Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
HiJolly wrote:happymom wrote:
I understand that men need that sexual drive in order to have kids or otherwise the human race would not have survived.
Sometimes our weakness, or inability to control our bodies, causes us to give up hope. I’ve been through it myself. In my case I didn’t get addicted to porn (thank God – that would’ve REALLY beat me down), but I did use it often to facilitate my need for mindless, immediate gratification. For many years, I just gave up trying to stop because after trying and failing hundreds, maybe thousands of times (over 30 years), I couldn’t honestly keep the hope up.I guess I went through stages of trying and failing, then giving up, then trying and failing, ad infinitum. Or so it seemed. Over the years I learned new ways to work on it. Instead of praying to be able to stop, I began praying to be able to WANT to stop. In the end, God blessed me with testicular cancer, and I no longer have the problem at all. I sometimes am tempted to be depressed, thinking that God helped me ‘cheat’ instead of beating it all by myself, but then I come to my senses and thank God that She/He stepped in and dealt with it for me. Repentance is a lot like that, come to think of it.
HiJolly
This is very disturbing imho. We hate our sex drive so much we think testicular cancer is a blessing? Wow.
happymom wrote:Growing up I remember my mom constantly badgering me about modesty. I grew up in an mostly LDS community and usually was considered to be overly modest. If I wore a shirt that even showed some of my curves I was told that I was immodest. I felt like I was suppose to hide my body. I now where mostly what I want and still try to stay modest but I don’t want to badger my daughter to the point where she feels like her body is evil or something.
As for the Utah study, I noticed it only deals with online pornography. In other places, men probably get a lot of their fulfillment from topless bars or places like that. There is not as many places it seems in Utah like that and men are probably more likely to get caught. (This can also include women too.) I wonder if there is a higher percentage of online users because they are less likely to get caught.
I have a big issue with pornography as a woman. I saw a CNN.com article just about a week ago showing a study that indicated that when men saw women in bikinis or in a sexualized way, the part of their brain that lit up was the part that is used when working with tools. They were also more likely to talk in a first person language like “I push” “I use”. When they see women fully dressed they talk in third person language like “She walks” “She uses”. It also seems like many women feel the need to act stupid and sexual to get a guys attention. I see with with friends all of the time. Plus, having a dh who watches porn it is really hard to feel like he wants me and not just using me after viewing women who are way better looking that I will ever be. It’s hard to feel like you are not enough.
I’m all for enjoying ones self sexually, I just think people need to think about what they are doing first.
Thanks for your thoughts.
One of the ugliest but truest quotes I have ever seen on the subject of sex was from Elder Packer in an old Family Home Evening Manual I read in at the Chattanooga Stake Center library back in 1992: Packer said: “If is the male sex drive wasn’t both powerful and constant, men wouldn’t get into relationships with women and they wouldn’t stay in those relationships.” That is from memory, but I’m confident it is pretty close to verbatim.
Normally functioning heterosexual men are hard-wired and programed for sex. The part of the brain that lights up is the same part that lights up when they see a steak or a hammer and some nails. They just want to eat it/play with it/do it. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t marry you or stay married to you. It is really ugly, but it is generally true. Sorry.
Your husband looks at porn and that makes you feel devalued. I am truly sorry. The other extreme is also horrible–him just not being interested in sex and working late and on weekends all the time and picking up hobbies that don’t involve you when he does have free time. Sex drive is horrible–being subject to it’s demands is no picnic either. Sadly, most of us men struggle hard to find the right balance between embracing a healthy sexual side and disciplining it properly. But, having it is better than not having it.
katielangston wrote:Hi all!
It’s been a few weeks since I’ve stopped by, but an uncomfortable question was raised the other day during a discussion with an Evangelical friend, and I thought this would be a great place to get some feedback. I hope all are well!
Anyway, I was talking about salvation with my friend, and I was explaining my previously-held belief that repentance meant identifying each and every sin you ever committed and going through all the “steps” of repentance for each one (recognize, confess, make restitution, and finally petition God for forgiveness), otherwise you couldn’t be saved. Additionally, if I committed a “major” sin (read: sexual in nature) I would have to tell my bishop.
