Thoughts about Sex and the Mormon Church

[_moksha]

More writings from the Mormon philosopher Bill at the Mormon Issues forum on Beliefnet:

"Take sex for instance--Why does it have to be such a sacred and voodoo subject that in an address to the BYU student body, Jeffrey Holland could not even use the word sex. Instead he referred to it as "human intimacy." He said he did not want to take the issue into the sensational or profane, and then went on to compare it to murder--using such things as almost killing some, or just barely killing someone or just killing them once. He also made reference to Dante's Inferno several times. Talk about a fire and brimstone sermon; and how much more spiritually sensational and profane can you get?"

I met Jeffrey Holland once, not formally, just physically. He was coming out of the administration building and I was walking towards it. As we got closer, I smiled and greeted him. He, in turn, gave me the ugliest frown anyone has ever hit me with. It was truly unfriendly and unkind. I immediately thought it was an epiphany, that Holland - for all his bubbly public personality - was, in fact, a d!Celestial Kingdom.

But everybody can have a bad day. I'm sure many adminsitrators have bad years. When I look back and think of what a job it must be to run BYU, even for a week, I'm sure there's plenty of room for "a case of the Mondays." (Washington Washington Washington)

I have never delivered a sermon on sex, but if I did, I would probably exploit that word, "physical intimacy," because it's such a great weasel word. You can use it and sound like you're not talking about sex, and in this church, what you look and sound like is often given more credence than what you actually say (or do).

Remember that movie, Bulworth? If you live in Utah, remember that there was a movie called Bulworth - which was probably never shown? I didn't think I'd like it because the trailers had Warren Beatty spouting politically incorrect noise - in a kid of buffet line of opportunities to sound like Kennedy channeling Homer Simpson. But I ended up loving that movie because it addressed the perennial theme of the person who has important things to say but finds himself cornered into saying nothing - over and over and over again - until he can't take it anymore.

Wouldn't it be cool to hear a sermon from Elder Bullworth?

ELDER BULLWORTH SPEAKS ON "PHYSICAL INTIMACY

Students and faculty of BYU, the Lord's university, I've come here today, at the request of our new prophet, Jeffrey R. Holland, whose graduate degree from an Ivy League institution certainly groomed him for the helm of our church, whose numbers now exceed 20 million. President Holland wanted me to speak on "physical intimacy," which puts me in very big shoes, since President Holland gave just such an address decades ago, when he still had hair.

"Physical intimacy" is a gift from the Lord. Its true purpose is to lure young people into marriage so they can start popping out children before they've established a reliable income, thus making them dependent on their parents (and possibly church welfare) while mommy and daddy get their act together.

If accomplished right after the husband's mission, temple marriage properly drops his feet into wet cement, which will harden as he complies with church assignments based, at least in part, on keeping up with the Elder Joneses, some of whom will make bishop before they're thirty. As the wife is the one the Lord gave a womb to, she will stay home and it will be a serious sin for the husband to put her into the workplace, thus loading the husband up with responsibilities and pressures that are most likely to insure that neither he nor she has time to think about their options before being dropped into the great sealing mold of Mormon culture.

May the spirit of promise, and the fear of failure, keep them moving forward through the escalator of life, till their children are old enough to be enlisted in similar service. If we follow the Lord's pattern, our numbers will remain stable, even if a majority of the people who convert go inactive within six months of baptism, and even if only half of those who remain in the church will ever stay active in the long run.

Because we bore and abuse people until they run for the door, we must stick to what works: the baby factory. Therefore, it is essential that we make sure "physical intimacy" remains within the bounds the Lord has set, mainly, no nuggie until marriage, and no marriage outside the temple.

Let me reiterate that while the Lord does not look upon physical intimacy as sinful - given its vital role in keeping the Church an ongoing non-profit employing descendants of the Smith family as general authorities - the Lord is not impressed by Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or that blonde chick in Show Girls. Please don't mess it up by pushing the envelope. Please don't sin the almost-unpardonable sin of going to third base and trying to steal home. Please don't event bunt in the privacy of your own bathrooms.

Don't think about sex. Sing a lot of hymns. Marry quickly after your mission, and to someone clumsy but faithful whose amorous qualities will be properly tied to childbirth. We're not saying you can't use birth control, but we hope you don't use it. And while you're at it, don't do anything in the sack that may come across as irreverent or twisted, especially when discussed by an ecclesiastical leader in a recommend interview, even if he has no business talking about such things. Keep it all as close to Ozzie and Harriet as possible.

