Mormonism Manufactures Consequences for Sin

[_maklelan]

I'm not bitching, mak, but I am calling you on the idea that the church has provided resources to help parents. That's just not true. To suggest that I'd be complaining either way is not only irrelevant but highly insulting. As a parent, I would have loved to have had access to some church-approved materials regarding sexuality. But there are none, despite your earlier post.

Sure, there are unofficial resources, but given what you stated above, that the church prefers silence, is it surprising at all that parents also prefer silence?

I know it's not you bitching, but if the church was pro-active about defining a healthy sexual relationship I'd still be hear being told how bad the church is for doing it. And if parents are silent about it then they are responsible should their child develop problems that stem from a poor understanding. They know the responsibility is theirs, and they shouldn't expect to have a manual from the church that tells them how to do everything as a parent.

[_Runtu]

I know it's not you bitching, but if the church was pro-active about defining a healthy sexual relationship I'd still be hear being told how bad the church is for doing it. And if parents are silent about it then they are responsible should their child develop problems that stem from a poor understanding. They know the responsibility is theirs, and they shouldn't expect to have a manual from the church that tells them how to do everything as a parent.

If it's not the church's responsibility to teach people positive sexuality, it is also none of their business to teach negative things about sexuality, which they do in abundance. That's my problem: there's nothing but negative from the church, when they could be making a positive difference.

My guess is that most parents do indeed know that the responsibility is theirs and are following the church's example by teaching the negative almost exclusively. I know my parents did.

[_maklelan]

If it's not the church's responsibility to teach people positive sexuality, it is also none of their business to teach negative things about sexuality, which they do in abundance.

I think that's a false analogy. The church's responsibility is to help avoid sin. Certain things are black and white, but other situations are contingent upon several factors that the church can't account for in an Ensign article. We're told to seek out the Spirit.

That's my problem: there's nothing but negative from the church, when they could be making a positive difference.

My guess is that most parents do indeed know that the responsibility is theirs and are following the church's example by teaching the negative almost exclusively. I know my parents did.

I think that's an example of not following the spirit and expecting the church to spoon feed you everything. It is not good to be commanded in all things.

[_Runtu]

I think that's a false analogy. The church's responsibility is to help avoid sin. Certain things are black and white, but other situations are contingent upon several factors that the church can't account for in an Ensign article. We're told to seek out the Spirit.

Hmmm. I thought it was about inviting people to come to Christ and be perfected in Him. Is that solely about avoiding sin?

So, it's OK for Elder Nelson to decry "dirty talk" between married adults because that's sinful, but it's not OK for him to speak at all about positive sexuality?

I think that's an example of not following the spirit and expecting the church to spoon feed you everything. It is not good to be commanded in all things.

Now you're starting to get me a little mad. I never needed or wanted the church to "spoon feed" me in any way. Some guidance--any guidance--would have been appreciated. You're the one who insisted the church had available resources, and now that you have shown no evidence that any resources are in fact available, you're reduced to justifying the lack thereof to my desire to be commanded in all things. It's as if your failure to prove your point is really a personal failing on my part. To what end are you doing this? To win an argument? I like you, mak, but I hope you consider what it is you're saying here.

[_maklelan]

I think that's a false analogy. The church's responsibility is to help avoid sin. Certain things are black and white, but other situations are contingent upon several factors that the church can't account for in an Ensign article. We're told to seek out the Spirit.

So, it's OK for Elder Nelson to decry "dirty talk" between married adults because that's sinful, but it's not OK for him to speak at all about positive sexuality?

I didn't say that it's not ok to speak positively about sex, but the church is trying to be cautious about it because it is such a subjective thing.

I think that's an example of not following the spirit and expecting the church to spoon feed you everything. It is not good to be commanded in all things.

Now you're starting to get me a little mad. I never needed or wanted the church to "spoon feed" me in any way. Some guidance--any guidance--would have been appreciated. You're the one who insisted the church had available resources, and now that you have shown no evidence that any resources are in fact available, you're reduced to justifying the lack thereof to my desire to be commanded in all things. It's as if your failure to prove your point is really a personal failing on my part. To what end are you doing this? To win an argument? I like you, mak, but I hope you consider what it is you're saying here.

I didn't mean to address you personally. I apologize, it was intended to address those people in general who want to be told how to do everything.

I personally don't think it's that difficult, as a Mormon, to find helpful resources on how to deal with sexuality. All of the people with whom I've personally talked about the subject have reached identical conclusions as me. When I am in leadership positions I do what I can to direct people with questions to appropriate resources, and I try to help them search for answers in the proper contexts. Do I think there should be more of this in the church? Of course, but that's not the fault of the church.

[_Runtu]

I didn't say that it's not ok to speak positively about sex, but the church is trying to be cautious about it because it is such a subjective thing.

Of course it's sensitive. Again, that hasn't stopped them from speaking out against oral sex (last I checked, FP letters go through correlation) and sensual talk between married adults. Do you consider those things sinful?

I didn't mean to address you personally. I apologize, it was intended to address those people in general who want to be told how to do everything.

Again, nobody's asking to be told how to do everything. But we get guidance and counsel from church leaders on myriads of subjects, from when we should get married to how many earrings we should have. But in the one area that not only is considered sacred but is central to the plan of salvation, we get nothing.

