Here's a question - is LDS theology inherently harsh on high functioning autistic people? I'm talking mainly of the issue of social interaction. The LDS places a huge emphasis on outward appearance, making a family and going on a mission. Due to all the difficulties these people face with knowing how others see them, relationships and social anxiety, this must be really difficult for them.

I do know one or two church members who are diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum and a number of others I suspect to be. Back in my youth, it was never a thing, and people my age didn't get diagnosed with it, so I think many over 30 have slipped through the cracks. I also get the impression it is underdiagnosed in females, and possibly overdiagnosed in younger males.

When you have a theology that says you must be married to attain exaltation, and you can't maintain relationships well, if at all, then how can you fulfil this? And will your marriage be difficult too?

mormondom is horrible for anyone that is struggling to fit. It is a religion that is wonderful for those that are doing well. The extrisic reward system that is built in since the founding constantly praises and celebrates the fellow who is a RM who marries the high school sweetheart who was a beauty queen. The fellow who has the good white collar job, who is handsome, with a quiverfull of kids. The wife can't be below average either. She must be close to a 10 in looks.

Anyone less than that doesn't get the extrisic rewards that the religion offers, such as the adulation from everyone around, the leadership, the business perks, the bragging rights, the guaranty of mormon salvation where you can make love for all eternity in your harem, and everyone else gets castrated to adore you as the prophet, priest, king, and lord of the universe.

Is mormonism bad for autistic people, yes!

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is mormonism bad for autistic people, yes!

Religion is social group think. I can't think of a worse hobby for people on the spectrum.

In my limited experience the LDS church is as ill-equipped to accommodate neurodiversity as google.

In my limited experience the LDS church is as ill-equipped to accommodate any diversity as their handling of gay people proves.

I'm not a fan of the term "diversity", as I believe it has been hijacked and twisted by people with a political agenda. However, I prefer the term "variety", because it doesn't have that baggage.

You will meet a variety of people in any community, with or without deliberate social engineering and I think the LDS is no exception that way. I don't buy into the idea that autism is on the rise, I think it was always there but the radical changes in modern society make it more obvious.

I did notice one thing in my ward. The old time families were often very "neurotypical" (if there is such a thing), at least on the outside. Some serious issues with depression, and some anxiety etc. A lot of the new converts though, were not so "neurotypical" - we had people joining who were bipolar (by their own admission) and very difficult to interact with sometimes, socially awkward - some on the autistic spectrum, and we had at least one person who was severely schizophrenic (he went inactive shortly after joining and I happened to meet him by accident downtown when he was in the middle of a severe episode)... It was a big contrast between the two groups.

I never saw this.

"The old time families were often very "neurotypical" (if there is such a thing), at least on the outside."

I'm from an "old time" family of sorts. Lots of baggage. The only people I thought were anything like "neurotypical" were people for whom Mormonism hadn't overrode their instincts to unconditionally love their children and treat all people with equanimity and respect.

I don't get the "diversity" baggage. It is a word that covers the political animal. People for whom it is problem in my experience are the people for whom a strong "us and them" seems to hold and therefore don't welcome such variety.

"Diversity" definitely has baggage attached to it nowadays. Ten years ago, it didn't or at least not so much. Terms do become loaded, and can end up being hijacked for various ends. "Diversity" ends up becoming a quota system, that I believe serves the bureaucratic minded more than the very people it is supposed to help. In the case of people on the spectrum, constantly adjusting terminology and adding new taboos about this, that and the other is actually very disruptive to them - many find the rules of traditional life complex enough without adding and/or changing other ones.

A variety (the word I will use) of people can be found in any community (and I mean that term in the broad sense, not a specific interest group - that's another term turning political).

"I'm from an "old time" family of sorts. Lots of baggage."

Sure, I get that. Maybe the older families are better at maintaining an image, and outward conformity. The converts haven't always been raised in such an environment.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, I get that. Maybe the older families are
> better at maintaining an image, and outward
> conformity.

In my experience this is paramount as well as the chasing high callings.

