Mormonism Manufactures Consequences for Sin

[_Coggins7]

What source from Argentina are you referring to? There are a number of sources, some of them quite large (such as the Howard Center and Heritage) from which one could spend a great deal of time studying the relevant material. I should ask, I suppose, what's wrong with social scientists from Argentina, but I won't.

Move on, nothing to see here.

[_Coggins7]

No wonder you hate cohabitation/premarital sex so much: it makes thing 'difficult' for your "most precious and dear and sacred" Church.

I hate cohabitation so much because its immoral and a gross violation of God's commandments, imposing dysfunction and psychological/social/spiritual pathology upon future generations and present society as a whole. You, having no moral compass yourself and being "without God in the world", do not, of course, perceive such dynamics at work.


I do.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins, you call me a liberal, yet here are my positions on issues sure to be near and dear to you (though only generally stated):

1. I oppose abortion (though content to let Rowe v. Wade stand, although again I favor parental notification laws)
2. I am fiscally conservative and distrustful of large government; I prefer balanced budgets to deficits
3. I ardently support capitalism, not only because it promotes growth better than any other economic system, but because I also believe in economic freedom
4. I will vote Republican if I judge the candidate better than the Democrat
5. I think political correctness goes to silly extremes; and I believe offensive speech should be protected
6. If it's Hillary vs. Mitt, as of now, I'd probably vote for Mitt.
7. I believe in globalism and free trade; I generally oppose trade restrictions
8. I believe the tax burden to be too high and would like to see it reduced and the system simplified

I could go on, but I think you'll see that I do not fit in your image of a "typical" liberal, so do us both a favor and quit pigeon-holing me into your cartoonish liberal stereotype, which clearly does not apply across the board to me (and I'm guessing to most of your opponents on this board)

Well, welcome to the club...except on the Gospel and, apparently, the moral and metaphysical aspects of human sexuality.
You sound like somewhat of a Libertarian combined with elements of social conservatism, much like myself.

I guess we can agree to disagree on a few points. The only point above I do take issue with is your claim that "and I'm guessing to most of your opponents on this board" regarding certain others. I dissent. There are some petal-to-the-metal leftists here, and they know who they are and so do I. My mistake with you was my own fault, as I do remember you taking sides with me on some other issues.

I bow in abject sackcloth.

[_maklelan]

As to evidence that the Church's teachings on sexuality are free of "psychological and sociological consequences", of course they're not. Are they damaging in any way? Of course not.

There appears to be some reason to question this conclusion. Taken from another thread:

According to the article "Husband-wife Similarity in Response to Erotic Stimuli" (Journal of Personality, Vol. 43, Issue 3, p. 385-394), those with more restrictive, more negative, and more authoritarian views of sexuality are more aroused by pornographic stimuli. The article "Sexual Guilt and Religion" (The Family Coordinator, Vol. 28, Issue 3, p. 353-357) discusses a study showing that while sexual guilt is more influential than religion in predicting sexual attitudes and behavior, "the more frequently [people] attend church, the more likely they are to have high sexual guilt which interferes with their sexuality." In other words, religion can lead to sexual guilt, and sexual guilt can lead to unhealthy sexual behaviors such as compulsive masturbating and porn use.

I've taken a look at your articles. The first is from 32 years ago (and it's actually volume 41 number 3) and the second is from 28. Yikes. My professors don't even accept papers based on sources this old. It appears that the quote from the second article is just from the abstract, as well. And you're calling other people out for using Google?

The abstract of the second article is used in the above quote to make it sound as if it is trying to show that religion creates abnormal or detrimental sexual behavior, but the article is actually only trying to show that sexual guilt is what changes sexual behavior, not religion in and of itself. From the conclusion:

Sexual guilt is a far better and more powerful
predictor of level of sex information obtained,
sexual attitudes held, and sexual behavior
expressed than either a college student's
frequency of church attendance or
present religious interest.

That says absolutely nothing about how sexual behavior is influenced. Consequences? Of course, but negative? Doesn't say, but satisfaction being the priority in all consideration of husband/wife sexual relationships, religious people report just as much and sometimes more satisfaction than non-religious (see James W. Maddock's book, Human Sexuality and the Family)

The first article is basically saying that people who share sexual interests are more likely to have happy marriages. The major theme is censorship, and most of the articles from more recent years use it to support ideas about censorship on television, and not necessarily censorship of pornography (Jennifer L. Lambe's "Who Wants to Censor Pornography and Hate Speech?" Mass Communication & Society 7.3 (2004):279-299. can give you better information about that.). I don't see how the fact that people who don't see a lot of pornography are more aroused by it adds anything at all to this debate. I don't eat at Taco Bell very often, but I bet you I love a soft taco supreme more than anyone who eats there regularly. That doesn't mean I have unhealthy eating habits. Also, Maddock's book states that "the magnitude of physiologic responses does not correlate with the subjective appreciation of sex." He goes on to show that sexual arousal is often just a physiological reaction to stimuli that means nothing to a person's attitudes towards and enjoyment of sex. How many teenagers (both of the above studies tested college students) have gotten spontaneous erections when they really didn't want them? Does that mean they're sexually unhealthy? I'm afraid not. Please, don't use lazy research. You might end up in someone's signature line.

