who has left the church, has looked into how the whole “no hot/caffeinated drinks” thing started, and she says that it was a way to stop the women from getting together and plotting to change the things they didn’t like. Apparently they used to host tea or coffee hours that led to dissatisfaction with some of the church’s policies. Banning them kept the women from congregating and chatting. And it also kept disaffected men from getting together and doing the same thing.
It’s not a perfect explanation, because there’s plenty of other women’s groups in the church.
Jesus people are told if they don’t “try” to save peoples souls they’ll be judged, so instead of doing absolutely nothing this their way of saying they took a swing even if they end up batting zero (like they knew in their hearts they would). They make the young ones do it not because their so good at it, more like so that they actually do it quick before life catches up with them and they realize what a waste of time it is. Their church/parents get to act like they get the “A” for effort without putting any such effort in themselves, and the youth can go home without being treated like godless heathens for not spreading the Word of Christ like the vacuum cleaner salesmen they are emulating.
There were some missionaries stationed in my neighborhood in Nashville when I was midway through high school. I would see them a lot because they were the only people in the neighborhood other than me that traveled everywhere by bike. The only time they came 'round was during our yard sale, though. They browsed and talked silently a for bit and one of them bought an in-tact model kit I never built of the starship Enterprise. I remember thinking along the lines of “I’m glad it’s going to a good home.” They were nice and seemingly shy and said absolutely nothing about their mission. My impression was they were just trying to get through it without making any waves, but who knows, when they were actively knocking-doors maybe they swung into action? I can’t picture it with them, though.
These guys in the video are just trying to not get bored out of their minds and keep up a cheery demeanor in the face of eight billion door-slams. Crude humor is a tried-and-true tactic in many a workplace, ugly though it may be.
I can tell you’ve never been raised in a strict religion.
"Lust, Pornography, and the LDS approach to Sexuality
APRIL 6, 2010 BY JOHN C.
Sex is complicated. Why we engage in it is a matter of emotion, psychology, hormones, genetics, pop culture, high culture, low culture, spirituality, love, lust, and destiny (or not). I tend to be skeptical that there is one true approach to it, but I can think of several unhealthy approaches (heck, I embody at least a couple). In our church, where belief in something like celestial sex is common (even though it is of murky doctrinal origin), I tend to think it is even more complicated. The traditional Christian approach of general disapproval of sex is more consistent, as is the modern amoral outlook. It’s appropriate (even necessary) for us to argue for and to seek a position between those two, but church members tend to adopt aspects of those approaches instead of figuring out our own path. Generally speaking, we tend to approach sexuality as if it is the most important thing on earth and, therefore, we should know as little about it as possible.
Over conference, there were two talks that focused on issues of sexual immorality in particular. Elder Holland’s Saturday afternoon address and President Monson’s Saturday evening address both referenced pornography and both offered advice regarding controlling lust (along with subsidiary issues). What I write today is going to draw on both talks, but my purpose is to get one point across that neither addressed directly. As I’ve said before, I think our discourse on sexuality is drowning in useless euphemism and misdirected effort. So, I’m going to be blunt and explain what neither of these great men were explicitly stated (although it is implied in both talks): Orgasm is not the end of your creation.
This isn’t to say that orgasm (male or female) is a bad thing. I don’t believe it is. It isn’t, however, a universal good. Like so many of our bodies’ involuntary responses, it is morally neutral. Its goodness or badness is determined by the use to which it is put. If it helps cement a couple together, great. If it is put to other uses, we may have a problem. More on this in a minute.
President Monson more directly addressed pornography, so I want to tackle his talk first. Its title is “Preparation Brings Blessings” and Pres. Monson is seeking to help the young men of the church prepare themselves for missions, marriages, and life in general. He begins with an admonition to behave appropriately while dating; seek the advice of your parents when dating; present your best self; and find good friends with common values. Then, after admonishing against cheating in school, Pres. Monson turns to our entertainment choices. “Whatever you read, listen to or watch makes an impression on you.” He notes the possibility of becoming addicted to pornography. He suggests that if we have a question about some form of media, we should simply avoid it. Reminding us that we are the temples of God, he asks us to keep the word of wisdom, but also to make good choices in music. Then, returning to themes of sexuality, he commands abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards. “Tears inevitably follow transgression.”
Here’s a discussion of the story, where the SF convention (the Eastern Science Fiction Association in Newark, NJ) in 1947 or 1948 figures in one way or another. Key quotes:
Sam Merwin, then the editor of the Thrilling SF magazines: "Around this time he was invited to address a science fiction group in Newark hosted by the writer, Sam Moskowitz. `Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous,’ he told the meeting. “If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.”
Sam Moskowitz (in a 1994 affidavit), "After speaking for about an hour at the meeting, Mr. Hubbard answered questions from the audience. He made the following statement in response to a question about making money from writing: “You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.’”
Others, including Elron’s ex-wife and Theodore Sturgeon and Harlan Ellison, also report he was fond of making this kind of statement during the late 1940s and early 50s.
Do you know where that picture was taken? 'Cause it looks exactly like my hometown library (Riverside, CA) when I was a kid (especially the concrete diamond-pattern doohickeys.) I suppose it might be a “design once, crank’em out everywhere” thing, but…
I don’t care how strict they are, in the vast majority of cases if you let an 18-year-old boy wander the wider world without any supervision except another 18-year-old boy chances are he’s going to explore and experiment and express his hormonal desires a little (as we see in the video). That’s especially true if he’s been repressed all his life – the admonitions of dried-out prunes like President Monson are quickly forgotten when they and their judgment are suddenly out of sight and when “don’t get caught doing it” becomes the main rule instead of “don’t do it.”
Speaking anecdotally, in HS the biggest party animal in my senior class (which is quite a distinction) was a guy from a very prominent and observant Mormon family. The Amish handle that kind of situation more sensibly with rumspringa, but they’re not focused on gaining new converts.
Anyhow, my original point stands: teenaged boys do not make great direct-marketing reps for religions, or really anyone except enterprises that specifically target other teenage boys (skateboard companies, video game companies, extreme sports, military recruiting, etc., etc.).
I was fully expecting a punch-line where the home’s dweller expectantly opened the door - but only after they had left. That would have been a nice ending.
Yeah, I don’t think it has as much to do with proselytizing as indoctrination of the impressionable youths being sent out, often into an alien culture where they only have other members of the church as support. The list of rules that missionaries are supposed to live by neatly matches the list of “cult” brainwashing techniques. (E.g. never allowed to be alone)
I agree with that. There are better ways of doing it than proselytising, though – service missions, youth camps, etc. Teenage boys are suited to that. Anything but direct sales, really.
While not a “Jesus person” myself in any traditionally Christian kind of way (although I do think Jesus was likely a fellow nondualist gnostic, so in essence I agree with him, or my reading of him, anyway) I would submit that not all of them even believe in hell, either for others, or themselves, if they don’t do enough evangelizing. There are a lot of flavors of all the big religions.
