Economy Of Sex

[TAO]

//continued from previous post//

Sorry for the rant, everyone. My greatest desire is not to complain, but rather for the Church to wake up and realize how inconsistent its doctrines on so-called chastity are with the human nature God gave us.

We are allowed to be tempted too. We must overcome that =).

Viewing church history through the objective lens of empirical human nature ought to make it plain to see how powerful the male sex drive is. Instead of coming to grips with this fact, all kinds of excuses and apologetic arguments have been invented to reconcile empirical facts with puritannical doctrines on sexuality.

Well, I hope you realize that this post isn't supposed to be an excuse... it be the honest truth, from my heart =/. No, I think we must become something else, we must be more than what we can be. Hmmm.....

Spiritually coerced polygyny, for example, instead of being taken as proof that even the most spiritual of men like Joseph Smith could be influenced by their sex drives, instead gets used as evidence for Joseph's devotion to God by having plural wives even though he loved Emma so much, because "God commanded it."

My friend, again, you are looking too much 'into it'.

If Joseph were alive today, there is little doubt in my mind that he would be excommunicated from the LDS Church and branded an apostate.

Well considering we don't practice polygamy anymore, perhaps. But then again, he wouldn't be practicing it with the commandment of the Lord to not do so now, so I think maybe not.

Point of clarification: I still have faith that he was a prophet, but believe that he erred in many respects and was just as human as the rest of us. Many apologists (and even TBMs) even have a similar view.'

I believe he was human, yes, but on this issue, no, I do not think he made a mistake.

But what bothers me is that many of these same people continue to insist that Thomas S. Monson's official teachings are automatically immune from criticism or legitimate disagreement because he is a prophet. If we take the reasonable step of admitting that Joseph erred in his teachings and revelations, then I do not see any reason why we must assume that Thomas S. Monson's teachings are error-free.

My friend, Thomas S. Monson's official teachings are very close to being what the Lord wants. So close. I love President Monson, and I know he has the spirit with him. I don't doubt that to the least bit. No... I think he is very close to God indeed, and I wouldn't think about disagreeing, because he isn't the sort of person to put words in the Lord's mouth. At least from what I've heard and seen.

And nah, I don't believe Joseph erred in his teachings and revelations... or at least I believe, that we put too much in trying to figure out which 'ones' of those revelations were erred if any of them were. He made mistakes, yeah, but not in the way you think in my opinion. Nah... in my opinion, his mistakes were a bit different and more complex than that.

Best Wishes, humbly,

TAO

P.S. Mods, I know this seems a bit... intense... so I apologize if it is not good for this thread... I just... must show why I disagree. I am sorry if it makes your life harder =/.

[staccato]

Has it ever occurred to you, what... this... impulse actually is, in a sense? It is an addiction of sorts... an inclination, a calling of your carnal self for desire.

Kind of like urinating is an addiction?

[MorningStar]

Great posts, TAO!

[TAO]

Kind of like urinating is an addiction?

Mmmm.... not quite. Urinating is well... kinda pressure based. Not fully psychological if you know what I mean =).

This sort of thing is totally in your mind 0.o.

[staccato]

Mmmm.... not quite. Urinating is kinda pressure based. This sort of thing is totally in your mind 0.o.

Sex urges are kinda pressure based as well. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

[TAO]

Sex urges are kinda pressure based as well. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Lol. Only in the action. We are talking about before any acting actually goes on.

Also, thank you Morning Star for the compliment =D.

[cinepro]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. The so-called "sex drive" is a myth. Or mostly so.

The intimate relationship between husband and wife realizes its greatest value when it is based on loving kindness and tenderness between the marriage partners. This fact, supported by valid research data, helps newly married couples recognize that the so-called sex drive is mostly myth. Sexual intimacy is not an involuntary, strictly biological necessity for survival, like breathing and eating. Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife can be delayed or even suspended for long periods of time with no negative effect (for example, when the health of one or the other requires it). Husbands and wives are not compelled to mate because their genes or hormones order them to do so. Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule. While sex drive is a myth, husbands and wives do have physical and emotional needs that are fulfilled through sexual union.

[BCSpace]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. The so-called "sex drive" is a myth. Or mostly so.

While poorly worded imho, I take it to mean that sex drive as taught by the world is a myth. Actual sex drive in reality is referred to in your quote as "physical and emotional needs".

All the examples given are true. I don't know about negative effects (I believe a lifetime of religious celibacy carries negative effects with it), but it seems obvious to me that waiting has positive effects as well.

[staccato]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. The so-called "sex drive" is a myth. Or mostly so.

I'd like to see the heart and mind rule a wet dream.

[Skylla]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Thread has become distasteful.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff