Is The Church Sexually Repressive?

[Kenngo1969]

Something better than a piece of paper, that's for sure. I'll be more keen to listen to the church on matters of sex and marriage when it can solve the problem of divorce.

Yes, well, there's that pesky thing known as agency, which seems to indicate that there are some problems the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot solve, and shouldn't, even if it could.  (See Doctrine & Covenants 121:41-45.)  Even the Lord doesn't seek to "solve" problems by abridging agency (else He would cease to be God).  He didn't become God a la Bruce Almighty.  He became God by the wise use of agency, aka obedience.  It takes two to tango; it takes two to marry; and (while I'm keenly aware that there are cases in which one party is 99-plus-some-fraction-percent at fault while another party is some fraction of one percent at fault) it takes two to divorce.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can, through its leaders, teach correct principles about such things as marriage, but it cannot force anyone to abide by them.

 

P.S.: Alas, if only the Church of Jesus Christ, through one of its leaders, would teach something such as this: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

 

Oh, wait ...

 

Yes, I know Brother Reel; this was another good post, but I had to go and ruin it completely with those emoticons at the end!  Sorry!

Edited August 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[teddyaware]

This is an article posted by an alleged BYU student on how she wants to make so BYU can be a place where students are allowed to have sex.

 

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/college/news/a29830/sex-ban-brigham-young-university/

 

As I read it, I found it entirely fascinating. I don't believe her story at all. The reason being is her alleged experience in the Church is so different from mine or anyone else I know. I can't imagine any of the many bishops I have had banning a young woman from even attending Church for a month for claiming that a return missionary sexually assaulted her. Nor do I believe that people, especially younger people in the Church are as judgmental as she seems to think they are. Most people in my generation and younger (under 30) couldn't care less if a person has had sex before or not. In fact, some guys may prefer that the girls they date aren't virgins.

 

Stories like these remind me of my sister, who having left the church, now tries to paint our leaders growing up as terrible people. I was there. I know them. So I just don't believe any of this.

The airhead ditz who wrote this ridiculous article sounds like she has all the maturity of a 1980's 'valley girl,' but with a feminist bent. And her excursion into cyber-publicity is going to follow and haunt the poor girl for the rest of her life, whether she wants it to or not. The feminist publishers at Cosmopolitan were surely smirking and laughing up their sleeves when they found this one.

Edited August 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[BlueDreams]

Unfortunately, I have to call BS on the article in question.

 

I wish journalist would do more fact checking in their articles.

I never, in my life have heard of someone being banned from attending church for any sin (other than actively disrupting meetings).

I have  known of plenty of fornicating people who attend church.

Never in a Disciplinary council that I have attended has someone been told not to attend church. 

Even excommunicated members and non members can attend church. 

 

There is plenty of room for discussion without being deceitful.

 

 

You're right. Because it is false. I went digging around because I was curious how this story sounded so....weird in many ways. To be fair to the woman, I think this is a case of telephone, where the details got lost in translation (note that it says, as told to michelle ruiz on the side). The story told on Byers' personal blog that I found is far more believable to me. I won't post it because it's fairly detailed description of sexual assault and I don't want to break any board rules, but I'll give the gist. She was 14,  he was 21....which makes this in and of itself makes it sexual assault of a minor that should have been reported. It definitely had the power dynamics surrounding assault, including being told not to tell anyone about it by the man. What led to her discipline, in her mind was her sense of guilt and self-blame and a bishop who probably didn't know how to handle the situation (obviously). She told the bishop , which did not leave for her being "kicked out" but unable to take the sacrament for 2 months. She acknowledged both kindness and care from her bishop and her parents about it. She did not believe she was assaulted for a long while after (which is also common). 

 

This story, to me, is completely believable and can easily highlight problems that could be addressed in the church when working with cases of sexual abuse. Such as more regular training on sexual assualt to bishops, or the idea of women leaders being more involved in cases of sexual concerns, particularly of minors, or  better discussions on what constitutes sexual abuse to our youth, etc. 