Diversity is diversity regardless of political loading. It means the same thing, whereas variety doesn't. Diversity in a population of the same species is a hallmark of humanity.

I wrote a reply in which I explained how the term has shifted in meaning over the last few years and has other connotations.

Unfortunately my previous take on this has been removed, even though I danced around the issue. People on the spectrum often struggle fitting into society's established norms - adopting a system which alters these on a regular basis and creates new faux pas, is actually detrimental to their quality of life... The "diversity" squad actually harm "neurodiversity" in that sense.

What squad is that?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What squad is that?

You know full well that if I answer that fully, the post won't be up long.

Needless to say, with every cause a group latches onto it, who are more interested in salaries and self-promotion than the cause in hand.

I used to run a society which had problems with venues, and there were a pair who were constantly raising objections to everything. That we didn't have wheelchair access etc. This was highly regrettable, I agreed, but we had limited choice, and no money to pay room hire fees. Nonetheless, these two folk kept pressing on about it. So we delegated the task of finding a disabled friendly location to these two and we never heard of it off them again. We never did get an appropriate venue. Did any disabled people get helped? No.

One area I notice this in are the military charities. Some very highly paid people in some of them and plenty of soldiers sleeping rough.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know full well that if I answer that fully,
> the post won't be up long.

No I didn't. I'm going to have to assume everything I discuss with you is politicized. It seems to me this is the reason things you post get deleted.

I can't even imagine what you are talking about a squad other than a group of possibly disabled people who might be malingerers wanting special treatment and have organized themselves?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2019 12:17PM by Lot's Wife.

The word "diversity" is used according to its dictionary meaning. Your disfavor isn't relevant.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/diversity

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The word "diversity" is used according to its
> dictionary meaning. Your disfavor isn't
> relevant.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversi
> ty
>
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/eng
> lish/diversity

Anyone can link to a dictionary. They usually take several years to catch up to living usage. "Diversity" no longer simply means variety, but has other connotations.

My previous replies to your message have been censored, so it is not possible for me to express exactly why I am concerned about the twisting lf the word's definition here.

* of

p.s. Terms do become loaded. I mentioned two ordinary words which have been hijacked by each side of the political spectrum, which is probably why the reply was removed. The word "community" is another word which has shifted from a group of people living in an area to something else entirely - and to be in modern "communities" you don't need to have any tangible link with other members of it.

So you don't like the word "community" and you don't like the word "diversity," both of which are used today as they were decades and centuries ago. But you do like the word "race," which has been scientifically proved to be meaningless.

Orwell wrote about people who violate the established meanings of words. You accuse others of doing that and yet it is you who rebel against the settled lexicon as if your redefinitions will lead to social change of the sort you prefer.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you don't like the word "community" and you
> don't like the word "diversity," both of which are
> used today as they were decades and centuries ago.

Leading question. These two terms have taken on new meanings within the last few decades. I can think a number of slang words that have changed meaning within this period too.

"Community" retains its old meaning but that is also shifting. We now talk about the X community, even though many of its members may have little or no contact with each other, live dispersed across the world. That isn't a community.

> But you do like the word "race," which has been
> scientifically proved to be meaningless.

It's a word, I neither love nor hate it.

> Orwell wrote about people who violate the
> established meanings of words. You accuse others
> of doing that
and yet it is you who rebel against
> the settled lexicon as if your redefinitions will
> lead to social change of the sort you prefer.

It isn't a settled lexicon though. And if you read the appendix to 1984, he warns about those who deliberately change the connotations of word, those who wish to reduce vocabulary etc. Many aspects of Newspeak have come to pass - we talk about "the spend" not "expenditure" for example, which is pure Newspeak with noun-verb conflation.

Some of this comes out of Orwell's experiences with Esperanto. His aunt was an Esperantist, I believe. In Esberanto, you can't say something is bad, you have to say "malbona" (ungood)

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Leading question. These two terms [diversity and community]
> have taken on
> new meanings within the last few decades. I can
> think a number of slang words that have changed
> meaning within this period too.

