The sex thread

[_Coggins7]

I suspect that one of the main impacts of the BC pill was the reduction in the number of "premature" babies in newlyweds.

I also suspect it was the incentive for a great deal of premature sexual activity, engaged in by people who had no business, in either a moral or psychological sense, engaging in it, from whence came the "culture of death" surrounding convenience abortion on demand as the holy sacrament of the secular Left.

Oh for joy.

[_Trevor]

Actually Trevor, she was there, I was there, and as we grew up, we began to do things like read books, and study history, and think critically, and explore various theories of what occurred. Some of us, at some point, came to a conclusion different than the prevailing pop cultural received wisdom relative to that era.

I know it galls the Hell out of many people that the era and zeitgeist in which they have staked their world view and self concept is, to other people, an exercise in cultural degeneration and implies, left unchecked, the end of a free, civil society. But as I said earlier, the truth will hurt, on some occasions.

What in the world are you talking about, Coggins? Having a conversation with yourself? Speaking for charity? All of the above?

I know you find your Straussian view of the world really impressive and enlightened, but it is simply another modern view. A historical myth. Nothing particularly special about it.

Charity was making claims about extremely ancient history, which I am pretty damn sure she cannot adequately defend, given her expertise in psychology. Now you start blathering on about the 60s again. Ugh.

[_Coggins7]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but charity agrees with me, Loran. We are always required to take any revelation from our leaders to the Lord for confirmation that the revelation is from God. And it is not binding upon us, if we don't receive that confirmation. So all your pontification is useless. I'm within my stewardship to receive personal revelation about that which concerns me. And my personal inspiration Trump's everyone else's.

You're very clever in imposing your own spin on my words, but it won't work. I'm quite clear about the need to take what we are told to the Lord for confirmation if needed. That's not what you are saying here Harmony, and that's not the basis of your entire approach to the Church. You are trying to decide what the Lord's Church shall be, how it shall be run, and whether or not Christ is in it or not. You are trying to create the Church in your own self anointed image. Why in the name of hell should I or anyone else's accept Harmony's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? What is your authority? Where is your calling that allows you to decide when the Church is legitimate and when it is not? The Lord has called Prophets and Apostles for that purpose, and, last time I checked, Harmony was not one of them. You say you do not see Christ in the Church, but upon what basis should I believe that you have any idea whatever what that would look like if it was there? Who are you to make such claims? The spirit that is speaking to you is apparently a different one that the one that has spoken to me all of my life, because based upon what he's told me, your critique of the Church and the Brethren is a barrel of holy high horsenuggets.

As you slide from narcissism, to hubris, and into solipsism, make sure you take some body armor; it could be a hard landing. If your nose starts bleeding, way up there in the clouds, holding court on GBH and the other Brethren (which puts the lie to your sanctimonious hypocritical pomposity regarding my supposed presumptiveness regarding your supposed spirituality), I'm sure you can ask Fanny Alger, as she floats by playing Young Girl on her Celestial Fender Flying V, for some hankies. And while your at it, ask her for her autograph.

[_Coggins7]

I know you find your Straussian view of the world really impressive and enlightened, but it is simply another modern view. A historical myth. Nothing particularly special about it.

This is postmodernism, an artifact of that very era, and a primary example of why it ultimately spells, if left to run its course, the end of western civilization, its intellectual patrimony, and the values and progress it has brought the world. This Nietzschean epistemological cop out is not worth responding too, at least in these terms.

Charity was making claims about extremely ancient history, which I am pretty damn sure she cannot adequately defend, given her expertise in psychology. Now you start blathering on about the 60s again. Ugh.

The sixties are "ancient history"? Behold the Sony Playstation generation. The incentives and sociological dynamics the Pill created are hardly difficult to discern, unless you are a partisan of those incentives and dynamics, in which case all will certainly look rosy.

[_Moniker]

Oh, by the way, speaking of Alma, do you believe that the Book of Mormon is a record of actual historical characters and events?

And the pertinence of this is....what?

Yes, my attention is waning. Can we get back to sex, please?

[_Scottie]

Define promiscuity, please.

Now a woman who'll kiss on a very 1st date, Is usually a hussy,
And a woman who'll kiss on the second time out, Is anything but fussy,
But a woman who'll wait 'till the 3rd time around,
Head in the clouds, feet on the ground,
She's the girl he's glad he's found,
She's his Shipoopi!

[_Moniker]

Define promiscuity, please.

Now a woman who'll kiss on a very 1st date, Is usually a hussy,
And a woman who'll kiss on the second time out, Is anything but fussy,
But a woman who'll wait 'till the 3rd time around,
Head in the clouds, feet on the ground,
She's the girl he's glad he's found,
She's his Shipoopi!

Oh dear. :(

Well, I suppose this doesn't pertain to me since I don't go on dates. So, I'm good. :)

[_Tori]

And you perceive yourself to be a moral, faithful member?

I find your comments disgusting and pathetic, Charity.

\

Hey, it was Ric who said there should be premarital sex. I think men generally are pretty hypocritical about such things, and just wanted to know, since he thought it was a great idea, if he thought it was a great idea for his wife, too. That is a reasonable question to ask. And you notice, he hasn't answered, though he has responded to that post. I have a idea it is because he is stuck in a corner.

I wasn't asking for a number. He could just say, if I want to have other sexual partners before marriage, she can have the same license.

Believe me, Rick was not backed into any corner. I'm betting that Rick was a little busy on a Saturday night.

[_Trinity]

How in the world did this thread get turned into a worthiness interview for Harmony? I'm so disappointed. I've been reading a book by Spong called The Sins of Scripture and he went into great depth about how religion have historically messed with the sexes and sexuality. I had hoped to find similar context here.

[_Roger Morrison]

Charity wrote:

Immorality started with the earliest humans. What was unique with the "modern" trend was reliable birth control. The last great motivator for moral behavior was removed. Fear of pregnancy was gone, license prevailed. Not even the possiblity of contracting a fatal disease overcame that great "liberating" event.

Interesting to blame the march of scientific advancement as the cause of 'moral degeneracy'... IF i understand you correctly?? Where do you draw the line with such a supposition--science leading, not simply contributing to--'licensiousness'? Seems religious-retrogressives have attempted to defame a great number of scientific discoveries as interfering with "God's" ways?? In your mind, does "reliable birth control" serve any useful purpose?

"Immorality started with the earliest humans..." Could it have been otherwise? ;-) Anyway, how do You categorize "immorality", from the 'most' to the 'least' in your mind? Where on that scale do You place sexual-matters? I'm sure you will agree "immorality" is evidenced in things not-sexual? Warm regards, Roger

PS: Thanks Huck...