Don't worry about things getting boring. Once you're up to your eyelids in kids, we'll find ways to keep you both so occupied that you can't find yourself walking on the wild side. Remember, for the Church to survive, you have to keep feeding it. We need your kids.

We need - I can't read this. I've got something to say but I think I'll just speak from the heart.

ELDER BULLWORTH LETS IT RIP

You know what, let's stop freaking out about that three-letter word, "sex." God could have created an entire world relying on asexual reproduction. He didn't. While asexual reproduction does occur in nature, none of the highest forms of life use it, particularly not the apex of them all: mankind.

When God created Adam, he went out of his way to show Adam (Hebrew: "the man") how incomplete he was. Adam was allowed to discover that he didn't have a partner. Adam was allowed to develop a desire for one. That's when God created Eve, taking out of Adam a "rib." Some say it was to show Adam that the woman should always be at his side - not his head, not his feet, but his side. It also meant that Adam could never be complete without Eve.

As a contemporary figure puts it, "We fit together, like Leggos."

When God created Adam and Eve, he created them naked. Nor did he rush to put clothes on them. It was only after Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit - which was not sex but the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - that God made clothes for them, and that was because they were leaving.

God's first commandment to Adam and Eve was "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth." If you want, you can see these three parts as redundant. I prefer to see each as separate and useful in and of itself. Just multiplying dovetails into replenishing the Earth, "being fruitful" dovetails in multiplying. In other words, Adam and Eve's first commandment was not necessarily to have children but to start a process that would lead to childbirth, which would lead to replenishing the Earth.

If you want to get technical about it, their first commandment was to have sex - lots and lots of sex. How can you be "fruitful" if you don't pluck some fruit, taste some fruit and be some fruit to somebody else? Adam and Eve were to go off and get sweaty.

Maybe that's why God didn't invent clothes until later.

But make no mistake about it, this is a commandment. In fact, it's one of those commandments you'd be hard-pressed not to fulfill. We're used to thinking of commandments as options, as if we could ignore them if we want. Truth be told, not all commandments work that way. Agency is a wonderful thing, but it isn't unlimited and it isn't like Visa: "everywhere you want to be."

If the universe we live in operates according to "laws," whose laws do you suppose it's obeying? Does anybody think that gravity, or electromagnetic radiation, or the speed of light - are touch and go? We live in a world of cause and effect. God told Adam not to touch the fruit of the tree, or they'd die. Was he kidding? After Eve had made fruit salad, God told her that she'd feel pain in childbirth. Did he only mean sometimes? He told Adam that he'd have to work for his food? Did he sound unsure?

When God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth," it was a commandment they were to obey, one they could defy if they wanted to, but one that would prove very difficult not to obey. God, in creating our bodies, has designed them "to be fruitful and multiply." It's one of the things we humans do very, very well. We haven't cured AIDS yet, nor is Global Warming under control, but we've currently got six billion people living on one planet. Not bad, huh?

The problem with being fruitful and multiplying is not that it's hard to do, just that it's hard not to do, especially when your tree is bearing fruit. But without discipline, our society will be plagued. Just as Adam and Eve lost paradise, because they tried to grab what they were not yet allowed to touch, there are mindless, merciless cause-and-effect consequences just waiting to go into gear the moment we push the right set of buttons.

Scientists tell us there are more nerve endings in our mouths than anywhere else. Human genitalia, unlike that of other primates, is in the front, allowing humans to face each other during sex. Our bodies are soft and warm - delicious to the taste and very desirable. The problem is, the machinery that makes all this one stupdendous party, is absolutely brainless. Like a Kamikaze pilot, it has one set of instructions which it is prepared to execute with ruthless efficiency.

Sex is a wonderful thing, but it's not everything. It's as good as the best meal you'll ever eat. It's as fun as the best game you'll ever play. It's a tool and a gift and a blessing that will bring you closer to someone than you'll ever be with anyone else. If you play your cards right, sex will bring you another source of happiness as you find the love of your life, someone who will regard you as the love of theirs.

But in all things, there must needs be an opposition. Sex is not an absolute good. That it's wonderful is true, but it can be just as destructive as it is creative. You won't learn this in a music video or a porn flick, but you have the right to know that sex can:

--destroy your innocence
--ruin friendships
--provoke physical attacks
--inspire murders
--put credit card numbers into the hands of prostitutes
--turn some into prostitutes
--produce unwanted children
--produce responsibilities you're not ready for
--transmit lethal, sometimes deadly, diseases
--rush a relationship that needs time
--distract you from your responsibilities
--provoke sexual harassment and ruin people's careers
--affect your judgment
--lead to discrimination
--denigrate one sex or the other
--lead to the trafficking in humans
--reveal things that need to be private
--dissolve the trust between friends or family members
--subject individuals to shame and/or ridicule
--result in heartache
--result in suicide


Sex is intended as a blessing, not a curse. But it can only be a blessing if it is approached with thought.

