Jump to content

MrShorty

New Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MrShorty

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @bluebell I agree that it is a bit of stretch, but that's why I wish that he or someone would explain how someone in the Church who wants to stay in the Church can disbelieve things and still be loyal.
  2. @Dan McClellan and @bluebell -- This discussion of loyalty and how it intersects with whether Christ and the Church can be separated is interesting. It reminds me of what Pres. Oaks recounted in his talk during the Be One celebration. In describing his own experience with the priesthood and temple ban, he said that he did not receive a testimony of the reasons being given for the ban, but he determined to be loyal to the brethren and the Church, without explaining exactly what it meant to both disbelieve and be loyal. It often seems to me that, in these cases, loyalty implies "disbelievin
  3. I don't think forgotten is right. It is a common topic of discussion in the circles I frequent, so it seems far from forgotten. Disputed or misunderstood seem more accurate. I see many arguing that our sexuality is "God-given" and "God created sexuality and declared it good (before the Fall)" and "sexual union is ... a very real sacrament of the highest order" (according to Elder Holland). It's getting a good ways away from the OP, and I don't know how far down the rabbit hole to go. I think there is more than mere forgetting at play here, if your assertion is closer to the truth. If the
  4. I think that, statistically, the horror stories represent a minority -- perhaps a vocal minority but a minority nonetheless. I might add that one possible counter to all the horror stories is to highlight success. It is interesting that many of those who report fewer sexual hangups in marriage give at least partial credits to parents or similar adults who expressed in some way that they enjoyed and valued sex. I have seen many suggest that parents should should let their children know that they enjoy and value sex. Enough messages that adults value sex can provide a good counterpoint to the ho
  5. I have found it really interesting how frequently this message is promoted by LDS sex educators/therapists in the circles I frequent. So many questions about sexual propriety and the answer in every case is some variation of take responsibility to make your own moral judgements. If I think too hard about much of what the likes of Laura Brotherson have published, a good half of it could boil down to "take responsibility for your own sex life." The success Brotherson's and others work suggests to me that we as LDS want someone to tell us that it is okay to take responsibility for our own sex liv
  6. On the topic of sex, I find some very interesting undercurrents. I follow several internet spaces that talk about sexuality in LDS and Christian contexts, and a very common thread in those spaces is the discussion of sexless marriages and other sexual frustrations. It is common in these circles for divorced/widow(er?)ed men, as they talk about their sexual frustrations in their previous marriage, to talk about the things they are doing/want to do to avoid such sexual frustrations in any subsequent marriages. Some specifically talk about seeking out sexually experienced women in hopes that such
  7. I agree that a surface reading of what we say would suggest that we honor manhood/fatherhood, but I also think there are some undercurrents that can sabotage our message. Our benevolent patriarchy has a habit of pedastalizing women. I recall sitting in a GD lesson a couple of years ago where the (male) teacher got the men in the class started on gushing on their wives. As the men in the class started to gain some steam, he had us read a quote from Elder Wirthlin gushing over his wife and saying how much better she was then he. When a nice sister in the class like a wet blanket really slows the
  8. Is this a case where the question and answer are the same? As I understand it, psychology has long wrestled with what is pathological and what is normal variation. In some ways, the real debate over homosexuality began in the '70s when homosexuality was first declassified as a mental illness in some places by some professional organizations. Some of the transgender debate is still over whether or not being transgender is pathological or a normal variation. For that matter, some physical ailments suffer from similar difficulties. From what I understand, some in the deaf community would pre
  9. I don't think rugby is the only sport wrestling with this, though it looks like they have an interesting experience to bring to the table. I even recall reading something about a year ago about a trans-man getting a contract in the porn industry (I believe in the UK) who was fired when the producer(s) discovered that he did not have the same "parts" as other men on their payroll. But I don't know that this proves anything prophetic about the Proclamation on the Family. Just because various competitive sports are having trouble figuring out how to provide safe and competitive leagues where
  10. @TacendaI don't recall every receiving a survey. It's possible that I have received one and am not remembering it.
  11. @smac97I don't know how far down these rabbit holes I want to go. I don't see anything in your response that hints at new stuff that I have not already encountered. Maybe a couple of comments. Having studied Malan and Bullough's review (published 2005 in the journal Sexuality and Culture. abstract:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-005-1003-z ) of the Church's attitudes towards M, I think we'd have to be clear as to exactly what the Church's counsel on the topic is before deciding if it is pretty good, which brings us back to clearly understanding doctrines. I wou
  12. The interesting thing with this statement is that I would say this of both secular and revelatory insights. If I look at the scorecard, I would say that the secular has had more "good" insights for my sexuality than the revelatory. I don't know what to make of that observation. Not sure I can. Maybe a couple of examples will help. The example from the OP about M in youth interviews. In some places (both LDS and broader Christian), the debate over whether or not M is a sin is quite contentious with little consensus. Even in youth interviews, this seems to be one of those issues tha
  13. It could. The therapists that I believe understand this best would refuse to let a woman (or a man) hide their discomfort with OS behind Pres. Kimball's proscription. They would encourage the woman to explore and self-confront about why she finds it degrading. This will often lead to exploring the husband's attitudes and forcing him to explore and self-confront about OS (maybe he is a bit boorish or coercive about it or maybe it really boils down to a refusal to reciprocate or something else that needs exploring). We frequently claim that sexuality is supposed to be about bringing a couple clo
  14. Why (I assume you meant why) should the Church be different? Because we are led by prophets and apostles and have the gift of the Holy Ghost that, in theory anyway, grants us special access to founts of pure knowledge? While I agree that humanity in general are clueless, I think there are some out there who have gathered up some good data and used those data to produce some good insights into the nature of sexuality. Most of these people are secular experts in the field. Religiously oriented experts that I like tend to draw quite heavily from these secular experts, and then figure out how
  15. It seems pretty clear to me that it comes from misunderstandings of doctrine. It also seems pretty clear to me that these misunderstandings occur at both the bottom and the top of the Church hierarchy. In a top down, authoritarian Church, when the top misunderstands and teaches their misunderstandings, there are bound to be problems. Pres. Kimball's misunderstandings that led him in the early '80s to declare the OS was inappropriate -- maybe sinful -- in marriage is illustrative. The practice of revoking/denying temple recommends to couples for OS was short lived, but I still hear anecdot
×
×
  • Create New...