wenglund wrote: Likewise, it may be preferred were the members, themselves, to be more thoughtful and charitable in the way they interpret the instruction, and take a large measure of personal responsibility for their subsequent points of view. However, given the youthfulness of many of the minds receiving instruction--particularly those that are or have been most vulnerable to "twisting", and the fact that the vast majority of students don't read the lesson material as requested, let alone give the instruction much thought, I don't see there being much progress in this area either, at least not any time soon.
Again, a member is advocating personal responsibility for the way we think, which, as always, begs the question, "Why listen to this junk in the first place if one must use personal responsibility to critically go against it?" It's one thing to think critically and consider something objectively in the more "secular" fields; it's quite another to do so against dogmatic religious culture when doing so induces guilt as per the culture's motivation.
You have some massive denial issues, man. Pretty funny for us on the outside looking in.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
KimberlyAnn wrote: Also, you'll notice if you read carefully, I didn't have sexual hangups, but I did feel guilty for feeling lust toward my husband. I thought sex was supposed to be spiritual, but for the life of me, it didn't seem spiritual when it was really good. So, I felt guilty. I know other women have experienced the same sexual guilt, so there must be something to the Mormon church's attitude about sex that causes people to feel body shame and sexual guilt. It's not all due to individual misinterpretation, Wade.
How, then, do you explain why many faithful members of the Church, myself not excluded, who are as aware as you of the Church's so-called attitude about sex, who do not feel body shame and sexual guilt within the bounds of holy matrimony?
Because you're single and haven't experienced said situation?
KimberlyAnn wrote: Also, you'll notice if you read carefully, I didn't have sexual hangups, but I did feel guilty for feeling lust toward my husband. I thought sex was supposed to be spiritual, but for the life of me, it didn't seem spiritual when it was really good. So, I felt guilty. I know other women have experienced the same sexual guilt, so there must be something to the Mormon church's attitude about sex that causes people to feel body shame and sexual guilt. It's not all due to individual misinterpretation, Wade.
How, then, do you explain why many faithful members of the Church, myself not excluded, who are as aware as you of the Church's so-called attitude about sex, who do not feel body shame and sexual guilt within the bounds of holy matrimony?
Because you're single and haven't experienced said situation?
An excellent point, Bryan. Furthermore, I have always been under the impression that Wade's Church Court of Love had to do with something sex-related, since he has said that it had to doing with something he was doing "in private," which he feared would soon "spread" to others. Here is a bit from the thread entitled, "Wade Englund: Victim of a Church Court?"
wenglund wrote:
Dan Vogel wrote:
wenglund wrote: 2) My ecclessiastical leaders didn't need to convince me that my private acts could effect others, because I had come to that conclusion, myself. I came to that conclusion, in part, through rational and pragmatic considerations, as well as by personally observing the negative affect that my actions had on others.
So, if you recognize a problem, what do you need them for? Wade, you are not responsible for anyone but you, especially since you are single and have no children. But it is not your job to be an example for others to follow. That's way too big of a burden to put on yourself. I know Mormons constantly worry about others not accepting the gospel because of setting a bad example, but that's a load of cr*p. No one is going to go to hell because of you.
As I see it, I wouldn't have gotten myself in the mess that I did were I completely capable on my own. And, unlike some, I am not averse to being assisted. I actually welcome loving counsel, a third-party perspective, and spiritual interventions. Besides, those who were affected encompased many more people than just myself, and the impact went well beyond simply my not setting a good example. But, even were it just a matter of example, I disagree with you about it being a "load of crap". In this screwed up world we now live in, children in particular can use contemporary role models to set standards and demonstrate that those standards can be abided. They also need role models that can evince the right ways to recover from a fall and continue to run the good race.
(emphasis added)
And this:
wenglund wrote:I have no clue what you are talking about. I experienced no self-flagellation, no misery, and no hatred of the flesh. Rather, my experience was quite the opposite. It was an uplifting experience that brought me to greater respect my body, mind, and spirit, and view the same for others. The melodrama is something you are projecting onto my experience.
You are the poser, Cog. I never said the church ever taught that marital sex is wrong, but true to the first rule of intellectual dishonesty as practiced by Mormons, you find it necessary to blow my statement out of proportion and attack me personally on the basis of your allegation. It's really gotten to be such a drag.
I'm not obsessed with sex myself, but I'd rather be obsessed with having sex than obsessed by not having sex. I'll go with Krishnamurti on that subject, "do it or don't do it, just get on with it."
[/quote]
As usual, you've said absolutely nothing.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
An excellent point, Bryan. Furthermore, I have always been under the impression that Wade's Church Court of Love had to do with something sex-related, since he has said that it had to doing with something he was doing "in private," which he feared would soon "spread" to others. Here is a bit from the thread entitled, "Wade Englund: Victim of a Church Court?"
What then, does you're preoccupation with homosexuality and Gay marriage imply?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
You are the poser, Cog. I never said the church ever taught that marital sex is wrong, but true to the first rule of intellectual dishonesty as practiced by Mormons, you find it necessary to blow my statement out of proportion and attack me personally on the basis of your allegation. It's really gotten to be such a drag.
I'm not obsessed with sex myself, but I'd rather be obsessed with having sex than obsessed by not having sex. I'll go with Krishnamurti on that subject, "do it or don't do it, just get on with it."
I'm not obsessed with sex myself, but I'd rather be obsessed with having sex than obsessed by not having sex. I'll go with Krishnamurti on that subject, "do it or don't do it, just get on with it."
The Church, as a religious system, has no obsession with not having sex, nor do most of its members.
You are just as much of an intellectual poseur as Scratch Lucretia, just kinder and gentler.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Hey, Silentkid, is that new?! It's quite fitting for an apostate. :)
I don't mind tattoos, but I don't want one. My husband hates them on women, though, so I keep teasing him that I'm going to get a tramp stamp on my lower back, lol! I'm going to exmo conference without him and it would be hilarious to find a place that would airbrush a temporary one on for me. Tom would FREAK when I got home!
KA
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