I personally don't think it's that difficult, as a Mormon, to find helpful resources on how to deal with sexuality. All of the people with whom I've personally talked about the subject have reached identical conclusions as me. When I am in leadership positions I do what I can to direct people with questions to appropriate resources, and I try to help them search for answers in the proper contexts. Do I think there should be more of this in the church? Of course, but that's not the fault of the church.

How did you find out about these resources? Did the church recommend them, or did you find out on your own?

[_Yoda]

Do I think there should be more of this in the church? Of course, but that's not the fault of the church.

Then exactly whose fault is it?

OK, Mak, that was a cheap shot, but you opened the door. ;)

I'm not trying to lay blame on the Church here, but I do think that there is room for improvement in this area. Obviously, you do as well.

All Runtu was doing was pointing out that this is an area of instruction that needs to be addressed. I think you put on your defensive armor too early.

I would also be curious as to what resources you are directing members to. Wouldn't it be helpful to you, as a bishopric member, to recommend Church published material?

[_Runtu]

Do I think there should be more of this in the church? Of course, but that's not the fault of the church.

Then exactly whose fault is it?

OK, Mak, that was a cheap shot, but you opened the door. ;)

I'm not trying to lay blame on the Church here, but I do think that there is room for improvement in this area. Obviously, you do as well.

All Runtu was doing was pointing out that this is an area of instruction that needs to be addressed. I think you put on your defensive armor too early.

I would also be curious as to what resources you are directing members to. Wouldn't it be helpful to you, as a bishopric member, to recommend Church published material?

My guess is that if Mak and other church leaders are recommending non-church-approved materials, they are doing so on their own without church instruction to do so. I would be very surprised if the church provided its leaders with a list of non-church-published materials for recommendation on this subject, but I could be wrong.

So, Mak, am I wrong here, or can you tell me that you have been given instruction to refer people to the available materials? If so, how did you determine which materials to recommend?

[_maklelan]

Of course it's sensitive. Again, that hasn't stopped them from speaking out against oral sex (last I checked, FP letters go through correlation) and sensual talk between married adults. Do you consider those things sinful?

My wife is not comfortable with talking dirty, so I don't do it. Please, provide an example of the current first presidency making definitive statements about these two practices.

Again, nobody's asking to be told how to do everything. But we get guidance and counsel from church leaders on myriads of subjects, from when we should get married to how many earrings we should have. But in the one area that not only is considered sacred but is central to the plan of salvation, we get nothing.

Because each couple is supposed to figure that out for themselves.

How did you find out about these resources? Did the church recommend them, or did you find out on your own?

I found out on my own, but several bishops have been very helpful.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Do I think there should be more of this in the church? Of course, but that's not the fault of the church.

Then exactly whose fault is it?

OK, Mak, that was a cheap shot, but you opened the door. ;)

I'm not trying to lay blame on the Church here, but I do think that there is room for improvement in this area. Obviously, you do as well.

All Runtu was doing was pointing out that this is an area of instruction that needs to be addressed. I think you put on your defensive armor too early.

I would also be curious as to what resources you are directing members to. Wouldn't it be helpful to you, as a bishopric member, to recommend Church published material?

My guess is that if Mak and other church leaders are recommending non-church-approved materials, they are doing so on their own without church instruction to do so. I would be very surprised if the church provided its leaders with a list of non-church-published materials for recommendation on this subject, but I could be wrong.

So, Mak, am I wrong here, or can you tell me that you have been given instruction to refer people to the available materials? If so, how did you determine which materials to recommend?

I had no sex instruction before I was married. I knew nothing about it at all, except that it was forbidden before marriage and what my Young Women's leader told me about it. Here's her nugget of wisdom: "Sex hurts at first, then it gets pretty good, but after you've had it a while, you get tired of it. Kind of like chocolate." That is all I knew about sex. I didn't know women could even have orgasms until I was a senior in high school. I heard it from a friend. Luckily, I found out for myself after I got married, and probably because I had a convert husband who wasn't as uptight sexually as I was. I admitted to my soon-to-be husband that I was afraid I'd disappoint him, and he told me to read up on sex, so I got some books and WOW! did I read! We've had ups and downs in our marriage, for certain, but we've always been sexually compatible and open with one another, in my opinion primarily because of my husband being raised a non-Mormon.

I don't really blame the church directly for my lack of sex instruction. My uptight mother, who carried the shame of being a licked cupcake, was afraid to talk with me, I think. If she made sex sound appealing, I might have been a licked cupcake, too. My mother ended up marrying a non-member and felt unworthy to enter the temple because of her failure to maintain chastity until marriage. After I had been married in the temple and convinced her she'd paid enough for her sin she finally went to the temple with me and took out her endowments. She was so disgusted by her experience there, she never went back and later told me the temple was the beginning of the end of her testimony. My mother left the church several months after I did.

Like Runtu, I heard mostly negatives about sex from the church and felt dirty for wanting sex. They didn't tell me or any of the other girls in my class that sexual urges were God-given. We learned the power to procreate and make bodies for spirit babies was God-given, but I didn't experience urges as a young woman to have babies. I wanted sex. So I constantly felt dirty and guilty.

I'm so glad my daughters won't ever experience the guilt I did as a young woman.

KA