LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

So, you justify your behavior by asserting that this is
Permitting gay marriage isn't about lowering rates of promiscuity. that's YOUR hangup.

It should be the "hangup" of every tax-paying citizen of this country. Thousands/tens of thousands of children are born out of wedlock every year in this country (all races). Do you suppose that has something to do with promiscuity? Where oh where are the sperm donors? Well, as that lyric from The King and I puts it (paraphrasing), "going from flower to flower to flower."

 

[skyrider44]

. . . On topic, I would like to see Skyrider provide conclusive evidence that children are consistently damaged by being raised in a solid, loving household with a legally and emotionally committed same sex couple.

I'll wait. Forever, I expect.

Sorry to say, you may have to wait forever inasmuch as you have attached stringent qualifiers (which I have underlined) to the environments in which the children would be raised.

BTW, how would the "conclusive evidence" be gathered? Any thoughts about the methodology to be used?

 

[skyrider44]

Uh, no, you never asked me to identify the post. Please show me the specific post where you did so.

It's Post 534.

 

[Cat Tale]

I still would like to hear an LDS opinion of various sexual behaviors, such as oral and anal sex, in heterosexual marriages.

In a nutshell, it is my understanding, as a LDS, that any sex act other than the one used to procreate would be considered inappropriate. The following is from A Parent's Guide, Ch. 6 Mature Intimacy: Courtship and Marriage, as found on lds.org, emphasis are my own.

"The world may countenance premarital sex experiences, but the Lord and his church condemn in no uncertain terms any and every sex relationship outside of marriage, and even indecent and uncontrolled ones within marriage...
...In sexual matters, as in all other aspects of marriage, there are virtues to be observed: “If it is unnatural, you just don’t do it. That is all, and all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane. There are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 312).

Too much stuff to quote, but it answers your questions, I believe... but also on lds.org Family Home Evening Resource Book, Teaching about Procreation and Chastity. It covers necking, petting, masturbation, homosexuality, and pornography.

 

[Janadele]

I still would like to hear an LDS opinion of various sexual behaviors, such as oral and anal sex, in heterosexual marriages...But I have not seen a response to this issue by any of our resident LDS.

Such practices are not in harmony with the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are against the reasons for our mortal existence. Are satanic in purpose and design. Carnal, devilish, disgusting, filthy, unhygienic.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no association with the Sunstone Foundation, Magazine, or Symposium; nor with Mormon Matters or Dan Wotherspoon.

 

[Agatha]

Such practices are not in harmony with the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are against the reasons for our mortal existence. Are satanic in purpose and design. Carnal, devilish, disgusting, filthy, unhygienic.

Where is the Biblical support for this view? The Bible doesn't mention oral or anal sex at all.

Skyrider, do you oppose a same sex couple getting married if they undertake not to have or adopt/foster children? If so, on what grounds?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Such practices are not in harmony with the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are against the reasons for our mortal existence. Are satanic in purpose and design. Carnal, devilish, disgusting, filthy, unhygienic.

Are married, heterosexual couples even allowed to enjoy vaginal intercourse when they engage in it, or is that too debasing?

 

[joobz]

It should be the "hangup" of every tax-paying citizen of this country. Thousands/tens of thousands of children are born out of wedlock every year in this country (all races). Do you suppose that has something to do with promiscuity? Where oh where are the sperm donors? Well, as that lyric from The King and I puts it (paraphrasing), "going from flower to flower to flower."

Gay sex typically doesn't lead to children... So, once again, it is your Hangup.

 

[joobz]

But he/she still has some degree of worseness, consistent or not.

You'll go to any length to deny others the rights you enjoy. How sad for you.

Please make an effort to read with accuracy what I write. I never said it has "NOTHING" to do with child welfare, and I never said it has "ALL" to do with [my] "arbitrary" societal norms.

Then why do you avoid taking a stand against poor people marrying?