 

The rest is pretty accurate of her beliefs (not sure about behaviors) that are really unlikely to fly at BYU. 

And speaking of telephone, every place that has picked this up, has added and continued to skew the story to make mormon/byu practice far worse than it actually is. Fact checking is so overrated.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 15, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Erin15]

I've seen more lives destroyed by unsafe rebellion against repression than by responsible hedonism, and this is consistent with the high number of STIs and teen pregnancies in places where abstinence only sex education is taught. A better commandment would be for safe, consensual, and responsible sex, rather than no sex, and I much prefer Aleister Crowley's definition of chastity.]

You may prefer it, but God's law remains unchanged. Safe responsible sex is still a sin unless it occurs between a man and a woman legally and lawfully married.

Surely you can see that from an objective viewpoint it is beyond blasphemous to think you can make a better commandment than the Almighty.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Erin15

[why me]

Many lds parents save for many years for their children to go to college or university. And for those who hope that their children chose byu do so so that the children can still get church leadership and teachings and experience a community of believers. I don't think that lds parents would appreciate it if their kids went to byu and experienced orgies, one night stands, keg nights etc as they may in other universities. The church has a responsibility to educate these young people not only in knowledge but in morality too. Will people make mistakes in chasity. Of course. It is only natural as humans to do so. But it should not be encourged or overlooked in byu policy to disregard the teachings of christ or god  on these matters.

 

This is a telling sentence in the article:

 

The truth is, I'm not a virgin. I'm a sexual woman and a proud feminist, and I don't feel bad about it.

 

To assume that feminists cannot be chaste is strange. To lump the two together (sexual woman and feminism) shows some immaturity about what feminism actually is and it alienates those lds women who remain chaste and yet, support gender rights.

 

Also, what is feminism to her? I would think that she has no clue besides the notion of equality between women and men. And then of course, we have her writing that she doesn't feel bad about it. No one should feel bad about being a feminist, however, one can do an examination of conscience about how one is living one's life. Also, feminists in the 70's were not in favor of cosmo and other women's magazines that put women in such clothing that made them into sexual objects. They were very much against sexual objectification in women's magazines and in men's magazines.  The sexualization of women was very much a concern for early feminists and cosmo was a likely target and one reason why gloria steinem founded MS. magazine. And if one looks at photos of early 1970's feminists one would see that they dressed modestly as a act of liberation.

 

http://www.womenwhochangedamerica.org/profile/gloria-steinem/

 

Notice the style of her ouffit...modest was in.

 

And here we have bella abzug who I remember very well, organizing marches in times square to protest the sexualization of women and the porn industry. She was also a modest dresser.

 

http://www.womenwhochangedamerica.org/profile/bella-abzug/

 

The so called young feminists of today like the woman in the article have no clues just what women's liberation  actually is. Or they have no idea of feminist beginnings in the late 60's or 70's.

Edited August 15, 2014 by why me

[Tsuzuki]

You may prefer it, but God's law remains unchanged. Safe responsible sex is still a sin unless it occurs between a man and a woman legally and lawfully married.

Surely you can see that from an objective viewpoint it is beyond blasphemous to think you can make a better commandment than the Almighty.

The American legal system is filled with better commandments than the Almighty.

[california boy]

Yes, well, there's that pesky thing known as agency, which seems to indicate that there are some problems the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot solve, and shouldn't, even if it could.  (See Doctrine & Covenants 121:41-45.)  Even the Lord doesn't seek to "solve" problems by abridging agency (else He would cease to be God).  He didn't become God a la Bruce Almighty.  He became God by the wise use of agency, aka obedience.  It takes two to tango; it takes two to marry; and (while I'm keenly aware that there are cases in which one party is 99-plus-some-fraction-percent at fault while another party is some fraction of one percent at fault) it takes two to divorce.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can, through its leaders, teach correct principles about such things as marriage, but it cannot force anyone to abide by them.

 

P.S.: Alas, if only the Church of Jesus Christ, through one of its leaders, would teach something such as this: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

 

Oh, wait ...