Really? You are telling us we are mistaken to use words the way the major dictionaries define them? We should rely on your preferred lexicon?

Nah. You write loosely and with code, hiding nuances you want to insinuate rather than state. THAT is Newspeak. You have no authority in these matters.


-----------------
> "Community" retains its old meaning but that is
> also shifting. We now talk about the X community,
> even though many of its members may have little or
> no contact with each other, live dispersed across
> the world. That isn't a community.

You make this stuff up. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "community" as "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common." That has been the meaning of the word for centuries.


-----------
And of the word "race". . .

> It's a word, I neither love nor hate it.

As you wish. What matters is you defended that word at great length with absolutely no regard to its scientific status. Why? Your other posts in other threads make your motivation clear.


-------------
Of the definitions of "diversity," "community," etc. . .

> It isn't a settled lexicon though.

It is settled. Read the best dictionaries. There is nothing wrong with your disliking some words and favoring others, but your feelings have no lexicological significance.


------------
> And if you read
> the appendix to 1984, he warns about those who
> deliberately change the connotations of word,
> those who wish to reduce vocabulary etc.

You are the one who is trying to change the meanings of established words.


----------------
> Many
> aspects of Newspeak have come to pass - we talk
> about "the spend" not "expenditure" for example,
> which is pure Newspeak with noun-verb conflation.

Irrelevant.


---------------
> Some of this comes out of Orwell's experiences
> with Esperanto. His aunt was an Esperantist, I
> believe. In Esberanto, you can't say something is
> bad, you have to say "malbona" (ungood)

Irrelevant.

"You write loosely and with code, hiding nuances you want to insinuate rather than state."

Translation: "You write something ans I see code in it which conforms to my expectations, but is not necessarily what the author intended." - But I'll grant you a lot of people write in code these which is exactly how "diversity" is used now. Which brings you slap bang back to my original point.

Sorry, I was going to reply to the rest but I too found most of your content too "irrelevant".

* and, these days

Bad keyboard...

What does "cultural Marxism" mean?

What element of "diversity" bothers you?

What bothers you about the word "community?"

Be specific. Otherwise you are still speaking in code as you accuse others of doing.

I've already discussed these three terms Mrs Lot.

Meanings of words shift, or are shifted deliberately in some cases. And there are some which are only used with certain things in mind e.g. "mouthfeel". The only people who tend to use that are retailers and marketers in my experience. Few others. Advertizers are one of the main drivers of deliberate linguistic modification.

Do dictionaries have the same definitions of words as they did a century ago? Yes and no, but some will be marked as being "old fashioned" or "archaic". When I was a child people used to ask me what my "Christian name" was - unthinkable now even in church settings. That's gone. "Partner" has taken on an increasingly sexualized connotation, whereas before it was more to do with friendship or business. If I said "that's my partner," some years ago, people would assume something back then.

Dictionaries follow usage to a huge extent. They have had to acknowledge for example, that the word "literal(ly)" no longer just means "actual", but is also an intensifier.

Correct. Dictionaries try to describe common usage of words.

Dictionaries do not prescribe meaning. That's been an important lesson for me.

Also agree that the meaning of words changes over time. I'm still relatively young, but there are tons of words whose usage has changed just in my lifetime, many for obvious political reasons.

You have discussed them in vague terms with no actual definitions.

You decry Newspeak and Doublespeak yet you are the one who refuses to be tied down to actual meanings. You are what Orwell warned against: people who diverge from established meanings and established standards in order to drive an implicit political agenda.

Hence your absurd contention that "race" is a meaningful term, your employment without definition of the politically-loaded term "cultural Marxism," your use of "socialist" as a pejorative, your use of gestures as code for racist sentiments about black people, and your disfavor of terms like "diversity" and "community" which have had for centuries the nuances you claim are new and politically motivated glosses. You are the tendentious one, not others.