Your 1-2-3 recap overlooks some societal norms that have changed for the worse; i.e., 1) Record number of Americans live on federal welfare, which is now a societal norm. 2) The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is now circa 70; that has become a sad, sobering societal norm in the black community. 3) The income gap between rich and poor is the biggest in a century--an ever-growing societal norm. Note this from the Sept. 11, 2013 Los Angeles Times: "If you feel you're falling behind in the income race, it's not just your imagination. The wealth gap between the top 1% [those making above $394,000 in 2012] and the bottom 99% in the U.S. is as wide as it's been in nearly 100 years. . . . between 1993 and 2012, the real incomes of the 1% grew 86.1%, while those of the 99% grew 6.6%." Those figures are based on IRS statistics examined by economists at UC Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics, and Oxford University.

Oh, I agree. I do not like the income disparity that we see in the country. But that doesn't have anything to do with gays marrying.

Once again, why do you work so hard to prevent others from having the rights you enjoy?
It can't be because of child welfare, because the data doesn't support that AND because you do not fight poor people from being married.
It can be because of promiscuity, because gay sex doesn't lead to children and promiscuity isn't illegal.
It can't be because of your religion, because the LDS church has been wrong on societal norms before.


So what is it?

 

[Olowkow]

In a nutshell, it is my understanding, as a LDS, that any sex act other than the one used to procreate would be considered inappropriate. The following is from A Parent's Guide, Ch. 6 Mature Intimacy: Courtship and Marriage, as found on lds.org, emphasis are my own.

Too much stuff to quote, but it answers your questions, I believe... but also on lds.org Family Home Evening Resource Book, Teaching about Procreation and Chastity. It covers necking, petting, masturbation, homosexuality, and pornography.

Such practices are not in harmony with the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are against the reasons for our mortal existence. Are satanic in purpose and design. Carnal, devilish, disgusting, filthy, unhygienic.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no association with the Sunstone Foundation, Magazine, or Symposium; nor with Mormon Matters or Dan Wotherspoon.

Thanks, I appreciate the answers. These are certainly very different views of the world and loving relationships from my own.

I notice the word "inappropriate" was used by CatTale and "unnatural" and "improper/proper" are the concepts used in Ch. 6 Mature Intimacy: Courtship and Marriage. I could not find "satanic, devilish, or evil". My sense from reading this is that they are trying to be clever and never actually saying what they mean. What on earth is "natural"? Is kissing natural? Rubbing noses? I'm thinking it is unnatural if you don't feel good doing it.

The article also claims or seems to present the underlying presupposition that "sexual drive is a myth". They seem to be trying to explain that if the wife is ill, sex is not required. I got the feeling at some point that the LDS husband and wife are sort of roommates who get together once in a while to make a baby. There is somehow virtue in not having sex with one's wife on a regular basis. That idea that abstinence is admirable just doesn't seem reasonable. Again, worlds apart from my life experience.

I have also always wondered how a man can marry a woman with whom he has neglected to determine his sexual compatibility, and vice versa of course.

While I understand the religious motivation and the stated moral reasoning behind these views of extreme conservatism, I must say that I personally regard them as unnatural, harmful and undesirable behavioral taboos and am unable to admire them. These are arbitrary restrictions on the expression of love. Abstinence or withholding of sexual contact in healthy individuals is in principle unnatural and unfair to one partner at least.

I think instilling sexual guilt or shame in a teenager who is attempting to understand his body and his perfectly normal sexual urges by invading the sense of personal privacy is wrong, dangerous and amounts to child abuse. The only thing that the "evil, satanic, and devil" rhetoric accomplishes, when associated with sexual behavior, is simply to set up a potential scenario which eventually comes back to haunt one later in life as anxiety, fetishes, and irrational fears of one's own sexuality.

As for porn, Utah leads the nation in consumption on the internet. There is a lot of evidence that the more conservative and religious states are more prone to be pornography consumers.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Merry Christmas, skyrider44 and Janadele.

Happy Holiday/Solstice/Sol Invictus/Diwali/Kwanzaa/Noodle day, the rest of you!

 

[Cat Tale]

Well, I had a very eloquent post all written and then accidently hit the x at the top of the page and lost the whole thing. So here's my best attempt at rewriting it.

The article also claims or seems to present the underlying presupposition that "sexual drive is a myth". They seem to be trying to explain that if the wife is ill, sex is not required.