 

Yes, I know Brother Reel; this was another good post, but I had to go and ruin it completely with those emoticons at the end!  Sorry!

 

Well that is not really true.  When it comes to moral choices, the church does try and take away agency when they think they can get away with it.

[why me]

Well that is not really true.  When it comes to moral choices, the church does try and take away agency when they think they can get away with it.

 

I suppose that one can make this argument. However, if one pushes the envelope, one can also claim that the ten commandments limits agency by detailing what one should not do. However, no church can encourage their members to do what they wish to do. All  seem to influence agency but of course, agency can not be controlled as you well know since you are an intelligent person. At the end of the day, we have the freedom to make our choices.

Edited August 15, 2014 by why me

[Erin15]

The American legal system is filled with better commandments than the Almighty.

You may think they are better, but that is because you are a mortal with a finite and limited understanding.

To even suggest that an irredeemably flawed and corrupt system created by mortals like the American legal system could be comparable or superior to God's eternal laws is just puffery.

In the end our opinions are irrelevant anyways.

We will each be judged by God's laws whether or not we approve of them.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Erin15

[thesometimesaint]

The American legal system is filled with better commandments than the Almighty.

 

AHH  No.

SEE http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama

[BlueDreams]

This is a telling sentence in the article:

 

The truth is, I'm not a virgin. I'm a sexual woman and a proud feminist, and I don't feel bad about it.

 

To assume that feminists cannot be chaste is strange. To lump the two together (sexual woman and feminism) shows some immaturity about what feminism actually is and it alienates those lds women who remain chaste and yet, support gender rights.

 

Also, what is feminism to her? .......

 

The so called young feminists of today like the woman in the article have no clues just what women's liberation  actually is. Or they have no idea of feminist beginnings in the late 60's or 70's.

 

 

She's following a specific branch of feminism from what I could get called sex-positive feminism...and they're not known for being super in line with more traditional feminists (for lack of a better phrase). 

 

So though I do think the use of feminism and accepting whatever form of sex (that's consensual) as one and the same, as alienating and ridiculous, I don't think it shows an immaturity about feminism and what it is. She's just chosen a very specific off-shoot in feminist thought.

 

With luv,

BD

[wenglund]

It amazes me how many members these days think they and their pop cultural icons know better than God and his chosen leaders what is best for the kingdom. I am wondering what is behind this toxic break-out of pride?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

It amazes me how many members these days think they and their pop cultural icons know better than God and his chosen leaders what is best for the kingdom. I am wondering what is behind this toxic break-out of pride?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Hubris is as old as mankind.

[wenglund]

Hubris is as old as mankind.

 

Yes, but has the pervasiveness of the toxin always remained the same?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Erin15]

I imagine this is why when Paul saw our times he described the world being filled with people who "lead captive silly women laden with sins, lead away by diverse lusts."

Edited August 15, 2014 by Erin15

[Hamba Tuhan]

Yes, but has the pervasiveness of the toxin always remained the same?

 

People used to temper the philosophies of men with at least a little scripture. I think such admixture is growing less common.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

I imagine this is why when Paul saw our times he described the world being filled with people who "lead captive silly women laden with sins, lead away by diverse lusts."

 

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'.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, but has the pervasiveness of the toxin always remained the same?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

 

That I don't know. It may be less, it may be more, I tend to think it is about the same. Just more people.

[stemelbow]

It amazes me how many members these days think they and their pop cultural icons know better than God and his chosen leaders what is best for the kingdom. I am wondering what is behind this toxic break-out of pride?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No body is claiming to know more. There are plenty of issues and topics, not one person has a great handle on them all. If by chance, a problem creeps into the Church, as has happened, why not explore the question whether we have all our ducks in a row? To shut that opportunity out, to close our eyes and stop our ears seems more counter-intuitive than letting ourselves think things through. Not only that, if error exists, which surely it must for we aren't perfect, it is our responsibility as much as anyone's to offer a cry. If what we perceive as possible error turns out not to be error at all, then it hurts not to explore it anyway.

