posted
I'm currently taking a class titled "Religion and Human Sexuality", and we've just gotten to LDS.
I just have to say, wow. So many things about the religion I didn't expect. I think the TA put it best: "A lot of people think LDS is a Christian religion just like all the others. Well, it is a Christian religion, but definitely not like all the others."
My head is still trying to get around the whole "Telestial, Terestrial, Celestial Kingdoms". Don't know if it's appropriate to say this about a religion, but very cool.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I thought when I heard about the teachings of the Church. A year and a few months later, I was baptized. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to sound snide or stupid, but does that mean God has gender, or God has intercourse? I'm asking honestly.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hate to sound snide or stupid, but does that mean God has gender, or God has intercourse? I'm asking honestly.
The latter, He's referred to as our Heavenly Father, so He's clearly a "he". The question is intercourse, of which I'm sure He has no desire to talk to us about.
posted
Well, the professors didn't so much say that God has sex. Rather, they said that the fact that God produces "spirit babies" implies He has some sort of "spirit intercourse".
As opposed to creating people out of dust or clay.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
RE: Javert: The key word there is "implies" There are certainly many other possible interpretations, and the question is considered too disrespectful to even address.
RE: Tom: The LDS Church is an organization designed to serve God and better humanity. God isn't a member of it, any more than a celebrity would be a member of his own fan club
We do believe that intelligent beings (like us) have existed forever. However, we existed in a very simple form that is lesser than a "spirit" or a "soul". The process of "creating our spirits" (whatever that might have involved) is not what made us exist at all, but it is what made us a part of this particular creation.
posted
"the question is considered too disrespectful to even address"
Seriously, why would this be? If God had sex, why would He be sheepish, ashamed, or otherwise unwilling to admit it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the key lesson I'm going to take from this class is what our Professor said on the first day: when you think you know something about a religion, it usually turns out you don't know anything at all. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, why would this be? If God had sex, why would He be sheepish, ashamed, or otherwise unwilling to admit it?
When the only explanations you can come up with are "sheepish", "ashamed", and "unwilling to admit it", it demonstrates a mindset so different from LDS thought that I hardly know where to begin
Actually, I wonder, Tom ... can YOU think of a reason why a god or a religion might draw a respectful boundary around that god's sexual nature that is NOT pejorative in some way?
EDIT: And I should point out, by the way, that I asserted nothing about God's personal feelings about sexuality. Since I'm not God, I don't feel qualified to speak for Him. What I asserted was that most Mormons consider discussions of God's sexuality to be disrespectful. Reread the post if you're uncertain.
posted
I'm taking a page right out of Tom's own debate playbook, actually
In truth, though, I think he was being a bit disingenuous by asserting only pejorative or contemptible-sounding explanations for the Mormon attitude. I want to give him another shot at it, hoping he'll surprise me with a bit of respect, before I continue the discussion.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:it was my impression that LDS doctrine does not teach that God creates our souls, but rather that our souls have always pre-existed.
It's an issue of semantics. In LDS terminology, our intelligence has always existed. God took our intelligence and gave it a spirit body, hence we became his spirit children. He then created this earth so that we could add a physical body to our spiritual body. In LDS theology, the spirit and the physical body (presumably along with our eternal intelligence) form the human soul.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do onto others as you expect they'll do onto you?
I would think that in a thread who's title is "crash course in LDS" it might be more benificial to offer explanations to the group at large than to mess with one person. In spite of his post count, Tom isn't the vast majority of people here posting or lurking. Is your current approach really the attitude you want the rest of us to attribute to the subject matter in this thread?
Posts: 98 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"can YOU think of a reason why a god or a religion might draw a respectful boundary around that god's sexual nature that is NOT pejorative in some way?"
