For a temple believing Mormon though, they may help to give one pause before one has an adulterous affiar. One last chance to reconsider before one removes their garment.
Temple believing Mormons do not have affairs. The g's have no bearing on that; other factors (love of spouse, covenants, oaths, maybe...) but if a Mormon gets to the point where he/she's having an affair, he/she's not a temple believing Mormon.
As for garment-wearing Mormons who do have affairs, the g's are no deterrant, and instead often serve as a turn-on (naughty, naughty!). Anyone who thinks the g's are a deterrant has never really asked someone who's walked on the wild side. That's another of those convenient "lies" our dear leaders tell us, because they so desperately want to believe it themselves.
I have a gay friend who tells me that back in his hedonistic youth, a lot of his Mormon partners (he slept around back then) thought taking the garments off was a turn-on for just that reason (it's forbidden). As he put it, "I've never put on garments before, but I've sure taken a lot of them off."
Coggins7 wrote:The rather large corpus of statements and teachings by church leaders regarding the overarching importance of woman and their unique roles in the Church are carefully stepped over lest we get our feet wet, and a completely artificial view of woman's position in the Church, and in the restored gospel is spun out of whole, if rough PC cloth.
Do you include in that "corpus" this infamous statement attributed to Heber C. Kimball, a member of the FP?:
"I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow."
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Coggins7 wrote:The rather large corpus of statements and teachings by church leaders regarding the overarching importance of woman and their unique roles in the Church are carefully stepped over lest we get our feet wet, and a completely artificial view of woman's position in the Church, and in the restored gospel is spun out of whole, if rough PC cloth.
Do you include in that "corpus" this infamous statement attributed to Heber C. Kimball, a member of the FP?:
"I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow."
Last night my daughter was explaining to me that the highest calling in life was to be able to bear children. How sad that she's been told that nothing else matters as long as she can bear children and be righteous. I wonder what she would think of HCK's statement. I read one of my ancestors' diaries, and she spoke of having arrived alone in Salt Lake City, and Brother Brigham immediately assigned her to marry a much older man in Fillmore. That sounds like what you would do with a cow.
Frankly, I do think the motherhood is the highest role anyone can achieve here on earth or in the next life.
There is a big difference, however, than being a mother and simply bearing children.
Whether or not you are able to bear children is a biological function. A good friend of mine is a wonderful mother. She was not able to have children of her own, and adopted two.
I think that culturally, this is where the Church messes up. The emphasis needs to be more on parenting...not on a biological function.
Raising a family is one of the most noble, rewarding things you can do. Unfortunately, it's highly under-rated...both in the Church and out.
liz3564 wrote:Frankly, I do think the motherhood is the highest role anyone can achieve here on earth or in the next life.
There is a big difference, however, than being a mother and simply bearing children.
Whether or not you are able to bear children is a biological function. A good friend of mine is a wonderful mother. She was not able to have children of her own, and adopted two.
I think that culturally, this is where the Church messes up. The emphasis needs to be more on parenting...not on a biological function.
Raising a family is one of the most noble, rewarding things you can do. Unfortunately, it's highly under-rated...both in the Church and out.
I agree that parenthood, not just motherhood, is the highest role anyone can achieve on earth or in the next life, if there is one. It's the idea that simply being able to bear children is the primary reason for one's existence is highly troubling to me.
How about the young man serving in the peace corps teaching families to get water and farm? How about the woman who gave up a brilliant career so she could go the the poorest parts of Viet Nam to teach children english? How about Mother Teresa? How about the millions of people throughout the world doing their very best to bring goodness to our world, help the needy, feed the hungry. Are their lives any less valuable? Are there choices any less nobel?
I'm a huge fan of parenting, BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER, and of course it is a nobel and honorable option for our life but I do not want to negate those who make other choices who bring enormous value, peace, kindness to this world.
I think of those who choose not to have children because they want to help those children already here. I think of those who work hard for a living and donate all their funds to keeping the starving children throughout the world alive.
Ya know?
Why is being a mother more noble than other choices? Including being a father? Healing our world in ways that do not require the birthing of children?
How about the young man serving in the peace corps teaching families to get water and farm? How about the woman who gave up a brilliant career so she could go the the poorest parts of Viet Nam to teach children english? How about Mother Teresa? How about the millions of people throughout the world doing their very best to bring goodness to our world, help the needy, feed the hungry. Are their lives any less valuable? Are there choices any less nobel?
I'm a huge fan of parenting, BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER, and of course it is a nobel and honorable option for our life but I do not want to negate those who make other choices who bring enormous value, peace, kindness to this world.
I think of those who choose not to have children because they want to help those children already here. I think of those who work hard for a living and donate all their funds to keeping the starving children throughout the world alive.
Ya know?
Why is being a mother more noble than other choices? Including being a father? Healing our world in ways that do not require the birthing of children?
~dancer~
Point well taken. :)
I think that all of these roles are important because they are being nurturers.
They are still showing aspects of parenting/nurturing roles.
I think that this should be emphasized more than it is.
A few days ago I was reading the new Missionary Handbook-the "White Bible" for missionaries.
There is a section about dressing and grooming. Under Elders it goes right into a sub heading about suits and white shirts.
The first sub heading under Sisters is....MODESTY.
Now is it just women who can dress immodestly? This really bugged me.
I think you're absolutely right, Jason. I recall reading an article by a Feminist critic named Kaja Silverman who argued that male attire actually functions, in a subtle, theoretical way, to help "unify" men as a gender. Women, with their greater variety of choices in terms of what to wear, wind up being more "diffuse," and less cohesive as a sex. In other words, women are split up into more groups simply on account of what they wear. It was an intriguing theory, in my opinion.