The contradictions are patent. You claimed earlier that dictionaries have failed to encorporate politically motivated changes in nuance, but when confronted with evidence that those nuances have been in standard dictionaries for decades or centuries, you slip away to the verities of your favored neologisms like "cultural Marxism."

I haven't a clue why the admins permit these unhinged rants, which are not allowed at the other ex-Mo sites because they poison the discussion. But I guess the racists and misogynists need their home now that the Jerry Springer show is off the air. It's a pity, though, because the Adam-Pharoah stuff and your racism and the musings of the misogynistic faction make this a unpleasant place for people who do not think--and look--like you.

You know, when I discussed what Orwell himself said, you said it was irrelevant. Which is what I'll do to you here.

This thread is about autistic people in the church. That's what I'm interested in here. If any terms come up I don't care for, I'll say.

And yet it is you who took the thread into politics through your digression into the word "diversity," the substance of which was off the mark. You would know that if you had bothered to check the dictionary, pretty much any dictionary, but that would require (some minimal) effort.

As for Orwell, I did NOT describe his work as irrelevant. I noted that you are the embodiment of what he warned about with this sentence: "You are the one who is trying to change the meanings of established words."

But hell, you don't feel bound by science (race), by dictionaries (diversity and community), by intellectual integrity (cultural Marxism), or by common courtesy (denigration of ethnically-derived gestures), so it is not surprising that you would now scamper away from your own words.

Not impressive, Jordan. You are clearly in the camp of those who think that words and facts are malleable and may be twisted to support your own politics. You could, with a little effort and a little introspection, do considerably better than that.

Yeah, hijacking your own thread with politics is an interesting thing.

I purposefully avoided using certain terms in the original post Elder Berry. Then someone used one of those terms, I stated briefly why I eschew them and it got us here. I reserve the right to my own opinions, and to call out ones I disagree with. A whole host of other things have been dragged in - what the heck is "Adam Pharaoh" or who, for example? And what has it to do with the OP? I can't even find anything about it on my search engine (Duck Duck Go if you must know). It's nothing to do with me. I've never mentioned Egypt on here.

There are several posters on here who have recently had words put into their mouths by her. I don't use the word "salty" (there's another changed meaning), but naming yourself after a "Pillar of Salt" hints that is an angry image aimed for. Did she even read who Orwell was writing about in 1984? It's about Marxism, which is not a creed I have ever wanted to follow. Big Brother is based heavily on Stalin, and his enemy Trotsky also appears in the book as a character. It's about a society which does not allow free expression of opinion, and tries to control thought. Orwell was a leftist himself, but he could at least recognize the currents in western society

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
So you are hijacking your own thread again? You hijack when you want, then object when others follow you.


------------
> There are several posters on here who have
> recently had words put into their mouths by her. I
> don't use the word "salty" (there's another
> changed meaning), but naming yourself after a
> "Pillar of Salt" hints that is an angry image
> aimed for.

Really? Perhaps you can show us where in the Bible Lot's Wife is described as angry? Because it isn't there.


---------------
> Did she even read who Orwell was
> writing about in 1984?

Yes, I have read 1984. Have you?


-----------
> It's about Marxism, which
> is not a creed I have ever wanted to follow.

No, it is not. 1984 is about the rise of totalitarianism on the right and the left. His immediate target was British and American politics in 1948, not Marxism. He was saying that when Western democracies move towards totalitarianism, they cease being any different from Marxists.


---------------
> Big
> Brother is based heavily on Stalin, and his enemy
> Trotsky also appears in the book as a character.

No, neither Trotsky nor Stalin appear in 1984. They appear in Animal Farm. But I guess you have now answered my question: you haven't read 1984. Or Animal Farm.


------------
> Orwell was a leftist himself, but he
> could at least recognize the currents in western
> society

Yes, he was an astute observer of totalitarian tendencies in all countries. You should read him!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2019 07:03PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> So you are hijacking your own thread again? You
> hijack when you want, then object when others
> follow you.
>
>
> ------------
> > There are several posters on here who have
> > recently had words put into their mouths by her.
> I
> > don't use the word "salty" (there's another
> > changed meaning), but naming yourself after a
> > "Pillar of Salt" hints that is an angry image
> > aimed for.
>
> Really? Perhaps you can show us where in the
> Bible Lot's Wife is described as angry?