I'm sincerely hoping that I'm misreading your post. Personally, I wouldn't want a partner who required me to have sex when I'm ill. That just seems rude, and inappropriate. But it looks like you're saying that the husband should get his way regardless? That just set women back to the stone age (well maybe not quite that far), but that would be a setback, if that's what you're saying. The Church teaches that sex must be consensual between husband and wife, and if one says no, the other must respect that.

The chapter was about explaining the intimacies of marriage to children, and explaining to the child that there may be times when a spouse doesn't want sex and that it is important for the child to respect that when (s)he gets older. There were a few random examples given. I see it as saying to the child, make sure you marry someone you love and are compatible with cause if it's solely physical you may encounter problems.

I got the feeling at some point that the LDS husband and wife are sort of roommates who get together once in a while to make a baby. There is somehow virtue in not having sex with one's wife on a regular basis. That idea that abstinence is admirable just doesn't seem reasonable. Again, worlds apart from my life experience.

No clue where you're getting that. If you read the Family Home Evening Resource Book I sent a link to above, it says:

...sex has two basic purposes: first, to enable us to have children to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), and second, to express that special kind of love shared between a husband and a wife...
...Sex is to establish eternal families and to unify a husband and wife. When viewed in this way, sex is an uplifting influence.

I have no idea where you're coming up with LDS believing in abstinence after marriage. Chastity before, fidelity after, in other words, no fooling around before or after marriage. The only evidence you've given is the part about the wife being ill. Actually that was part of a bigger paragraph that said

There are times within the marriage when complete abstinence is appropriate for extended periods of time, such as during ill health, difficult pregnancy, separation due to employment away from home, or a need to restore respect and mutually decent emotional and spiritual relationships. There also are times when a spouse’s emotional and physical needs would make it desirable for the other to be especially affectionate.

To me, that's just called life. Perhaps the issue is the term complete abstinence, which simply means not to perform the sex act. But a couple can certainly kiss, touch, massage, speak kindly to each other, help out with household chores, there are all kinds of ways that a couple can express their love for one another, and bring a closeness to each other when one's ill, or has a medical condition (i.e. difficult pregnancy, surgery, etc). And I have an issue with spouses who fool around while another's deployed, or on a business trip or whatever.

 

[Janadele]

..Then, I posted a LDS discussion, which seemed to say that pretty much anything goes in the bedroom, which was ignored...

. Post 585 was in answer

Such practices are not in harmony with the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are against the reasons for our mortal existence. Are satanic in purpose and design. Carnal, devilish, disgusting, filthy, unhygienic.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no association with the Sunstone Foundation, Magazine, or Symposium; nor with Mormon Matters or Dan Wotherspoon.

There are many sites which falsely indicate they are pro LDS when in reality they are NOT. That would be a reason for your confusion Olowkow. If you genuinely want the truth use only official LDS sites to obtain your information on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[Pup]

You make a valid point--as far as it goes. The problem with your analysis is that there are degrees of homosexuality; otherwise, bisexuals wouldn't exist.
Some gays are 10s on a 1 to 10 scale (10 being homosexual in toto).
Some gays are 5s and 6s. And still other gays are 1s and 2s, which means they "swing" both ways. For youths who are developing their sexual identity and who haven't determined that identity or are at the low end of the 1-10 scale, the existence of married same-sex couples, together with society's acceptance of marriage equality, may influence them to become homosexuals. In effect, the example set by homosexuals can be persuasive.

I've having trouble with the logic. You seem to be using "homosexual" in two different ways in the same sentence. First, you say it's a continuum (which I don't necessarily disagree with), then at the end, you say that a person on the low end of the scale can be influenced to "become homosexual." But if they're on the low end of the scale, they're already homosexual, because it's a continuum and they're on it.

The main change I could see is:

With social rejection of gay relationships, if a person on the low end of the scale meets a great partner who happens to be of the same sex, he/she might reject that partner and look for one of the opposite sex to avoid the social hassle.

With social acceptance, he/she would have a chance to choose that partner without fear.