I shared with her my discomfort over that particular doctrine, because, as a young woman I had some “issues” I felt I needed to resolve with a bishop. It was very uncomfortable and awkward as an adolescent girl to have to talk to an adult male about such personal things. I also always felt very uncomfortable when they asked sexual purity questions in interviews, even if I hadn’t “done anything” wrong.
Anyway, after I shared this with my friend, she surprised me. She became really upset and said she felt like it was totally inappropriate for male bishops to be counseling with young women about such personal things. She even went so far as to term it “spiritual abuse.” I certainly never considered myself abused in this manner, though it was a pretty miserable experience. She couldn’t understand why a female leader couldn’t handle discipline for Young Women (and women in general, I guess). I’m wondering what you all think of this?
On related note, I have since come to question the validity of the doctrine of ecclesiastical confession in general. It makes me very uncomfortable to think that someone else can mediate, or define the terms, of someone’s repentance. Isn’t that between God and the sinner? I can appreciate that in some situations, a third party like pastor or bishop is a valuable sounding board for more serious problems, but it really bothers me that someone should be able to declare another person “worthy” or not.
Relief Society leaders in the old days did handle the confessions and repentance for the sisters except in very public very serious cases.
I have told my daughter who just turned 12 that there are only two questions the Bishop is allowed to ask her regarding sex: Do you live/keep the law of chastity? And: What do you understand the law of chastity to be? If he asks her anything else, she is to respond that she is uncomfortable with the question and request that I or her mother join her in the interview. I think, just to be safe, I will send the Bishop an email to this effect too. How do you think that would go over?
Valoel wrote:Pornography is a symptom for problems in society, and I think you hit on one view of that Bouvet. I was a missionary in Germany, and they are much more free and comfortable with the human body there. They have nude advertising posters in clothing and beauty stores — right in the store window. Women sun bathe topless in public parks. I could go on and on. Alcohol consumption had similar trends. Beer is so ubiquitous in their culture, and the loosely-enforced drinking age is like 14 I think … anyway, I never saw teenagers going crazy trying to sneak booze for parties and all that. None of this stuff was a big deal. It was not rebellious and “cool” to drink. That’s what it seemed like.”
Our focus on chastity and modesty is, I believe, productive in the goal of getting kids on missions and married as virgins, but counterproductive in creating healthy functional sexual beings. We teach our kids that touching their girlfriend’s boobs while making out at the drive-in movie is the sin next to murder. This is just absolutely crazy and an abominable misreading of Alma 39. I could go on all day about this issue . . .
But hey, we probably have the highest percentage of virgins getting married than any other group–they might be too young (getting married to legalize their lust) and they have no idea how to please each other. We have our priorities.
I am sorry for the way the post fades out at the end there–I was typing in bed and was fading out quickly and decided to just hit post instead of waiting until morning to revise. You all got the point. Thanks for your comments. Old-Timer wrote:Bouvet, I don’t understand how anything I wrote is different than what you wrote. I mean that. I read your comment and agreed with nearly everything you said. The only parts with which I didn’t agree were those that related to what I believe, as I don’t believe what you read into my comment. Please quote directly from my comment to show where I even implied the Founding Fathers would have approved of Churches dictating national policy. If I inadvertantly implied that, I will go back and edit my comment – gladly.
Btw, please tone down the rhetoric of the last paragraph. It’s way over the top.
You are right. I’m sorry. I deleted it.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Bouvet –
Quote:I think it is almost inconceivable that there isn’t a line of hands on heads in the current Catholic Church back to the original apostles.
Am I misunderstanding this comment? The Romans killed Peter and only several hundred years later did they dig him up (or someone buried in that mass grave) and rebury him beneath their new gleaming Christian city.
I think it highly unlikely that every priesthood holder in the Church during Christ’s time was killed before passing the priesthood on to others who passed it on to others and so forth to the present day, most likely in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches or both.
