Why Me wrote:Sure there is leeway. I can understand that. But in general no bishop is going to put a young couple on probation for kissing and petting, especially if the couple are serious about each other. Can you see any bishop putting a couple on probation who are 50 and 45 years old for kissing and necking? I don't see it happening. And can you imagine this couple meeting with the bishop to discuss their progress in not kissing each other or in sharing a tender moment during a sunset?
Are we boasting? We have four daughter (+one son), beautiful, smart and all.
Four of our children are of my wife, one is my own daughter. (We have no common children, the only common are our 19 grandchildren, for the record).
They are all attractive (including the 42yo son) but they are: - too old (the youngest is 34) - someway committed (have 3-4-or_more children) - don't interested in global economics and the current crisis in Greece
Are we talking about unnatural sex? Sex is natural.
"unnatural sex of the Mormon people" ? Mormon people are unnatural, by definition.
Any other stupid question about sex?
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
I'm wondering, though, Ludwigm, how much trouble you had with hordes of horny young men visually accosting your daughters as they grew up? And I'm sure, as a responsible parent, you were appropriately upset at such a social crime. Did you cast any angry looks their way to cane them back into social uniformity?
I'm surprised my daughters ever dated when they lived at home. My husband is 6'4, and weighs 300 pounds. Whenever he answered the door, there was a genuine gulp from any young man on the other side. LOL
liz3564 wrote:I'm surprised my daughters ever dated when they lived at home. My husband is 6'4, and weighs 300 pounds. Whenever he answered the door, there was a genuine gulp from any young man on the other side. LOL
We have that goin on in our house to. It's awesome!!
Buffalo wrote:I realize I stuck my neck out here, but there's no need for you to personalize this just because you can't seem accept anything that might be critical of your faith. Save your advice, please.
The fascinating thing about this is that the defenders are desperate to deny any and all errors of judgment made by church leadership regarding their advice on intimacy in marriage. At the same time, they are more that happy to admit judgment errors made by the same men regarding other issues. Why?!
We agree these men aren't perfect, right? Why is admittance of some error so damaging to you? Is your faith that shallow?
Apparently it is that shallow.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:No, my parents never talked to me about sex at all. Everything I learned was in young men's.
Then blame your parents for not doing what was their job. I don't think the church should be doing that job. I think it's right for them to preach chastity, but teaching children about sex is the job of parents.
So you think my parents should have been there to counteract the church's dysfunctional teachings about sex? I agree, but my wife's mother was very open about sex, and she ended up the same as me - feeling guilty on our honeymoon.
You can't pound into kids' heads every Sunday that sex is the sin next to murder without there being some fallout come time to switch to sex mode. I think the young women have it worse than the boys. Boys are mostly made to feel guilty about jerking off. Girls get the whole "licked cupcake" thing. Their "virtue" (which in Mormon terms actually means virginity, NOT chastity) is taught as the key to their self worth. They don't emphasize forgiveness when they give those chastity lessons.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I'm still chuckling about this use of the term "natural". We have always been taught to stay clear of the natural man. Rise above him. Be better than the natural man.
Then, we are confronted with the term "unnatural sexual practices." What are we to do with such conflicts in terminology?
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
zeezrom wrote:I'm still chuckling about this use of the term "natural". We have always been taught to stay clear of the natural man. Rise above him. Be better than the natural man.
Then, we are confronted with the term "unnatural sexual practices." What are we to do with such conflicts in terminology?
I'm going to do my best to avoid the natural man from now on. I'm having a bionic pelvis installed Wednesday. :p
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I think the term "natural man" is similar to the Hobbsian view of the uncivilized savage that must tame his urges or wind up killing or being killed unless a governing force controls him internal or external). Yet people more into Rousseau may cringe when they hear denunciations of the "natural man" because that view sees the human in a state of nature and ultimately being innocent of vice unless an authority comes along and tries to repress him.
So yeah, we see the term "natural" used to condemn what is seen as hedonistic yet used to portray heterosexual sex as the norm by saying it is "natural." I can see where this can cause confusion.