I don't see a problem with that. More chance for happy couples to find each other is a good thing.

Here's what I'm not getting. If the goal of the LDS church is to prevent its members from engaging in gay sex, that's similar to all the other things it wants to prevent its members from doing: divorcing their wives/husbands, drinking alcohol, having sex outside of marriage, smoking, shopping on Sunday, scheduling individual activities on family home evenings, etc. etc.

None of those things is illegal. But none of those things is required by law, either. So if church members don't want to do them, they don't have to. Why is marriage any different?

There are churches that require difficult things of their members, such as wearing obvious clothing that can make them targets for hate crimes like Sikhs or foregoing normal modern conveniences like the Amish, yet those churches' faithful members do what is expected of them, despite society.

If the LDS church has a viable answer for people who are gay yet who want to join the church, seems it really doesn't matter what non-members do, potential members will accept that answer if they want to be members. If they don't want to accept that answer, well, that's their problem. Legally forcing them against their will won't get them any closer to God, from the LDS view.

 

[Loss Leader]

And still nothing comes of my question: What interest does the Mormon church have in the marriages of non-mormons?

 

[Olowkow]

And still nothing comes of my question: What interest does the Mormon church have in the marriages of non-mormons?

As it is with many other "difficult" questions. It really seems to be a pattern among fundamentalists of all religions. Ignore the difficult questions. They'll go away.

We have an interesting cross section of the differing views among LDS in this thread, and I'd rather hear LDS views on Noah's Ark, age of the earth, or evolution, generally harmless and humorous, than their continued misapprehensions and obsessions about their neighbors' sexual behavior. It's getting painfully repetitive, as if saying the same tired nonsense multiple times makes it true. It's particularly tedious and difficult to follow in a moderated thread.

One anecdote I vividly remember as a kid of about 10 or so. One of the older kids in our neighborhood told a young boy that his mom and dad had sex (using kids' terms). He was devastated at the accusation and fought the older kid violently and wound up hurt pretty bad. I remember that I really didn't know what sex was about at all at the time, nor why telling a kid his mom and dad did it could be a motive for their fighting.

The point is, I think, most kids don't care about or obsess with what their parents do in the bedroom and really would rather not know.

 

[bruto]

And still nothing comes of my question: What interest does the Mormon church have in the marriages of non-mormons?

If you are truly convinced that you know what the rest of the world does not, you owe your truth to the world. Avid belief does not leave much room for humility.

 

[joobz]

Are you willing to give up your car so you don't tempt Amish away from their horses and buggies?

Outstanding!
This is such a great analogy as it purely expresses the scenario at play.

As foster zygote pointed out,I hadn't even considered the idea that skyrider would take offense to my question. To me, it would be like someone taking offense if I asked if they liked Italian food. Skyrider is arguing from a completely different set of principles. And those are clealr manifested from his religion. I am just wondering if he will ever truly consider what implications the LDS reversal on race has on his moral beliefs of homosexuality.

 

[halleyscomet]

I have asked you this question before, when you were claiming that atheists "choose" to "become faithless"; you did not answer it then, not have you answered it since. I wonder why?

Since I doubt the person you asked will answer you I will. The Book of Mormon contains a few examples of people who claim to be atheists but in the end admit they believed in god all along, that they were denying god. They are then cursed by god for their deception and denial.

Some Mormons I've spoken to use this as evidence that there is no such thing as an atheist. They are overtly hostile to atheists because they believe the atheists are deliberately lying about belief in god, that they are denying god in deliberate service to satan.

Why show respect for someone you believe is intentionally lying to you for the purpose of doing harm to your god and her/his plans?

 

[Travis]

The Mormon Church And Racism

I've seen an awful lot of seeming condescension towards the 1970's revelation in the LDS church in regards to dark skin.

I would think the people in this forum would like a church to abandon racist doctrine.

So this mocking attitude somewhat perplexes me. It was this revelation that allowed the Mormon church I joined in the late 80's to be very active in trying to welcome in black members rather than exclude them. This would seem to me to be a step in the right direction for a large church.

So why all the snark about this?



I swear this and the obsession some people have over the undergarments will always mystify me.