My body is NOT a temple!

[_Scottie]

I prefer to think of my body as being in similitude of Masculine Perfection but there is probably some personal bias there.

You should TOTALLY change your screen name to David...

[_wenglund]

Also, you'll notice if you read carefully, I didn't have sexual hangups, but I did feel guilty for feeling lust toward my husband. I thought sex was supposed to be spiritual, but for the life of me, it didn't seem spiritual when it was really good. So, I felt guilty. I know other women have experienced the same sexual guilt, so there must be something to the Mormon church's attitude about sex that causes people to feel body shame and sexual guilt. It's not all due to individual misinterpretation, Wade.

How, then, do you explain why many faithful members of the Church, myself not excluded, who are as aware as you of the Church's so-called attitude about sex, who do not feel body shame and sexual guilt within the bounds of holy matrimony?

The fact that there are Church members whose perceptions about marital sex are somewhat opposed to your's, should suggest to the reasonable mind that it is not so much the Church's so-called attitude that is the cause of the divergent perceptions, but the differing meanings that members place on what the Church has said. Some, like yourself, have mistakenly imposed a guilt-ridden and shamed meaning on marital sex, and others haven't. In other words, the marital guilt and bodily shame you experienced was a product of your on cognitions, not the Church's so-called attitude. Once you finally realise that, and stop wrongfully blaming the Church for your messed-up thinking, then you just may be on your way to a more healthy and functional life.

I won't hold my breath, though.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_asbestosman]

But here's the thing Wade. If KA had not attended the LDS church, would she have had the guilt she did for sex? From her story it seems unlikely.

I, of course, agree that it isn't the church's fault. I think, hoewver, one might still be able to assert that the church fosters an environment where this happens even if it doesn't happen to everyone (I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that hypothetical). Indeed, carcinogens such as asbestos don't necessarily cause cancer in everyone who comes in contact with them, but they do increase the probability.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Indeed, carcinogens such as asbestos don't necessarily cause cancer in everyone who comes in contact with them, but they do increase the probability.

Thank you for that very apt analogy of the Mormon church!

KA

[_Trinity]

Also, you'll notice if you read carefully, I didn't have sexual hangups, but I did feel guilty for feeling lust toward my husband. I thought sex was supposed to be spiritual, but for the life of me, it didn't seem spiritual when it was really good. So, I felt guilty. I know other women have experienced the same sexual guilt, so there must be something to the Mormon church's attitude about sex that causes people to feel body shame and sexual guilt. It's not all due to individual misinterpretation, Wade.

How, then, do you explain why many faithful members of the Church, myself not excluded, who are as aware as you of the Church's so-called attitude about sex, who do not feel body shame and sexual guilt within the bounds of holy matrimony?

The fact that there are Church members whose perceptions about marital sex are somewhat opposed to your's, should suggest to the reasonable mind that it is not so much the Church's so-called attitude that is the cause of the divergent perceptions, but the differing meanings that members place on what the Church has said. Some, like yourself, have mistakenly imposed a guilt-ridden and shamed meaning on marital sex, and others haven't. In other words, the marital guilt and bodily shame you experienced was a product of your on cognitions, not the Church's so-called attitude. Once you finally realise that, and stop wrongfully blaming the Church for your messed-up thinking, then you just may be on your way to a more healthy and functional life.

I won't hold my breath, though.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How many discussions about sex have you had with faithful members? I have had plenty. There are some wackytabacky perceptions out there. Even a few women who refused to have sex at all with their spouses for months on end because they saw it as an extension of "fasting." Abstinence made them more worthy of the spirit.

[_Scottie]

Also, you'll notice if you read carefully, I didn't have sexual hangups, but I did feel guilty for feeling lust toward my husband. I thought sex was supposed to be spiritual, but for the life of me, it didn't seem spiritual when it was really good. So, I felt guilty. I know other women have experienced the same sexual guilt, so there must be something to the Mormon church's attitude about sex that causes people to feel body shame and sexual guilt. It's not all due to individual misinterpretation, Wade.

How, then, do you explain why many faithful members of the Church, myself not excluded, who are as aware as you of the Church's so-called attitude about sex, who do not feel body shame and sexual guilt within the bounds of holy matrimony?

The fact that there are Church members whose perceptions about marital sex are somewhat opposed to your's, should suggest to the reasonable mind that it is not so much the Church's so-called attitude that is the cause of the divergent perceptions, but the differing meanings that members place on what the Church has said. Some, like yourself, have mistakenly imposed a guilt-ridden and shamed meaning on marital sex, and others haven't. In other words, the marital guilt and bodily shame you experienced was a product of your on cognitions, not the Church's so-called attitude. Once you finally realise that, and stop wrongfully blaming the Church for your messed-up thinking, then you just may be on your way to a more healthy and functional life.

I won't hold my breath, though.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think there is probably some middle ground here. The church is not absolved of all responsibility here, but then, neither is the individual.

Each individual hears and takes to heart different things. Does that mean the church should stop preaching because someone might overanalyze it? Absolutely not. Personally, I think the metaphor of treating your body like a temple is a great one. So do many others.

However, I do believe that having members teaching the lessons with little to no training can be very dangerous. It only takes one or two over zealous teachers to do something like KA experienced.

Compiled with all the "chew this gum and spit it out. That's what you will look like to boys if you are unchaste" type of lessons can really damage a young, impressionable girl.

