- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was just expecting better from a man of science with intellect intact. I’d been minimizing the red flag – frequent and not very self-effacing references to his own practice of medicine. I’m beginning to sense quite an ego. Then, to boot, he’s given the mic to someone who (one kid texted me) “gives me an honest-to-gosh bad feeling.” I try to stay open-minded about, you name it, my future in the church, the future of the country, etc., but Mo-Tab will perform next week at the inauguration and these two talks will be the most current sound bites available from Mormon leaders.
I used to have this idea that doctors were scientists, had a logical, scientific mind, etc., but experience has taught me that they are not really like scientists in their grasp of non-medical scientific fields. They are perfectly capable of mocking the big bang theory (not their field) or even evolution or environmental science. hawkgrrrl wrote:I used to have this idea that doctors were scientists, had a logical, scientific mind, etc., but experience has taught me that they are not really like scientists in their grasp of non-medical scientific fields. They are perfectly capable of mocking the big bang theory (not their field) or even evolution or environmental science.
Wasn’t it Nelson who not too long ago who spoke of a very literal Adam and Eve and a literal Garden of Eden? Didn’t he assert that we couldn’t believe in the atonement without believing in a literal Adam and Eve (or something very close to that)? He lost some credibility as a “man of science” in my view that day. I used to also have the idea that doctors were scientists, but after working around many of them for a few years I recognize they are not, and some of them are real boneheads (I’m not implying that Nelson is a bonehead).
DarkJedi wrote:Wasn’t it Nelson who not too long ago who spoke of a very literal Adam and Eve and a literal Garden of Eden? Didn’t he assert that we couldn’t believe in the atonement without believing in a literal Adam and Eve (or something very close to that)?
That was Holland.
Where justice, love, and mercy meet.Quote:In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a “fortunate fall” into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death—in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter—without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.
Ok. Ok. To be fair they might be equating worldly sex with promiscuous one night stands and always seeking the next big sexual conquest. I have seen rom-coms where the two characters sleep together and then spend the next few scenes agonizing over what it meant (are they a couple now? should they use the “L” word? or was it just a booty call? etc.). This was so frustrating for me. I felt that if the relationship was not mature enough to talk about sex, and what sex means to you, and your expectations for the relationship, and your feelings and basically everything – then it was probably not mature enough to engage in the sex act. If this sort of one night stand – moment of pleasure followed by confusion and rejection is held out in one hand as worldly sex – and the sort of committed (marital) relationship with care, consideration, and respect – two becoming one – true intimacy on multiple levels is held out in the other hand as a sort of spiritual or godly sex, then what is being said and described in the devotional makes much more sense to me.
Agree, Roy…that is why I try to take these things with a grain of salt and what the true message is getting at. However, the problem with black and white presentation of extreme opposites, compounded by godly priesthood authority and obligation for rank and file obedience, is that the younger crowd this was addressed to will take these things to heart which could be confusing for young inexperienced couples trying to reconcile direction from prophets and daily life. Our church seems to go from not talking about the subject at all…to talking about sex and the holy ghost being part of it…and that is way more confusing. Kind of difficult to know what true intimacy is when it is talked about that way.
The other thought I had…”worldly” is often equated with anything outside the church. That is the problem with that kind of us vs them mentality. When in reality…many many many other people in the world have moral values in their lives and are as offended by TV shows with one night stands as some mormons.
So…the “wordly” label is adding confusion…since many groups out “in the world” preach the same things about morality standards as we do.
It isn’t black and white. Church standards by prophets vs the world where no teachings exist and anything goes. There are many shades.
A couple needs to talk about what they are comfortable with together, without fear they are revealing perverted dark corners of their soul just because they see things differently than the President of the Quorum of the 12. I know some people that have shared in church they never kissed before they were across the alter. If that works for them, great…but that is not the norm…in a godly way or wordly way…it isn’t the norm.
This might sound crass, but how old was she when she first had sex? If . . . high-energy . . . sex could break a hip or kill someone
:silent: 😈 , maybe . . . less carnal . . . sex is all she would know and, therefore, would be considered the ultimate form of intimacy.Finally, she doesn’t have ANY calling of “stewardship” in the LDS Church.
To put it bluntly, she is the absolute wrong person to be talking in any way about sexual practices – as if it would be appropriate in any church setting.
Old Timer wrote:This might sound crass, but how old was she when she first had sex?
If . . . high-energy . . . sex could break a hip or kill someone
:silent: 😈 , maybe . . . less carnal . . . sex is all she would know and, therefore, would be considered the ultimate form of intimacy.
Google search results say she was born May 31, 1950, making her 55 at her marriage to Nelson. Barring prior LoC issues, that would be the approximate age of her first sexual experience. As I alluded to before, she only has that for a frame of reference.Old Timer wrote:Finally, she doesn’t have ANY calling of “stewardship” in the LDS Church.
I agree, she doesn’t. BUT, she did address a worldwide devotional for those under 30, married and unmarried. That did give her some gravitas.
Old Timer wrote:To put it bluntly, she is the absolute wrong person to be talking in any way about sexual practices – as if it would be appropriate in any church setting.
Also agreed. I’m not saying that someone like me should go out on the lecture circuit talking about the LoC or sex in general, however I am saying she is less qualified to do so because of her limited points of reference. In this case she is essentially a modern day “scribe” (there are plenty of those in the church to go with our Pharisees). To make matters worse, she botched it and did so peaking to one of our most vulnerable audiences. I wondered yesterday about the young married woman who heard her and realized her sex with her eternal companion was not a spiritual experience. What does that do to her psyche?
hawkgrrrl wrote:Well, you don’t toot a flute. I suspect she would know that if she had ever tried. It’s not a recorder. That comment alone wins her the Tobias Funke award.
She’s got some messed up crazy ideas. I know she has bona fides as a therapist or whatever, but her strawman caricature of what “worldly sex” is like is utterly ludicrous, and her ideas about spiritual sex are fetishist.
Quote:
fet·ish noun 1. a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc. 2.an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.
In short, she cray.I was gonna say just that but would have used more words and not said it as well.
I thought she was a mite cray after reading her book about marital intimacy, written before she presumably had any. I thought the book was prefect for Mormon women who really didn’t want to have sex and needed some excuses to get out of it with their husbands, but hogwash for anyone really trying to improve their martial intimacy. And the.. audacity for a person who’d never married to write a book on marriage? Even if the book and information was good, she loses some street cred.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.