Is The Church Sexually Repressive?

[Erin15]

.....

No, just....no. On about 8 different levels. People's problems are literally my career choice/education (Marriage and Family Therapist). This has so many problems with it that I wouldn't even know where to start.

With luv,

BD

Personal experiences cannot be wrong, Blue Dream.

If you have a different personal experience, then share it and enrich the discussion, but saying that it is wrong then walking away adds nothing to the conversation and is rude.

[Tacenda]

Personal experiences cannot be wrong, Blue Dream.

If you have a different personal experience, then share it and enrich the discussion, but saying that it is wrong then walking away adds nothing to the conversation and is rude.

Grabbing my popcorn....

[Guest]

Not necessarily. It could make them optional, like the Word of Wisdom originally was. You want to swear an oath of chastity? Awesome. But you shouldn't be pressured to just to participate in the religion.

It is something you sign and agree too, there is no gun to their heads. Also there are many other colleges they can attend if they want to engage in such behavior. The school is run by the Church and it should reflect the teachings of the Church. If you are going to benefit from the money of the members of the LDS faith, it is only fair that students do as the Church asks.

[BlueDreams]

One of my sons and his wife are in definite need of marital counseling. Is the doctor In?

 

Not today, I'm lucky to get half my brain to function as it is .

[VideoGameJunkie]

I have no CFR for this, but I'm certain there are many RMs that have had pre marital sexual relations.

[Calm]

Personal experiences cannot be wrong.

Please clarify how you can hold this opinion and yet believe that a person whose personal experience confirms for her that ordination for women is the right thing to do now can be wrong.

Your stated claims seem to be highly inconsistent. Please demonstrate how you reconcile them.

Edited to remove snideness

Edited August 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Erin15]

So someone's personal experience that confirms women should be ordained isn't wrong in your view. Good to know.

Cal, is this how you setup a safe place for women to share their personal experiences online?

By cross-thread trolling and invalidating them?

If someone acted like you do on your own board, you would punish them.

If a man acted like you do on your board, you would ban them.

 

Cal a troll? You are out of the thread.

[Calm]

If I am trolling, please report me to mods.

I have as much reason to post in a variety of threads as you do. If you look at my post count it becomes obvious I make a habit of commenting on most threads.

If you post, are you not expecting people to respond to your comments? Do you see them as trolling unless they agree with you? Do I invalidate you simply because I point out where you are inconsistent?

How by your standards are you not invalidating Blue Dreams by dismissing her judgment that your claims were wrong based on her training and own personal experience?

Some of your answers are confusing given other of your comments. You come across as inconsistent at times. If the bit of snideness I include is too offensive for you to tolerate, I will remove it, but you should think how offensive it is when you suggest someone is following an apostate's path, etc.

People who want a safe space to speak are generally willing to offer that same level of safeness to others rather than use it as a bludgeon to attempt to shame someone into not disagreeing with them or pointing out inconsistencies.

Edited August 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[BlueDreams]

Personal experiences cannot be wrong, Blue Dream.

If you have a different personal experience, then share it and enrich the discussion, but saying that it is wrong then walking away adds nothing to the conversation and is rude.

 

Seriously? Personal experience can certainly be wrong....just look at the article at the beginning that started off the thread.

 

And secondly you have given absolutely nothing specific beyond stating that it was based on personal experience, I feel no reason to give any specifics. Especially when much of those experiences are other people's lives that I'm not at liberty to divulge. What I can say is that on just about every level imaginable I disagree with you on your points. And not only disagree but find a number of your points flat out damaging to perpetuate. My reasons are based on my profession, on my personal experiences, on the lives that I've had the privilege to know and at times counsel, on my general worldview/spiritual experiences, and my education which heavily has focused on psychology and social issues (and no, not from a uber secular school...it was BYU).

 

But here, if you really want my point by point analysis, here ya go.

 

I have had much experience with people in that situation, and it is not as simple as you make it sound. --> No it's not "that simply", but you have simplified the complexity of the situation below just in a more negative orientation.

 

Yes, you can be forgiven, but the spiritual scars remain. --> this one is based heavily on my own personal healing from other things (that are not really sexual, but were deep pains nonetheless). No....you really, really don't. That's the power of the Atonement/Christ. He makes us new, not a patched up doll. I used to believe that I was cured, but that I'd always wear my scars. God proved me that I was very, very wrong. This is a limited view of the power of the atonement. I'm not going to say that it'll happen over night. Most of us aren't going to end up like Alma the younger. But it does happen and to give someone this response to someone repenting from sexual sins is absolutely limiting. It limits their access to hope and faith and it can potentially limit others sense of charity toward them, assuming that they are somehow "used" or "damaged" goods. And whether you mean for it of not, that is a very feasible assumption drawn from such a line of thought. It is the same line that's behind those analogies of wilted flowers, chewed gum, and nails in a board, and all other really bad analogies. It is a falsehood.