Erm "salty"?! We know what that means in internet slang. Not that you'll find it in a print dictionary... yet. Maybe Urban Dictionary has it. But I don't find that a particularly trustworthy source. :)

No idea about the etymology. Perhaps sailors, who are known for their "salty" (briny?) language? Or a hypocorism for "assault".

> No, neither Trotsky nor Stalin appear in 1984.
> They appear in Animal Farm. But I guess you have
> now answered my question: you haven't read 1984.
> Or Animal Farm.

This is hilarious! I've read both of them several times!!! My high school library had most if not all of Orwell's major works. I still have books by him on my bookshelves at home.

Trotsky is the Goldstein character. Good grief.

Two minute hate. Overseas dissident Communist leader. You would have to (ice) pick that one! It made my ears burn.

Big Brother is based on Stalin. His picture is everywhere. He purges people. He changes the party line regularly. Sure, he's more of a background presence than a closely observed figure than Napoleon is in Animal Farm, but he's still frickin' Stalin!!!

Jordan Wrote:


> Erm "salty"?! We know what that means in internet
> slang. Not that you'll find it in a print
> dictionary... yet. Maybe Urban Dictionary has it.
> But I don't find that a particularly trustworthy
> source. :)
>
> No idea about the etymology. Perhaps sailors, who
> are known for their "salty" (briny?) language? Or
> a hypocorism for "assault".

Typical Jordan: bait and switch. You say the Biblical Lot's Wife is "angry." I say that is nonsense and ask you to show in the Bible where it says that. You reply by talking about the evolution of the word "salty."


-------------
> This is hilarious! I've read both of them several
> times!!! My high school library had most if not
> all of Orwell's major works. I still have books by
> him on my bookshelves at home.

Many people have Orwell's books on their bookshelves. That doesn't mean they have read them or understood them. You say you have read him; I accept that. You say you understand him: you don't.


---------------
> Trotsky is the Goldstein character. Good grief.

You miss Orwell's point. Orwell is saying that the West has become a mass-movement tyranny. All tyrannies need scapegoats, real or imagined. Goldstein is Jewish, as were many if not most of Europe's scapegoats; foreigners or immigrants might have played the same role. One of Goldstein's key characteristics is that it is not even clear that he exists. The point is that the nature, even the actual existence of the scapegoat is irrelevant. What matters is that the West has arrived at the point where it needs that totalitarian feature.

Of course Orwell was right. The European Jew became Goldstein, who became McCarthy's communist sympathizer, who more recently became "The Immigrant."


--------------
> Big Brother is based on Stalin. His picture is
> everywhere. He purges people. He changes the party
> line regularly. Sure, he's more of a background
> presence than a closely observed figure than
> Napoleon is in Animal Farm, but he's still
> frickin' Stalin!!!

Surely that's excessively literal. Big Brother was based on Orwell's editor, a petty tyrant in the newsroom and representative of people who, like you, change words' meanings capriciously--"community," "diversity," "race"--to support his political views. Are there parallels with Stalin? Yes. But you could as easily have used Mao, right? Mao and Chiang-Kai Shek, who ran away not to Mexico but to Taiwan and continued to be the boogeyman till March 1972.

The point is that Orwell is describing Western Europe and the UK and the US. That is Oceania. He is saying that Oceania has evolved to the point where it resembles the USSR in every important way. You put Stalin and Trotsky in Western Europe, which is to miss the point.

When The Who say meet the new boss, same as the old boss, they don't mean that literally. They mean that the systems have converged. That was what Orwell was doing. The communist East and the democratic West have converged on a pattern of dictatorship as old as human politics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2019 12:01PM by Lot's Wife.

I've read those books and understood them a lot better than I've been credit for. Anyone who thinks Goldstein isn't based on Trotsky either hasn't studied Soviet history or hasn't read the book.