No, not really; historically, religions that are impressed with their gods' sexual prowess aren't quiet about it. Then again, I have trouble understanding the concept of "respectful boundaries;" we've had that discussion about the LDS interpretation of the word "sacred" before, in which I've explained that Mormons treat things they consider sacred the exact same way I'd treat something of which I was deeply ashamed.
posted
So Tom, Does this mean that you freely discuss the details of your sex life with anyone and everyone? If not does this mean you are ashamed or embarassed?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm probably a bad person to answer that question. Because, well, yeah. I don't generally go volunteering information -- mainly to avoid offending others, not to spare my own sensibilities -- but I won't shut down anyone's speculation on the topic, either.
posted
Whether or not God has sex (in some weird, spiritual way) just simply doesn't matter. It doesn't change what we believe, but to some people, it changes perspective, since for some reason, people believe that sex is an absolutely dirty and evil thing that God couldn't possibly be involved in because, well, God.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is there anything at all in your relationship with Christy that you consider personal enough that you are selective in the way you talk about it. Is there anything in your life that has such strong emotions attached to it, that you rarely talk about it? Or are shame and embarassment the only emotions your feel strongly enough that they effect the way you act?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Is there anything in your life that has such strong emotions attached to it, that you rarely talk about it?"
I can't think of anything like this that isn't associated with a bad emotion. Every good emotion I've ever had is not something I'd balk at describing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fascinating as are Tom's views on spirituality, I'm actually rather more interested in Javert's class. What religions have you studied so far? Is there anything of particular interest besides what you've already mentioned about the LDS?
Just curious about the origional topic.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cow, you're getting ahead of yourself. I don't think any lurkers are going to freak out during the very brief span of time during which Tom and I can exchange several posts.
I'm also not comfortable with the tactic Tom used — expressing his impression of my beliefs in pejorative terms to goad me into a hurried, reactive response. That tactic attempts to use my fear that onlookers will "get the wrong impression" against me, and I've seen it too many times to jump at it anymore.
Now, to actually address Tom — your issue with the way Mormons handle sacredness and respect is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote, "it demonstrates a mindset so different from LDS thought that I hardly know where to begin."
The way you handle your own feelings of shame is very much your own, and it would be rather narrow-minded of you, were you to assume that because you think and behave a certain way, that must mean that other people have the same motivations.
It is not uncommon for Mormons to broadcast their own weaknesses and struggles, both to limited audiences (confessing sins to leaders, spouses, and wronged parties) and to large ones (testimony meetings, constant public speaking obligations, blessing ordinances). While there is a lot of variety in our individual personalities, on the whole we are unusually open about things that you might consider personal and private. Sharing such things can actually be rather cathartic under the right circumstances.
However, we are also ingrained with the idea that you show respect by "not casting pearls before swine". No offense is intended by that quote, of course ... the idea is just that when something matters a lot to you, you keep it to yourself and bring it out only at the right occasion.
We treat the name of God with respect this way. When a Mormon refers to Christ, you will usually hear him use titles ("Christ", "The Savior", "The Redeemer") rather than the name Jesus. And you never hear the Southern Baptist rendition of "JEEEEE-SUS!" from our pulpits. We actually kind of cringe a bit when we hear it. That doesn't imply shame. Just respect.
We do the same thing with personal spiritual experiences, with patriarchal blessings, and of course, with temple rituals. If something is truly meaningful, spiritually, then it is not to be waved around like a banner. It is to be kept close and precious. Shame never comes into it.
That may not be the way you do things, Tom, but I've never thought of "Tom-ish-ness" as being a particularly important gauge of the validity of a custom
And since you have discussed this with Mormons before, and DO have a sense of how we feel about these things, I'm sort of extra-disappointed that you jumped to the "shame" conclusion, knowing full well that it was wrong.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curiously, that helps me understand many things about you.
For me, and I believe many other deeply religious people, the best most joyous momments of my life are so deepy emotional that I lack the words to talk about them. When I recall them or try to share them, I am as likely to cry as laugh and curiously tears and laughter may come together as expression not of two different feeling but of one which is so strong that i have no way to release it.