The desire for physical intimacy is natural and normal. It's there to help you fulfill your mission here on Earth. It's as much a part of you as the taste buds that make food a blessing or the intricacies of your brain that make it possible for you to enjoy music and art. It's not degenerate or sinful or bad. It can only be pursued in a way that becomes degenerate, sinful or bad.

One of the great lessons of life is the importance of self-discipline and self-control. We are not like some faiths, where self-deprivation or self-abuse are valued. You won't find Mormons whipping or castigating themselves as an act of religious piety. We don't do that.

But we do believe in exercising self-restraint, not because we want to limit our enjoyment of the good life but to ensure it. If our happiness is like a garden, that garden has to be cultivated, watered and pruned periodically. We have to protect it from predators. We also have to make sure we don't kill it with kindness. It's possible to kill a plant by giving it too much water or too much sunshine. Everything needs to be done in moderation and with care.

As mentioned before, sex can produce great joy but it can also produce great harm. The problem is not sex itself but the context in which it occurs. That's why God has created marriage, as a safe harbor where sex can take place. When two people wait until they are married to have sex, certain problems are either eliminated or reduced. Reputations are protected. Privacy is maintained. The dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases are almost completely eliminated.

Channeling sexuality through marriage means that its energies are harnassed to something more meaningful than our desire for immediate gratification. It creates a bright line that helps reduce the situations involving rapes, date rapes, molestations and sexual harassment. Coupled with modesty, it helps avoid preferences and discrimination based on sexuality. It provides a powerful incentive for people to seek out, and commit to, that one other person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

Sexuality awakens within us, in our prime, but it's an invitation to something more important than a series of grunts and gropes in the dark. It's an invitation to the development of an intimate relationship, something which will last long after our bodies have gotten older and our health has declined. Of greatest importance is the creationship of relationships capable of surviving death itself.

To be attracted to someone else, or at least capable of feeling such attraction, is both normal and good. Of course, whether good results from this attraction is left to be seen. Part of being a good person is making the effort not to harm other persons. If you are thoughtless and careless with your affections, you may end up doing great harm, but to yourself and to others.

Given the tender feelings involved, it's very important that we carefully channel this drive, and that we learn to observe a few "rules of the road." For one thing, there are some attractions you can't act on without acting destructively. The 10th Commandment prohibits adultery. If you want to enjoy the fruits of marriage, you have to allow others to do the same. But this commandment goes deeper. In Deuteronomy (the "second law"), Moses is told that certain sexual relationships are an "abomination" to the Lord, which means they should be hateful to us. These include sex with children, sex with parents, sex with siblings and sex with animals.

Is God just being a prude when he warns us about such relationships? Clearly, violating someone else's marriage, even when that marriage is going badly, is both dangerous and inconsiderate. It is wrong to tempt someone to violate their vows. It is also wrong to let someone violate their vows with you. Even if the married person is coming on to you, it's important to think of the person he or she is being unfaithful to. Even if you don't know this person, you are doing evil to him or her by helping their spouse be unfaithful.

We don't believe in sex with children because each party to the relationship must be a partner, not a ward, an underling or a pet. It's grotesquely violent to do anything that undermines the innocence of a child. Most people know this, but underestimate how wrong it is when both partners are children, as if the innocence were any less damaged by under-age sexuality.

Sex with animals is equally exploitative. Sex with relatives - whether parents or siblings - is widely deemed to be an "abomination" but for reasons we don't always talk about. Somewhere within our psyche is an unconscious shut-off switch. When whole families live under the same roof, sexual urges are repressed for the physical and emotional wellbeing of all. Not only is it unhealthy when the family tree doesn't branch; it's violent to the relationships and threatens to harm those within the house.

Part of being responsible is knowing not to have sex with a world full of people around you. There are people you can date and people you should never date. The process of dating allows you to have a relationship with someone, which is both emotionally satisfying and helpful for conducting a meaningful process of elimination, one that will result in a single, right, person you can trust as you share this fragile intimacy.

We live in a society that is literally "screwed" up, one where president couldn't keep his hands off an intern, one where teachers are engaging in illicit relationships with their students, one where heads of companies are losing their careers because of sexual harassment, one where women report pressure to "put out or get out" of their professional advancement. We also live in a society with record numbers of divorces, abortions and children raised with only one parent.