Lot's Wife was turned into a pillar of salt, so yes, salt is the first thing that comes to mind. Like many female scriptural characters she isn't as fleshed out or three dimensional as some of the male ones.

Jordan makes you think of a river in the Bible. Maybe Jesus being baptized, but that's not an intentional reference.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read those books and understood them a lot
> better than I've been credit for. Anyone who
> thinks Goldstein isn't based on Trotsky either
> hasn't studied Soviet history or hasn't read the
> book.

"Based on," sure. But you originally said Trotsky and Stalin appear in the book, which is different. Goldstein is based on many templates: he is a pattern.

Trotsky does not appear in 1984. His COUNTERPART does, but there are myriad other counterparts and antecedents in China, in Hitler's Germany, in Inquisition Spain, in the Europe of the Plague, in virtually any period of totalitarian rule.

You insist on taking the metaphor literally, which circumscribes its meaning so much that you miss the point: any Western society that surrenders its autonomy to a Great Leader, wrests words from their historical context for political ends, scapegoats Communists or Jews or immigrants or other innocents, and embraces xenophobia is functionally the equivalent of 1930s Germany or Stalin's USSR.

You see, that's the key to understanding Orwell. He never renounced communism, as you intimated that he did. He was attacking totalitarianism of all kinds. The moment you tie his critique to the Soviet Union, you close your eyes to the purpose of 1984, which was to warn about the transmogrification of Western democracy.

I have to object to Jordan's stereotype of converts being different from, and having more problems than the "old-time families." Oh, I read more posts, and others objected, too. Thank you!

My brother had asperger's. He was also bi-polar, and had anger issued. He was the school bully. He beat and tortured me all my life--and got away with it. He was able to put on a front of helplessness and innocence, that made him the darling of our ward. (My other brother thought he was not asperger's at all, but a skilled sociopath, as autistic spectrum people are not good at manipulating others, or reading others in order to push their buttons, or putting on a false front.)

My crazy brother was from a prominent GA family, and was given a stateside mission, that was nearby, and the mission president was also a relative. He finally wanted to send my brother home, and my father convinced him to let my brother stay, by offering the mission a car, which my father and I drove and delivered to the mission home. It is all about appearances.

No one would date my abusive brother, and everyone felt sorry for him, and they tried to fix him up with available girls in the ward, who got younger, as he got older. No one would date him a second time. A Mormon ward is a field ripe to harvest, for potential victims.

He bore his testimony, at every testimony meeting, every fast Sunday, until he died. He did have a gift of humor, and I think he was welcome comic relief to the boring meetings. Often, the officiator would have to tell him to keep it brief.

He secretly hated the Mormon church, and hated women, which he told us at home. He smoked, used foul language, and was a pedophile with our nieces. He tried with me, but I got him into trouble, made a fuss, and when I got bigger, I fought back and/or ran away. When he came after my daughter, I cut off all contact with him. when I warned my other brothers about his behavior with my nieces, they laughed at me. My nieces are very messed-up, and not adjusting well to life, in their 30's.

I think, as a group, Mormons and other groups sometimes go overboard to PROVE that they are accepting of others--and accept people that actually cause harm to others. Criminals and scammers know this about Mormons, and they sometimes succeed.

WOW! Nothing I can add accept people on the spectrum can manipulate like anyone neurotypical to the best of my knowledge. It probably is a goto coping mechanism for spectrum related problem. It isn't like schizophrenia. Sorry you had to deal with that.

It's a misconception in some quarters that you can't judge disabled people for their behavior at all. I know that they struggle, but in many cases they do have a degree of free will. Obviously it depends on the circumstances and the nature of the incidents.