[wenglund]

No body is claiming to know more. 

 

For those with eyes to see, it is unmistakably implicit in their actions and words. It is the very essence of their self-centric and presumptuous pride. Rather than being teachable, they presume to lecture. Rather than following as sheep, they presume to shepherd the shepherds. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Avatar4321]

You're right. Because it is false. I went digging around because I was curious how this story sounded so....weird in many ways. To be fair to the woman, I think this is a case of telephone, where the details got lost in translation (note that it says, as told to michelle ruiz on the side). The story told on Byers' personal blog that I found is far more believable to me. I won't post it because it's fairly detailed description of sexual assault and I don't want to break any board rules, but I'll give the gist. She was 14,  he was 21....which makes this in and of itself makes it sexual assault of a minor that should have been reported. It definitely had the power dynamics surrounding assault, including being told not to tell anyone about it by the man. What led to her discipline, in her mind was her sense of guilt and self-blame and a bishop who probably didn't know how to handle the situation (obviously). She told the bishop , which did not leave for her being "kicked out" but unable to take the sacrament for 2 months. She acknowledged both kindness and care from her bishop and her parents about it. She did not believe she was assaulted for a long while after (which is also common). 

 

This story, to me, is completely believable and can easily highlight problems that could be addressed in the church when working with cases of sexual abuse. Such as more regular training on sexual assualt to bishops, or the idea of women leaders being more involved in cases of sexual concerns, particularly of minors, or  better discussions on what constitutes sexual abuse to our youth, etc. 

 

The rest is pretty accurate of her beliefs (not sure about behaviors) that are really unlikely to fly at BYU. 

And speaking of telephone, every place that has picked this up, has added and continued to skew the story to make mormon/byu practice far worse than it actually is. Fact checking is so overrated.

 

With luv,

BD

 

That may explain why she was disciplined. If she went to the bishop with the mindset that it wasnt a sexual assault, that makes more sense. I mean if she isn't telling the bishop she was assaulted, the Bishop would think it's just a normal confession.

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 months is a long time to be punished to not take the sacrament.

[stemelbow]

For those with eyes to see, it is unmistakably implicit in their actions and words. It is the very essence of their self-centric and presumptuous pride. Rather than being teachable, they presume to lecture. Rather than following as sheep, they presume to shepherd the shepherds. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

They? Who are you referring to?

[halconero]

Do I believe that the Church should instruct and advocate for chastity, and virginity before marriage? Yes, I believe so wholeheartedly.

 

Do metaphors such as the chewed gum one, or the rose petal one fall short of accurately teaching chastity, and may actually be more damaging to one's sexuality? Absolutely.

 

The reality is that an individual who has sex before marriage, who confesses, repents, and who renews their covenants with the Lord through the sacrament, is in higher standing in the Kingdom of God than the other individual who lies, cheats, steals, and views pornography, but who has also refrained from having sex before the wedding night. Virginity before marriage, while something to be held to, advocated, and taught, is not a standard whereby we measure someone's ability to enter the temple and be sealed with their spouse. Nor is it a standard of someone's standing before God. The chewed gum or lost petal metaphors fail in that they deny the redeeming effects of the Atonement, and put greater value on the status of one's hymen rather than their ability to partake of the sacrament.

 

Ideally, we should be teaching people that a sexual relationship is intended to be joyous, happy, exciting, pleasurable, funny, and binding experience between a couple. The Lord also intends for this relationship to last permanently, whereas flings focus on only the physical, to the degrading of sex. And so, he asks his children to bind their relationships for at least this life (but hopefully forever) so that sex (among other aspects of marriage) becomes more than just a means of instant gratification.

Edited August 15, 2014 by halconero

[Danzo]

2 months is a long time to be punished to not take the sacrament.

Three months is longer

One month is shorter.

 

Not taking the sacrament is not "Punishment"

 

Taking the sacrament without being worthy would be "Punishment" to oneself. 3rd Nephi 18: 28-29

 

Having someone kind enough to forbid the taking of the sacrament when one is not worthy is a gift.