As wonderful as sex may be, the instinct and the act are both mindless expressions of immediate gratification. The impulse to engage in sex may be as strong as an addiction to food, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, drugs, success or violence. Nobody tells an overweight person to "eat all you want" without regard to the consequences. Nobody thinks it's okay to lose the house because you couldn't stop gambling. Nobody thinks the high one gets from alcohol, tobacco or drugs is really worth the toll those addictions take.

Sex, if it's to be creative and not destructive, must be guarded and protected, as if one were caring for a child, an aging parent or a person who is not in control of their faculties. No responsible parent would let their toddler play in the street. In managing this part of our lives, it's critical that we provide at least the minimal structure necessary to avoid hardship. Those suffering from substance-related addictions are advised to avoid fellow abusers and places where such substances are most freely obtained. They are advised to so structure their lives, which may include the help of mentors or sponsors, to help them avoid disaster.

Marriage is designed to provide such protection. We should choose our partner with the same care in which we would choose a protector or guardian of our weakest selves. We should stay close to our spouse, providing one another the support and help needed to protect the integrity of the relationship. We should avoid those situations that would catch us in a weakened condition, including those which tend to weaken our resolve.

The whole point of this is not to make life boring. Sex was invented to bring about abundant joy, not just from the act itself but from the additional creativity of the act. Marriage protects sex, and its sex partners, who are faithful and exclusive to one another. It creates a relationship, alongside the sex, one that will outlast the physical beauty of either partner. Those who find a love during the "salad days" of life, and who are good to one another, have greater reason to believe that they'll not be alone later on in life, after their physical beauty has faded away.

For me, there's nothing sadder than watching a once-proud most-eligible-bachelor, somebody who was hot and popular during the springtime of life but who, out of a desire to be the Don Juan on the neighborhood, never settled down and never found someone to share life with. I see these people - not the unfortunate ones whose spouse has died or who have been abused by someone who ought to cared for them - and I wonder if it was all worth it. I once heard a preacher talk about "Fonzie," how everybody in their teens and twenties wants to be Fonzie, but nobody wants to be a 40- or 50-year-old Fonzie. Such people look like a walking billboard for monogamy. They're a poster child telling the world, "Don't do as I did. Don't toy with love."

The major reason to treat sex with respect, and to incorporate it with your best principles, is that life is messy enough on its own without adding more tragedy and heartache to it. The chain of consequence is universal, ruthless and merciless. It doesn't care what you want or what your intentions originally were. You will reap what you sew. There is no such thing as "happily ever after." There is happiness in spite of much tribulation. There is also the sorrow of the damned.

When I look at the subject of sex, I don't think in terms of how or whether God is going to punish me for any mistakes. I simply look at causation. If you drop a plate, it will break. The plate will not care that you intended to be more careful. The plate will not care about the mess it will leave you. Once you let that plate get out of your hands, it and gravity will take over. In the end, you will be stuck with the consequences.

Marriage is not an escape from the difficulties of life. But given a fair point of comparison, it is clear that marriage is certainly safer and more in tune with our long-term happiness. Marriage is harder, in terms of cultivating a lifetime relationship with someone who will get to know you - warts and all, just as you will get to know this person in ways that he or she would rather no one knew. Marriage is the most amazing commitment to another person, the greatest calling you will ever have, the greatest source of joy in your life and the greatest challenge.

Outside of marriage, there are no covenants or promises. It's all catch-as-catch-can. People follow their attractions. They gratify their lusts. They get what's there to be gotten - which is a lot like going on the internet with your new computer, but without any firewall or virus protection. I'm not here to say you won't have moments of pleasure but without a covenant relationship, you are completely on your own. One day you're up, the next day you're down. And as you get older, your prospects get progressively more limiting.

In a way, it's amazing that we have to make this pitch at all. Were it not for the persuasiveness of lust, the long-term consequences would speak for themselves. But when you're young, you don't think about the long term. You think about today. You don't think about your reputation, or your secrets, or whether you're about to give your heart to someone who hasn't earned it. You don't think about STDs or the misery and death they could bring. You don't think about unplanned pregnancy, abortion or child support. You don't think about how quickly the rose goes from blooming to wilting.

But you should.

[_Inconceivable]

I met Jeffrey Holland once, not formally, just physically. He was coming out of the administration building and I was walking towards it. As we got closer, I smiled and greeted him. He, in turn, gave me the ugliest frown anyone has ever hit me with. It was truly unfriendly and unkind. I immediately thought it was an epiphany, that Holland - for all his bubbly public personality - was, in fact, a #$?!.