Autism can be very hard to deal with sometimes as well - I have an autistic friend who sometimes takes meltdowns from the smallest things - like not being able to find his cigarette lighter or from the sound of the ticking of a clock. He drinks too much which doesn't help. When he does, it's very stressful for me and trying to calm him down is nearly impossible. The only way I can deal with it is by trying to anticipate this in the early stages and defuse it or get out of the way. It's hard to say how much is free will in this and how much not - one of these examples is to do with disorder and the other misophonia, a sound processing issue. I like him when he's calm, but dealing with these incidents is very hard.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a misconception in some quarters that you
> can't judge disabled people for their behavior at
> all.

People aren't categories where (going to use a word you will probably have a problem with) "protecting" them requires conflating disability with inability.

And I don't know what "quarters" you are talking about but every discussion with you contains a patina of political reverse PC hypersensitivity. IT makes discussion very difficult for me.

He was her home teacher and the bishop and others told her she had to date him.

He'd show up at her door regularly and expected to be invited inside.

The congregation and his parents also let him walk around during the service through the pews and up on the stand. He's and mumble and talk to people and to no one in particular. I guess he wasn't as high functioning as many I've met who don't disrupt and expect such special treatment.

The point is that there is no one way of handling such situations. His parents paid high tithes, so that might explain it.

The single adult woman told the bishop to keep him from coming to her home and she refused to date him because she was not interested. He was a problem to her until she left mormonism.

Had a mid-level autistic young man in our LDS scout troop. He was ok during weekly meetings, i.e. mom and/or dad were always near by in case he had problems. The older he got, we were expected to take him on multi-night scout outings and trips that required long distance driving. He never should have gone, was to stressful for him, and he had a melt-down toward the end of one 2-night trip on the way home in a restaurant. He started going crazy, and it was then I realized that the church is ill-equipped to handle such situations, only relying on the "spirit" and dumb blokes like me who couldn't say, "No, this is not a good idea"...just obeyed.

When I went to church there were a couple of teenage boys at different times that I observed.

They shared something in common other than Autism - how wrong church was for them.

School systems have problems. I've worked with several men who claim to be on the spectrum.

What seems to be paramount is routines and limiting exhausting sociality. Safe sociality seems to work. Letting them control it.

Church life for the above mentioned boys must have been Hell. I watched them walk all over the place and say and do things that people didn't appreciate. Their parents seemed unwilling to reign them in unless they were over the top touching or being loud. And their church-related meltdowns were epics of their parents dragging them to the car.

Church is boring with only the social aspects appealing. A difficult combination for many people let alone people on the spectrum.

depends on the ward, depends on the people. As a rule, mentally disabled people are supposed to be members not needing baptism, marriage, etc. Highly functioning autistic people were treated with kindness, given high amounts of structure and a special person especially set aside to help and give the parents time out. No classes, no stressors. But like i said, depends on the ward and depends on the people.
Not every experience in the church was bad.

anon 3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not every experience in the church was bad.

And not many wards that I've been in or heard of are good.

Make that mostly *miss.*

I can tell a story which is kinda good. I used to home teach a single mom and her teenage daughter who was intellectually disabled. Now her daughter was cute as a button and pretty much everyone was kind to her and looked out for her. I think she brought joy to the ward and was a complete innocent.

The bad side of this was we kept getting pressured to get her bap'd. My HT companion asked her mother about this a few times. I was very uncomfortable about it. This girl couldn't talk or write or communicate very much other than a few noises, and laughter etc. We all liked her, but baptize her? She showed no sign of understanding anything.

They moved away. No idea what happened to them. I hope they both are okay.

My daughter (43) who we adopted at 6 weeks of age suffers from the effects of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and functions at about a 5-6 year old level. When she was 18 she moved into a roommate companion home and when she was 21 we bought a house in the city for her where she lives. She has 2-1 support staff 24/7. One TBM was puzzled as to why we didn't keep her in our home (and likely away from the public eye) for the rest of our lives. Nothing I said in my explanation seemed to make any sense to him.

Yet another indication that you and your beloved wife were, and are, fine people.

We had a family in our old ward that had one genius girl and two autistic boys. The parents were super-nice, well-educated people. But the bishop had the monumental poor task of appointing this one kid way too often to meander his way through the Sacrament Prayer. Supposedly he had it written on cue cards, but his reading was shaky, and his ability wrap his tongue around language was terrifying.