Many, if not all of those samethings can be said about my sexual relationship with my husband. I keep trying to go into more detail, and find that it is simply to personal for me to share.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No offense is intended by that quote, of course ... "
You know, I really, really have trouble believing that. It's like saying, "There's no point in teaching an idiot," then trying to explain to someone that it's just an aphorism that isn't meant to imply anything. *grin*
I suspect that people who use the "pearls before swine" line may not consciously intend offense, but I think there's an implied "us (the deserving) vs. them (the swine)" which cannot help but offend. Especially since the implication is not that it's just not worth casting pearls before swine, but that the pearls themselves might be damaged by the casting.
------
For what it's worth, Geoff, I figured it out when you asked for the clarification. And I figured that you'd figure that I figured, which is why I wasn't more explicit about it. *grin*
So help me God, though, I really don't ever want to default to the "it's important to me, so I'm going to hide it under a bushel" line of thinking.
Rabbit's point -- that some emotions are so strong that they're simply not possible to express -- is not something that I've ever experienced.
quote:And since you have discussed this with Mormons before, and DO have a sense of how we feel about these things, I'm sort of extra-disappointed that you jumped to the "shame" conclusion, knowing full well that it was wrong.
Now you are doing the samething you are accusing Tom of doing. It is fairly clear that Tom has never felt the kind of emotions I associate with sacredness. If he hasn't felt it himself it is hardly surprising that he is sceptical that such feelings really exist.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, do you realize that "casting pearls before swine" isn't a phrase that Geoff made up? Geoff didn't pick the animal.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Porter, I know that. I also know that it's a very common phrase in some religious circles that gets used every time we discuss the nature of "sacredness" on this site. And I'm also pointing out that it's inherently offensive, even though no one I've ever heard use it has -- I believe -- consciously intended offense.
posted
I don't believe I said that we would freak out. Only that you're manner towards Tom might not be the manner in you want us (or me) to associate with asking questions about your faith.
Instead of being goaded into a hurried, reactionary response, you went for what, exactly? You certainly appeared to be jumping from here. Certainly not an attempt to answer the question.
Though, now you have tried to explain it, I think. Thank you, I was also wondering why it would be considered disrespectful.
Any particular reason you swapped names? Or are you also wandering between computers?
Posts: 98 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Folks, let's not degenerate to accusations. There are always people who find other people's faith amusing. Like the poor (in the New Testament saying) they are always with us.
Our doctrine is that God has a gender; and that God, like all celestial beings, is married - male and female joined together. Some people get weird about that and start praying to "heavenly mother," but that's not how Jesus taught us to pray. Still, the doctrine is that while marriages must be performed on earth, in the mortal flesh, they continue to exist, among the righteous, in heaven.
But what activities are performed there and how spirit children are created is (a) a matter of pure speculation and (b) none of our business. If it ever becomes our business, I'm sure we'll be told.
All this talk about respect comes down to this: Common decency requires that good people refrain from mocking the sacred beliefs of others, at least not to their faces. Mocking Mormonism and Mormon beliefs on my website is most definitely in my face. I ask you now to stop it. Smirking references to God having sex are in such appallingly bad taste as to embarrass everyone on your behalf.
And not just because it's God we're talking about. For heaven's sake, smirking references to specific people on this board having sex would be in appallingly bad taste, because it's private and none of your business. Of course people have sex. But generally speaking, we don't do it in the road. It's not a spectator sport, and as long as we maintain the veil of decency around our activities, then we are entitled not to have it be a matter of public discussion.
The pertinent matter - about LDS views of sexuality - is that we are a Christian religion that regards chastity, not as "abstinence" in a monkish sense, but as "appropriateness." We are merely amused by Paul's admonition that he wishes we could all be "as he is" - single.
Mormons believe that people should marry and make babies - multiply, and replenish the earth. We may seem ascetic in our abstinence from various addictive substances, and downright sacrificial in the tithes we pay, but within the institution of marriage, we see nothing base or evil in taking part in the act of procreation - whether it leads to actual procreation or not.