After a regional conference my (very pregnant) wife and I went up to meet him. He seemed quite kind but we got a frown too. I told him that we were thinking of getting married.

I'm just not sure if he has a sense of humor.


(Only got about a paragraph into your post, so sorry for not reading the rest or it..)

[_ktallamigo]

Very thoughtful essay. Thanks for posting it.


ktall

[_ajax18]

JRH doesn't seem very nice to me publicly either. He reminds me more of BKP. He's definitely all about fear and intimidation. I could see him getting very angry if asked to explain anything at all. He probably comes from the school of thought that says, "Whatever I say you're expected to believe because of who I am and the position I hold, not because of what I said." Joseph Smith probably rarely had that luxury as the founder of a faith. When you're trying to pull in outsiders rather than just beat up on insiders, you have to change your tune a bit.

[_Blixa]

JRH doesn't seem very nice to me publicly either. He reminds me more of BKP. He's definitely all about fear and intimidation. I could see him getting very angry if asked to explain anything at all. He probably comes from the school of thought that says, "Whatever I say you're expected to believe because of who I am and the position I hold, not because of what I said." Joseph Smith probably rarely had that luxury as the founder of a faith. When you're trying to pull in outsiders rather than just beat up on insiders, you have to change your tune a bit.

This is an interesting comment..do you think ajax that Joseph Smith was in this regard utterly unlike any who have come after?

[_ajax18]

JRH doesn't seem very nice to me publicly either. He reminds me more of BKP. He's definitely all about fear and intimidation. I could see him getting very angry if asked to explain anything at all. He probably comes from the school of thought that says, "Whatever I say you're expected to believe because of who I am and the position I hold, not because of what I said." Joseph Smith probably rarely had that luxury as the founder of a faith. When you're trying to pull in outsiders rather than just beat up on insiders, you have to change your tune a bit.

This is an interesting comment..do you think ajax that Joseph Smith was in this regard utterly unlike any who have come after?

We're all similar in ways. Yet based on what I've read, I'd ten times rather have associated with Joseph Smith than Brigham Young. I doubt I would have gotten along with Brother Brigham.

Not all LDS leaders after Joseph have been authoritarian and all about the hierarchy of power. Some truly believe in the principle of what's right and not who's right. For instance I don't see Elder Uchtdorf as authoritarian. I think most men in the Church are not authroitarian. Yet there is something about the hierarchial system that seems to attract this type of man. It's almost as if that's what they want. It fits the agenda. That's part of what I hate about the Church.

Take the MTC for instance. What kind of leader do they want? They don't want someone who is going to quietly lead by example. They want an accuser, an in your face pusher, a driver. Preferably he wouldn't be a hypocrite but better set the bar high and fall short yourself than not to set it high and demand more out of others. There reason is, "That's what gets the job done." It sure got the job done on me. I never trusted the Church again after several of those experiences.

There is an interesting property to the authoritarian. As he becomes such, he becomes a very lousy missionary. It's nearly impossible for an authoritarian to hold a civil conversation with a nonbeliever. Granted BY did serve as a missionary but what kind of people was he teaching? A poor, desperate underclass that were in great need of religion. Imagine if BY had to serve in Europe today. He wouldn't be able to handle it. He'd be in fist fight at every door.

[_bcspace]

When teaching the Law of Chastity to 11 years olds in Church, I have not shied away from using the appropriate terms. One has to be careful though not to feed the burn that begins in teenagers. Why sexualize them when they have their whole life ahead of them?

[_Jason Bourne]

JRH doesn't seem very nice to me publicly either. He reminds me more of BKP. He's definitely all about fear and intimidation. I could see him getting very angry if asked to explain anything at all. He probably comes from the school of thought that says, "Whatever I say you're expected to believe because of who I am and the position I hold, not because of what I said." Joseph Smith probably rarely had that luxury as the founder of a faith. When you're trying to pull in outsiders rather than just beat up on insiders, you have to change your tune a bit.

My experience is just the opposite. I once sent him in email about a personal challenge. I got back one of the most kindest and comforting responses I think I could have gotten. He was very loving and kind and friendly.

[_Livingstone22]

I can't tell you how many Happy Days re-runs I have had to watch to understand what my singles ward bishop meant by "necking" and "petting." I think it's important to use the actual terms when referring to sexual acts. I believe it is more respectful towards whom you are talking. Then again, I don't really think church is the place to talk about sexuality anyway.