- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
journeygirl wrote:
sex is such a basic animalistic thing
But as a basic animalistic thing, it rocks.
But I am a guy full of testosterone. I have to admit if marriage didn’t include sex, I am not sure I would get married (this ignores that I do like kids).
LookingHard wrote:I have to admit if marriage didn’t include sex, I am not sure I would get married (this ignores that I do like kids).
I’m laughing.
Why Stay Morally Clean—Boyd Packer:
Quote:
Protect and guard your gift. Your actual happiness is at stake. Eternal family life, now only in your anticipations and dreams, can be achieved because our Heavenly Father has bestowed this choicest gift of all upon you—this power of creation. It is the very key to happiness. Hold this gift as sacred and pure. Use it only as the Lord has directed.He was talking about sex being the “very key to happiness”…
Packer believed that sexual desire was the compelling reason, placed in mankind by a loving God, to compel them toward marriage. Take that compelling force away, and I certainly wouldn’t have married. I mean, think of it,…you have no attraction to anyone,..no desire. Would you choose, in this condition, to abandon your freedom and lifestyle just so you could be around someone exclusively?
I wouldn’t have married without it being a sexual relationship either. I guess I’m of the oposite side from Holland though, I don’t think there is inherently something spiritual about sex. Pigs and dogs etc. do it, rapists do it. If someone has a spiritual relationship with their partner then I can see how it could be spiritual. But I guess I just like the idea of things being better in heaven and not just a copy of earth minus the bad things. journeygirl wrote:I wouldn’t have married without it being a sexual relationship either. I guess I’m of the oposite side from Holland though, I don’t think there is inherently something spiritual about sex. Pigs and dogs etc. do it, rapists do it. If someone has a spiritual relationship with their partner then I can see how it could be spiritual. But I guess I just like the idea of things being better in heaven and not just a copy of earth minus the bad things.
I have honestly never thought of sex as spiritual or “felt the spirit” during sex. I’ve felt lots of pleasurable things, but no spirit. I remember reading that Holland things years ago and not getting it. I still don’t. I don’t dismiss that others might see it and/or experience it totally different than I do, but I’m not in the Holland camp on this one (or much else, actually).
Sex and the spirit? I think it depends on the scope of one’s definition of the spirit. The emotional aspect of it can be viewed as providing a spiritual component. For me, at least, the togethernessthat we experience falls into the realm of what I consider spirituality. On Own Now wrote:Sex and the spirit? I think it depends on the scope of one’s definition of the spirit. The emotional aspect of it can be viewed as providing a spiritual component. For me, at least, the
togethernessthat we experience falls into the realm of what I consider spirituality. Man,..go read Holland’s talk on this. After I read that, I felt dirty…just plain dirty for even having a thought about sex. Celibacy and marriage….YES! Lets keep it clean folks.
:crazy: My physical body can be said to need a sexual release. My emotional self (what I might identify as my spirit) hungers for intimacy and connectedness.
If I have the same body with the same needs in the next life then it would seem unnecessarily cruel to deny me any form of release. OTOH, if I do not have a physical body or if my body is fundamentally changed in such a way that sex is no longer a need – then I could see myself happily sustained with some form of intimacy and connectedness.
Roy wrote:My physical body can be said to need a sexual release.
My emotional self (what I might identify as my spirit) hungers for intimacy and connectedness.
If I have the same body with the same needs in the next life then it would seem unnecessarily cruel to deny me any form of release. OTOH, if I do not have a physical body or if my body is fundamentally changed in such a way that sex is no longer a need – then I could see myself happily sustained with some form of intimacy and connectedness.
A resurrected body can eat food. Jesus, on the shore of the lake ate a fish and honeycomb in front of his apostles to prove he was NOT a spirit.
Now, whether his body actually needed food is another matter, but I am of the opinion that this function, rather than sustaining ones life, probably has some other purpose. If not, why retain that function in a resurrected body?
BY taught that Adam and Eve both were born, the good old fashioned way. And, I was taught an intriguing idea (not as doctrine, but it sure made sense), that when God said he would take of these materials and make a world, and also make a man,…he and his wife went into the Garden of Eden, ate the food there and enjoyed it, and stored up in their resurrected bodies the raw materials necessary to have a child; and then there was man, made in their own image. He was born, into immortality.
Just
“food”for thought…. LOL… I agree that Mormon theology tends to emphasize the “as below, so above” concept. That is easy and comfortable because it is familiar. I tend to look at all the teachings on this subject as artistic expressions of divine communication – thought provoking, but not definitive. I am open to it being that way. I am also open to it being very different.
I try to live in such a way that the things that IMO are of the most value in this life, personal relationships, are strengthened and I have faith that these continue in some fashion into the next life.
:thumbup: Brigham Young taught a lot of things. I like and agree with some of it and don’t like or agree with some of it. Other prophets and apostles disagreed with him – and each other.
If that is okay for the top leadership, I figure it is good enough for me. In that ironic way, I am following the prophets more than those who recite their favorite quotes and ignore others – which makes them buffet Mormons, as well.
Rob4Hope wrote:A resurrected body can eat food. Jesus, on the shore of the lake ate a fish and honeycomb in front of his apostles to prove he was NOT a spirit.
Now, whether his body actually needed food is another matter, but I am of the opinion that this function, rather than sustaining ones life, probably has some other purpose. If not, why retain that function in a resurrected body?
If you were resurrected could you starve to death if you stopped eating?
It’s interesting that in Luke Jesus asks for something to eat
afterthe apostles had already handled Jesus and felt that he had a body. I guess that wasn’t enough proof so he asked for some meat ( meatmind you 
:shifty: Some argue that Jesus only ate as a way to prove to others that he had a body, otherwise he would have never eaten. In that case I’m going to be proving to lots of friends in heaven that I have a body by eating doughnuts.
Nibbler: Hey Rob, I have a body. Check it, I’m totally eating this doughnut.
Rob: Yeah, everyone has a body… and I was convinced the 100 other times you showed me.
🙄 nibbler wrote:Nibbler: Hey Rob, I have a body. Check it, I’m totally eating this doughnut.
Rob: Yeah, everyone has a body… and I was convinced the 100 other times you showed me.
🙄 LOL!!!!
I will confess something. I ran track in high-school, and I was terrible. My lungs caught on fire EVERY SINGLE TIME!
When I am finally resurrected, I want to run 100 miles at a full sprint….seriously! I really do. I want to feel whatever is happening in my body, and I want to feel my body rise up and perform the action with ease. I want to know what it feels like to have the wind rush through my hair (Hey,…do I get my hair back to?…yippeeeeee), the pounding of my feet on the ground, and all of it.
Nibbler,…we can eat doughnuts before and after as well. Wanna come with me?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.