 

People who were unchaste before marriage often suffer from a reduced ability to pair-bond and enjoy physical intimacy far less with their spouse than those who waited. People who engage in habitual casual sex often lose their ability to form trusting relationships all together. --> This is just oversimplified. Again I'm not sure where to start with this one. You've given no real empirical support to this. Plus it begs the question of the chicken and the egg. From what I've seen, those who have a problem with multiple casual relationships often already had problems with forming trusting relationships. And the research that I've read about those who've had sex pre marriage are not specific enough to warrant said conclusions. I think the better format is to wait, not really for the pair bonding but for the likelihood of things going screwy with previous relationships, the stats about people who do things unsafely, and the rise for unwed parenting in young adults. But some of the best couples I know have had sex before marriage. And some of the worst waited.

 

In fact, I have noticed that they suffer from nearly identical symptoms as people who have been abused, although usually less severe. ---> No they are in no way comparable. People who have been abused face symptoms of trauma. These can range from PTSD, attachment wounds, risky/unhealthy behaviors, affective disorders (think depression or anxiety), and at times even some personality disorders are associated with severe abuse, such as borderline personality, etc. Their pains are in no way comparable to the effects of having sex before marriage. Again, premarital sex is in no way comparable to being abused in symptomology. The only cases that I would deem possibly traumatic (and less traumatic but moreso creating heavy dissonance) is when such actions heavily conflict with their own personal values or the value system of their community.  But having sex outside of marriage doesn't grant any sort of immediate effect even mildly similar to trauma. This is a ridiculous claim from a psychological perspective. Absolutely ridiculous. And comparing abuse to consensual sex is sloppy at best.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 16, 2014 by BlueDreams

[sunstoned]

I thought the banded from church attendance was a tip off that something was was just not right with this story. Even a excommunicated person is welcome in church meetings.

[Bikeemikey]

Paul had a pretty clear view of our times, it would seem:

'This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God'.

When he is talking about the last days are you sure he isn't just talking about old people? After all he goes out of his way to highlight incontinence.

[BlueDreams]

Cal, is this how you setup a safe place for women to share their personal experiences online?

By cross-thread trolling and invalidating them?

If someone acted like you do on your own board, you would punish them.

If a man acted like you do on your board, you would ban them.

 

I have absolutely no problem with Cal jumping in. We all do it, and I respect her opinion. I would never describe her as a troll. And this isn't the other board. Different boards, different rules, and I have no idea why this would need to be brought up period on a very different setting.

[Tsuzuki]

It is something you sign and agree too, there is no gun to their heads. Also there are many other colleges they can attend if they want to engage in such behavior. The school is run by the Church and it should reflect the teachings of the Church. If you are going to benefit from the money of the members of the LDS faith, it is only fair that students do as the Church asks.

I'm talking about the church, not the school. I've never been through the temple, so I'm not actually bound by any of its associated oaths. Ironically, being somewhat asexual, the law of chastity is more reflective of my nature, but I'm still against it as a matter of principle.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Tsuzuki

[Erin15]

Seriously? Personal experience can certainly be wrong....just look at the article at the beginning that started off the thread.

And secondly you have given absolutely nothing specific beyond stating that it was based on personal experience, I feel no reason to give any specifics. Especially when much of those experiences are other people's lives that I'm not at liberty to divulge. What I can say is that on just about every level imaginable I disagree with you on your points. And not only disagree but find a number of your points flat out damaging to perpetuate. My reasons are based on my profession, on my personal experiences, on the lives that I've had the privilege to know and at times counsel, on my general worldview/spiritual experiences, and my education which heavily has focused on psychology and social issues (and no, not from a uber secular school...it was BYU).

But here, if you really want my point by point analysis, here ya go.

I have had much experience with people in that situation, and it is not as simple as you make it sound. --> No it's not "that simply", but you have simplified the complexity of the situation below just in a more negative orientation.