We all had to hold our breaths as he garbled from one syllable to the next, never knowing when the bish would make him say it again. It was torture for all of us, very uncomfortable.

I get that they were trying to help the kid, but the rest of us were just praying, "Please, PLEASE let him get through this one!"

When he finally straggled on through, more or less, the rest of us could finally exhale. It was an ordeal on all of us.

We smiled at him, told him he had done well, congratulated him, and within another we or two, he would be up there again, laboring through yet another one. Poor kid.

WOW! A special kind of Hell.

but they didn't diagnose autism back then. He is intellectually disabled, but has a memory you can't believe especially for numbers. I never did see him do a sacrament prayer as I didn't live at home by that time. I avoided my home ward.

They did send him on a mission, as I've mentioned before, and that was a HUGE mistake. He's never been the same. No other missionary should have had to have him as their companion. I love my brother, but he should not have been in the mission field.

He now lives "on his own" in my parents' home. I can say this--that some of the mormons, his mormon friends, are wonderful people. The couple across the street, the husband grew up with him, and he and his wife watch out for my brother, feed him quite often. She "mothers" him. He gets irritated at her because she does. My older brother, also disabled, more out of vision than anything else, lives a few miles away and rides the bus or walks to check up on my brother a few times a day and watches to make sure nothing around the house is broken. My mother would be so proud as she worried so much about this brother. He still goes to church, but I tend to wonder what is said about him. He usually knows how to act in public, but you just never know what he will say. He acts better around others than he does us.

My aunt and uncle keep bugging him about going to the temple and he did go last summer quite a few times. Then he talked to me about going. I don't talk bad about the church to him, but I told him he didn't have to go if he didn't feel comfortable. Most people are good to him, things like buying him a tank full of gas or the temple president, who was our bishop at one time and my health teacher in high school, bought him temple clothes once he heard that he was going to the temple. Wanted to make sure he had what he needed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2019 12:04PM by cl2.

Speaking of autistic, I hope our Idaho Asperger's poster is doing OK.
Maybe I missed it but I don't think he has posted in a long time.
His family, besides health and money issues, seemed extremely dysfunctional with Mormonism contributing. I fear for him finding a capable caregiver.


If he is reading, sending regards.

Dagney, you are a wonderful little soul.

I've been wondering and worrying about him, also. It has been a long time since he has posted. I liked his movie reviews.

Let me explain the difference between variety and diversity so Jordan understands.

If you are craving something salty but can't decide between a potato chip, a corn chip or a cheese puff, you can buy the variety pack. It's called a variety pack because a variety is a selection of different things to choose from. The chips within the variety pack are different from one another. The differences between the chips is called diversity.

The variety is the selection and the selection is the diversity. The two words are not interchangeable which is why different kinds (diversity) of chips are sold in "variety" packs and not in "diversity" packs. It is why no one says, "a diversity of things to choose from." That wouldn't make sense. People say, "a variety of things to choose from."

There is no variety without diversity. You can't have a variety pack with only one kind of potato chip.

Depends on the situation. Times and preferences might affect usage.

That said, your point is also valid but most people wouldn't care to adjust to it because it's a bit petty.

LDSinc is great for conformist extroverts who love busywork.

Not so great for introverts or anyone who doesn't fit that mold.

HWint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LDSinc is great for conformist extroverts who love
> busywork.
>
> Not so great for introverts or anyone who doesn't
> fit that mold.

It's forced extroversion. You're leaned upon to give talks. Hold callings that force you to interact. Institute. Seminary. YSA. Get married after your body has just recovered from puberty. Be a parent before you've left college.

Or sit at the back. Do nothing. Avoid. Hit thirty and you're suddenly an old maid/dog who hasn't found a man/woman to marry yet. Pretty horrible, right? And all those people saying that you have got to this place because you haven't been valiant.

What Mormon person doesn't have a little autism in them? It's what makes them so insane.