In this respect we run counter to the whole philosophy that sex is for procreation only. We may have roots in New England puritanism as a society, but as a religion we vote yes to the survival of the species.
posted
Tom, If you posted a picture of your lovely wife on the internet and trolls came by regularly and wrote rude, obscene and insulting things in response to the picture -- would you be tempted to take the site down? If so, would it be because you're ashamed of your wife.
Maybe taking the picture down wouldn't be your response, but certainly you can understand why many people would respond that way.
Somethings are simply so valuable to us that it hurts to see them mocked or even undervalued. We learn with time, to share those things only with those who we believe will value them as we do.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this thread has certainly taken an interesting turn.
To answer your question Law Maker, so far we've touched on Taoism, Hindu, Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism (which, I know, is not really one religion at all), Islam, and right now we're on LDS. We're going to cover Paganism/Wicca, and then more broadly the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
I think the most interesting aspect is that, as far as doctrine is concerned, the eastern religions are more split between abstinence and sexuality, whereas the western religions seem to tend to make one choice or another. I think that specifically comes from there not being as much a sense of "good and bad" in, say, Buddhism as there is in the Abrahamic religions.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this respect we run counter to the whole philosophy that sex is for procreation only. We may have roots in New England puritanism as a society, but as a religion we vote yes to the survival of the species.
That raises an interesting question. Does your god produce precisely the number of spirit children required to match human population growth? Or is there, as 'twere, a waiting list of spirits wanting to be given a body? If the former, it would seem a bit odd that humans could, if they chose, dictate that your god would have no more children.
Also, if the spirit child happens to be given a body that is aborted, does he get another chance? I would think the amount you can learn in a few weeks inside a womb would be rather limited.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We believe that all the people who will ever live on the earth were created spiritually before the earth was made. Actually, not just the people but everything in the earth was created spiritually before the earth was made.
It is not clear whether that means that God has stopped creating new spirits or the spirits he is creating now will be born on some yet to be created earth or if the whole question is mute because God and his spirit beings don't live in linear time where questions like before and after make any sense.
The question about children who are aborted (naturally or through human intervention) has never been clearly answered. Perhaps the best clue we have to answer this question is that babies that are miscarried are not sealed to their parents in the temple. This could indicate that they get a second chance. It could also just be a convenience issue and those sealings will be done at some future date.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We believe that God has created countless earths peopled with His children. My understanding is that this is not the first and probably not the last. It is my personal opinion that our God will continue creating earths peopled with His offspring forever.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, do not Jews avoid saying or writing out the full name of God? Do you think the are doing it out of shame?
I think treating things sacred is a dying art. Few seem to understand it anymore.
Not to threadjack, but I was having a conversation with a very religious friend of mine a few months ago (she's one of those non-denominational Jesus Freak people) who was quite upset because apparently I have a nasty habit of taking The Lord's Name in Vain. I had to explain to her that God has a name, and that in the Old Testament (as it was written in Hebrew for Jews) everyone was aware of this and most people knew his name. (Nevermind the fact that as far as I know no one has any idea how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton.) As God had a name, it was viewed that using it invoked his presence. It would strike me as being an astoundingly bad idea to irritate God. I can imagine him having the Celestial equivalent of a cell phone ringing every time someone mentioned his name. Man that would suck. I'd throw down some commandments too.
She asserted that the name of God is "God" or "Jesus" or "Christ." I was kind of flabbergasted by that. The fact that Christ's name is sacred I can totally buy, but the name of God is God? I thought of it more as a title. Like saying "Professor" instead of "Bob" (given your proffesor's name is Bob).
posted
My biggest thought in response to your post is that although I don't know what a "non-denominational Jesus Freak" is, it sounds like a pretty disrespectful way to refer to a "friend".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
just to make it really clear for the sticklers out there
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