Yes, you can be forgiven, but the spiritual scars remain. --> this one is based heavily on my own personal healing from other things (that are not really sexual, but were deep pains nonetheless). No....you really, really don't. That's the power of the Atonement/Christ. He makes us new, not a patched up doll. I used to believe that I was cured, but that I'd always wear my scars. God proved me that I was very, very wrong. This is a limited view of the power of the atonement. I'm not going to say that it'll happen over night. Most of us aren't going to end up like Alma the younger. But it does happen and to give someone this response to someone repenting from sexual sins is absolutely limiting. It limits their access to hope and faith and it can potentially limit others sense of charity toward them, assuming that they are somehow "used" or "damaged" goods. And whether you mean for it of not, that is a very feasible assumption drawn from such a line of thought. It is the same line that's behind those analogies of wilted flowers, chewed gum, and nails in a board, and all other really bad analogies. It is a falsehood.

People who were unchaste before marriage often suffer from a reduced ability to pair-bond and enjoy physical intimacy far less with their spouse than those who waited. People who engage in habitual casual sex often lose their ability to form trusting relationships all together. --> This is just oversimplified. Again I'm not sure where to start with this one. You've given no real empirical support to this. Plus it begs the question of the chicken and the egg. From what I've seen, those who have a problem with multiple casual relationships often already had problems with forming trusting relationships. And the research that I've read about those who've had sex pre marriage are not specific enough to warrant said conclusions. I think the better format is to wait, not really for the pair bonding but for the likelihood of things going screwy with previous relationships, the stats about people who do things unsafely, and the rise for unwed parenting in young adults. But some of the best couples I know have had sex before marriage. And some of the worst waited.

In fact, I have noticed that they suffer from nearly identical symptoms as people who have been abused, although usually less severe. ---> No they are in no way comparable. People who have been abused face symptoms of trauma. These can range from PTSD, attachment wounds, risky/unhealthy behaviors, affective disorders (think depression or anxiety), and at times even some personality disorders are associated with severe abuse, such as borderline personality, etc. Their pains are in no way comparable to the effects of having sex before marriage. Again, premarital sex is in no way comparable to being abused in symptomology. The only cases that I would deem possibly traumatic (and less traumatic but moreso creating heavy dissonance) is when such actions heavily conflict with their own personal values or the value system of their community. But having sex outside of marriage doesn't grant any sort of immediate effect even mildly similar to trauma. This is a ridiculous claim from a psychological perspective. Absolutely ridiculous. And comparing abuse to consensual sex is sloppy at best.

With luv,

BD

Thank you for your perspective, Blue. It was enriching and educational.

[Kafiristan]

Nice confession, Keli.  She won't be at BYU much longer.  I don't get people like this.  Yes, we are all sexual beings.  I do not fault her for that.  However, she could have gone to any other school and fornicated with as many guys as she could seduce, but she chose to go to BYU, knowing full well that it is a church-run school with a code of conduct that prohibits pre-marital sex.  She promised to honor that code.  Now, she is publicly trying to change it?  Doesn't make any sense.  She can go to Harvard or the Wellesley College and get her "education" and bang as many guys there as she wants.  It is her choice right.  Hope she is happy with the choice to be kicked out if/when it comes.  Bas!

[why me]

I know someone who was temple endowed RM who had pre marital sex and he felt wicked bad and guilty and unclean because he made covenants in the temple claiming he would wait until marriage, but gave into temptation. He confessed his sexual sins to the Bishop, and has repented like crazy and feels super saddened. Can this man truly be forgiven and still receive all the blessings of the afterlife? I think he can because of how sincere he is to repent and how sorry and shamed he is.

I have not heard of any talk by the GAs that claim that once one repents they should still feel guilty. I also think that guilt is a wrong word about how we should feel if we sin. It has negative connotations. The person in question should realize that no one is perfect and that we all make mistakes and once we repent, it is forgotten. Much of this is more psychological than doctrine. I guess the point is that we need to see the big picture and realize that we are not the center of the universe but a part of this planet which is made up of many individuals who are going about their lives in making good choices and bad choices. And some of these bad choices are horrific in nature: like people cutting other people's heads off in his name.

 

God wants us all to move on once we repent because he doesn't want to worry about how we are dealing with our confessed sins after repentance. He has forgotten them. .

Edited August 17, 2014 by why me

[tonie]

"Is the Church sexually repressive?"

An interesting title, below is a the perspective of LDS Dr.

"To be feminine is to suppress or disconnect from sexual desire, or feel ashamed of its presence.

This theorized suppression of sexual desire and knowledge aligned with the experiences of most LDS women in my research. It also fits with much of my LDS clientele. In my experience, many if not most LDS women struggle pre-maritally and in marriage to integrate a sense of legitimate sexuality and desire. Many women are naïve about their own capacity for pleasure and allow themselves little room to explore and take ownership of this part of themselves, even when husbands are encouraging and openly long for more sexual connection. This sexual immaturity can, of course, cause deep frustration with a higher desire marital partner; but a bigger problem, in my mind, is that it represents a fractured relationship with oneself, an unwillingness to be in a mature relationship with one’s own body, one’s own sexuality, and an important source of strength."

Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, "Lets talk about sex"

Edited August 17, 2014 by tonie

[teddyaware]

"Is the Church sexually repressive?"

An interesting title, below is a the perspective of LDS Dr.

"To be feminine is to suppress or disconnect from sexual desire, or feel ashamed of its presence.

This theorized suppression of sexual desire and knowledge aligned with the experiences of most LDS women in my research. It also fits with much of my LDS clientele. In my experience, many if not most LDS women struggle pre-maritally and in marriage to integrate a sense of legitimate sexuality and desire. Many women are naïve about their own capacity for pleasure and allow themselves little room to explore and take ownership of this part of themselves, even when husbands are encouraging and openly long for more sexual connection. This sexual immaturity can, of course, cause deep frustration with a higher desire marital partner; but a bigger problem, in my mind, is that it represents a fractured relationship with oneself, an unwillingness to be in a mature relationship with one’s own body, one’s own sexuality, and an important source of strength."

Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, "Lets talk about sex"

I'm sure there is a large percentage of LDS women who fully enjoy their sex lives. It must remembered that Finlayson-Fife's clientele come to her because they believe they're having sexual problems. Meanwhile, sexually unrepressed LDS women have no need for her services.

 

It also must be understood that in order to create new business and a continued stream of income for herself, Finlayson-Fife has a vested interest in propagating the idea of widespread sexual dysfunction of women in the LDS community -- her livelihood depends on it.

 

Finally, even if there is a significant percentage of LDS women who are somewhat sexually awkward, isn't it better that these sisters ere on the side of virtue rather than on the side of greedy sexual desire?

 

I know that in the midst of all this there is a healthy sexual middle ground, and that it would be a good thing if married LDS couples worked toward gaining that healthy middle ground. But what ultimate personal benefit is there for a spiritually minded woman to become an LDS version of an uninhibited "CosmoGirl?"  After all, human sexuality is a most sacred thing, is it not? So is there something wrong or unwise with LDS women maintaining an attitude of reverence, awe and holy modesty toward the sacred power God has given them to bring new life into the world?

Edited August 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Not necessarily. It could make them optional, like the Word of Wisdom originally was. You want to swear an oath of chastity? Awesome. But you shouldn't be pressured to just to participate in the religion.

 

HMMM The 10 Suggestions right?

[Kenngo1969]

... And yes there's a dress code for men at BYU. ... There have been incidents where girls get things like modesty notes where some guy finds it necessary to tell them that their outfit is making them think impure thoughts (outfits that are often not even against the honor code). ...

 

What you say about the Honor Code is true, but there's also a lot of "chain-yanking" that goes on about it among BYU students and alumni and those who have a passing interest in things-BYU.  The guy who wrote the "modesty note" could have been deadly serious, in which case I think he has a borderline pathological interest in what I presume to be his religion and in the single, inflexible conception he apparently has about what it means to live it.  The same is true of the guy who wrote the letter to The Daily Universe about how all of the fans of Cafe Rio's puerco a la barbacoa are blatant Word-of-Wisdom breakers because it contains ... Coca-Cola , which has ... caffeine!

 

Or, as I think is more likely, at least one of them (if not both) was trying to yank people's chains.

 

P.S.: Come to think of it, I think my "chain-yanking" hypothesis is even more likely if one posits that both letters could have come from non-Mormons who are associated with BYU in some way (went there, non-LDS-ness notwithstanding, live in Provo, et cetera.  It's not uncommon for people who are on "the outside looking in" to try to yank insiders' chains.)

Edited August 17, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex

Nowadays we realize it applies to women as well in self identity issues.

[Tsuzuki]

HMMM The 10 Suggestions right?

Like the Word of Wisdom. Unless you swear an oath, in which case it's binding.

[thesometimesaint]

Like the Word of Wisdom. Unless you swear an oath, in which case it's binding.

 

SEE Baptismal Questions particularly 5(3).

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?
3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?
4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?
5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards.  What do you understand of the following standards?  Are you willing to obey them?

    

   1. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman?
   2. The law of tithing.
   3. The Word of Wisdom.
   4. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to fellow members.
6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life.  Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?

Edited August 17, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Tsuzuki]

I don't think anyone who has not yet reached puberty is capable of swearing an oath of chastity.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think anyone who has not yet reached puberty is capable of swearing an oath of chastity.

 

Actually they can and do. With the help of parents and Church teachers live up to to it. I am an old convert. Baptized at the age of 20 and got married in the Temple.