It's very interesting how each person takes little bits and pieces of all the teachings and comes up with their own view of what the gospel means. I'm sure that KA coupled "the body is a temple" teaching with other teachings she had taken to heart, and it caused her no small amount of trauma.

I'll give my example of some twisted thinking when I was a teen:
When you masturbate, you think impure thoughts of having sex with women.
Jesus taught that if you have committed adultery in your thoughts, it is the same as if you have done it.
It has been said that adultery is next to murder in the eyes of God.

In my twisted view of things, in God's eyes, I was no better than a murderer because I masturbated. That caused some severe emotional trauma for me. Do I blame the church? Somewhat. But I also blame myself.

[_Tarski]

I have heard similar stories over and over again in the church. I lived it with my first (Mormon) wife.
My sisters have similar problems and attitudes, and so did my ex's brothers wife (she could barely have sex with her husband because she though it chased away the spirit).

The message is that "lust (sexual arousal)" is bad and especially unseemly for women.

KA is onto something here.

[_wenglund]

I think there is probably some middle ground here. The church is not absolved of all responsibility here, but then, neither is the individual.

Each individual hears and takes to heart different things. Does that mean the church should stop preaching because someone might overanalyze it? Absolutely not. Personally, I think the metaphor of treating your body like a temple is a great one. So do many others.

However, I do believe that having members teaching the lessons with little to no training can be very dangerous. It only takes one or two over zealous teachers to do something like KA experienced.

Compiled with all the "chew this gum and spit it out. That's what you will look like to boys if you are unchaste" type of lessons can really damage a young, impressionable girl.

It's very interesting how each person takes little bits and pieces of all the teachings and comes up with their own view of what the gospel means. I'm sure that KA coupled "the body is a temple" teaching with other teachings she had taken to heart, and it caused her no small amount of trauma.

I'll give my example of some twisted thinking when I was a teen:
When you masturbate, you think impure thoughts of having sex with women.
Jesus taught that if you have committed adultery in your thoughts, it is the same as if you have done it.
It has been said that adultery is next to murder in the eyes of God.

In my twisted view of things, in God's eyes, I was no better than a murderer because I masturbated. That caused some severe emotional trauma for me. Do I blame the church? Somewhat. But I also blame myself.

I am not sure there is much value in blaming the Church or anyone else for the "twisted thinking" or the 'trauma". Fingerpointing and judgementalism is too often a fruitless exercise. Rather, I think our energies would be better served in simply "untwisting" the thinking if or when it occurs, and restoring peace and health if and when "traumas" occur. That really is the essence of my point.

Granted, it may be preferred were the Church to always have competent teachers who make comments and use metaphors not prone to misunderstanding. And, I believe the Church is moving in that direction. But, even with the Church employing professional curriculum writers and teacher training courses which lend themselves to that end, the Church is, by and large, a lay ministry populated with people from diverse backgrounds and experiences and perspectives and instructional styles, and as such, the movement towards the stated objective will be slow and fallible.

Likewise, it may be preferred were the members, themselves, to be more thoughtful and charitable in the way they interpret the instruction, and take a large measure of personal responsibility for their subsequent points of view. However, given the youthfulness of many of the minds receiving instruction--particularly those that are or have been most vulnerable to "twisting", and the fact that the vast majority of students don't read the lesson material as requested, let alone give the instruction much thought, I don't see there being much progress in this area either, at least not any time soon.

As such, that is why I think it more advantageous to deal with the "twisting" and "trauma" when it occurs, rather than get into a blame game over it. Certainly, on an internet discussion board, where there is little or no chance of affecting change on a Church-wide level, it would make more sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

As such, that is why I think it more advantageous to deal with the "twisting" and "trauma" when it occurs, rather than get into a blame game over it. Certainly, on an internet discussion board, where there is little or no chance of affecting change on a Church-wide level, it would make more sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The way I read KA's post is that she's basically gotten over it, now she's just talking about it, which is supremely appropriate on this board called Mormon Discussions. We all heard the same thing, and it wasn't the random "inept" teacher, it was teachers repeating the leaders all the way up to the top and perfectly in tune with the prophet on the subject. The church is responsible. The only way any -- and I mean 99.99%, allowing maybe .01% not hearing the crap the church teaches!! -- Mormon girl could get through her church experience growing up with a healthy attitude about sex or her body would be if she wasn't paying much attention or she had sufficient healthy influence to counteract church teachings.

My sister has mentioned a couple of her attitudes about sex, i.e., sex is God's gift for married people only and that any form of sex that can't lead to pregnancy is wrong. The church has taught her those attitudes, and the church considers those to be healthy attitudes, and they just go downhill from there.

Have I ever mentioned that when I was a freshman at BYU the text for the mandatory health class had the one-page chapter on sex totally blacked out? Sex was never mentioned in health class. I understood the infererence perfectly well and accepted it at face value.

The church also teaches that sex in marriage is holy and good, but to automatically make that transition from the "better dead than to lose one's virtue" yada yada yada is a monumental task for most of us.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

[quote="wenglund
I am not sure there is much value in blaming the Church or anyone else for the "twisted thinking" or the 'trauma". Fingerpointing and judgementalism is too often a fruitless exercise. Rather, I think our energies would be better served in simply "untwisting" the thinking if or when it occurs, and restoring peace and health if and when "traumas" occur. That really is the essence of my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

Your point, as always, is that the church should not be criticized in any way because it makes you feel bad. You might try to take a good hard look within and see if you can find some solution and resolution for yourself. We can't change anyone but ourselves.