Just as John the Baptist’s father Zachariah was a good man held the proper priesthood, but the Jewish faith in sum had become corrupt, so today some other threads of Christianity probably have the right keys and many good men hold them, but the tradition and belief has become corrupted.
I don’t understand why the total loss of keys matters to us (as it seems to greatly), because we have breakoffs from out Church who clearly have a legitimate priesthood line of authority but whose authority we don’t recognize.
I don’t believe that the Priesthood was “lost” from the earth. I think it is almost inconceivable that there isn’t a line of hands on heads in the current Catholic Church back to the original apostles. I have long been puzzled by the bizarre focus we have on the “lost” keys. For heaven’s sake, Warren Jeffs can trace his Priesthood back on the same line all active Mormons do to the three witnesses who were ordained by Joseph Smith (it is a bit odd there at the start). But the fact that Warren Jeffs can trace his authority back each step of the way and knows that it is a “valid” priesthood line does not mean the mainstream LDS Church accepts ordinances performed by his hand as valid.
If we don’t have a problem accepting Warren Jeffs direct hands on heads line of authority while at the same time rejecting the efficacy of his ecclesiastical power, it is odd that we insist the Catholics lost their hands on heads line somewhere in the dark recesses of history. It just doesn’t matter.
So if apostasy means loss of priesthood line of authority, I reject it and believe it is irrelevant. If apostasy means loss of truth and the changing of ritual, then I believe it and have no problem with the concept. Whether our form of ritual is better than the “apostate” form is an open question IMHO.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I also have to disagree with curt that the FV was a “fairy tale.” The idea that it was created to bolster priesthood authority was put forward by Grant Palmer, but frankly I didnt find it convincing. Was it a visit or a vision? I think that’s open to interpretation. And why is it essential to join or believe in the church? It sure wasn’t taught or widely known by the first members of the restored church. To me, it seems like a meaningful dream or vision that was personal to JS, but later was applied more broadly to bolster the importance of the restoration. It has subsequently been used by others as the source of many “new” theological components that JS didn’t attribute to it, such as God having a physical body and being separate from Jesus. For it to be a “fairy tale,” one would have to assume JS made it up entirely, which is just not supported by my reading of the accounts.
But you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t think you are less Mormon for that. IMO, it’s not “all or nothing.”
I agree with all of this.
curt wrote:I wish I could agree with Bouvet. But I cannot. JS claimed incredible things. He developed a wholly new theology. A decidedly unorthodox theology. God and Jesus are separate beings. It is either true or it is not. The church stands on this principle. The first vision is its proof claim, and its only one. If you believe in Mormonism you MUST believe in the FV. But it is sadly a fairy tale of the highest order likely created to justify JS’s prophethood. The evidence says as much.
I’m not sure what I said that lead you to believe that I think the First Vision is a “fairy tale”. I don’t think that at all. I believe the First Vision happened. I don’t think it has much to do with the restoration. But it happened. Only much later did Joseph tie the First Vision into the conversion narrative. The vast majority of the converts to the Church during Joseph’s lifetime didn’t hear about the First Vision until many years after joining the Church.
Today the First Vision is the basic buy-in story. It is the focus of the conversion of the converts. This tactic is solely stylistic.
Joseph was a prophet. I believe that and have had it confirmed powerfully. But he was also a dictator and and often gave into his lusts and was an undisciplined wealth-seeker. And he was a Prophet, the Lord’s chosen.
magicmusician wrote:
2) symbols in the templehow much of it is symbollic and am i going to be in any trouble (for want of a better word) if I cant remember what i apparantly need to from the temple when i pass on
I can’t believe I ever really believed that there were literal guards that I would someday have to pass by on my way down some literal road on the way to some literal pearly gate. Rubbish.
But the covenants are nice. I wish they would cut it all out except for the covenants. That is the only part that matters. Going through the veil can be beautiful too. The rest is rubbish.