[_Mephitus]

ahh... to virgin or not to virgin. that is the question.

A mythical concept to be sure.

You want to know the #1 prevention aide of STD's? If you said condoms, you would be one step behind. First you must have REAL-LIFE INFORMATION!!!!

Im in the group of full disclosure to ones children. Sex is completely natural, that we would postpone it for so long is a laughable thing to me. The average age for first time marraiges (If I recall correctly) is 28. Its extremely rare for 2 virgins to marry. So lets be honest here, your kids are going to have sex before they marry. simple as that. Lets at least give them true to life information and not try to impregnate their minds with some mystical thinking of virginity till marraige.

[_maklelan]

ahh... to virgin or not to virgin. that is the question.

A mythical concept to be sure.

You want to know the #1 prevention aide of STD's? If you said condoms, you would be one step behind. First you must have REAL-LIFE INFORMATION!!!!

I'm in the group of full disclosure to ones children. Sex is completely natural, that we would postpone it for so long is a laughable thing to me. The average age for first time marraiges (If I recall correctly) is 28. Its extremely rare for 2 virgins to marry. So lets be honest here, your kids are going to have sex before they marry. simple as that. Lets at least give them true to life information and not try to impregnate their minds with some mystical thinking of virginity till marraige.

How can one argue so strongly for certain principles and changes in the morality and behavior of one group of adults and then turn around and say that we shouldn't waste our time trying to nurture a certain type of behavior in young impressionable children. If it's inevitable it's only because they're exposed to people like you who tell them that.

[_Coggins7]

a

hh... to virgin or not to virgin. that is the question.

A mythical concept to be sure.

You want to know the #1 prevention aide of STD's? If you said condoms, you would be one step behind. First you must have REAL-LIFE INFORMATION!!!!

I'm in the group of full disclosure to ones children. Sex is completely natural, that we would postpone it for so long is a laughable thing to me. The average age for first time marraiges (If I recall correctly) is 28. Its extremely rare for 2 virgins to marry. So lets be honest here, your kids are going to have sex before they marry. simple as that. Lets at least give them true to life information and not try to impregnate their minds with some mystical thinking of virginity till marraige.

The above is nothing but a throwing up of the hands and a relinquishing of moral responsibility to the lowest common denominator aspects of the culture. The abject moral and philosophical confusion that must attend such a self referential capitulation to a self reinforcing closed loop concept (nobody's going to be a virgin when they get married, so let's do everything we can to ensure young people have all the motivation and incitement possible such that that outcome will be well nigh inevitable and we can all congratulate ourselves on our enlightened and sophisticated ideas about human sexuality) is overshadowed only by the stunning moral vacuity of the concept.

No wonder at all our society is in the place it is in when children must look to individuals who hold philosophies such as this for guidance and counsel through the developmental tasks of life.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Sex is totally subjective. Religion started using sex to its advantage long before the Mormons came along and they haven't really added anything to the argument, only prolonged the agony, so to speak ... If you've ever had sex yourself, you'll have to admit it's not such a big thing as religion makes it out to be. It doesn't change anyone's life all that much, only if one is preconditioned to take on underserved guilt. Preserving one's virginity doesn't have any benefit in and of itself, only if one is preconditioned to take on underserved virtue on its account. Do it or don't do it, but if you think not doing it is your salvation, or that doing it will free you, you're mistaken. Forget the extremists on both ends (GAs/feminists), just do it or don't do it, but get on with it.

As I have pointed out in another post, deracination. Suffice it to say that your poor, truncated, and arctic view of human sexuality leaves me feeling roughly the same as after watching a kitten being run over by a ride-on lawn mower.

Don't blame me for the way you feel. Not even if your judgment of me had any basis in reality.

[_guy sajer]

As to evidence that the Church's teachings on sexuality are free of "psychological and sociological consequences", of course they're not. Are they damaging in any way? Of course not.

There appears to be some reason to question this conclusion. Taken from another thread:

According to the article "Husband-wife Similarity in Response to Erotic Stimuli" (Journal of Personality, Vol. 43, Issue 3, p. 385-394), those with more restrictive, more negative, and more authoritarian views of sexuality are more aroused by pornographic stimuli. The article "Sexual Guilt and Religion" (The Family Coordinator, Vol. 28, Issue 3, p. 353-357) discusses a study showing that while sexual guilt is more influential than religion in predicting sexual attitudes and behavior, "the more frequently [people] attend church, the more likely they are to have high sexual guilt which interferes with their sexuality." In other words, religion can lead to sexual guilt, and sexual guilt can lead to unhealthy sexual behaviors such as compulsive masturbating and porn use.

I've taken a look at your articles. The first is from 32 years ago (and it's actually volume 41 number 3) and the second is from 28. Yikes. My professors don't even accept papers based on sources this old. It appears that the quote from the second article is just from the abstract, as well. And you're calling other people out for using Google?

The abstract of the second article is used in the above quote to make it sound as if it is trying to show that religion creates abnormal or detrimental sexual behavior, but the article is actually only trying to show that sexual guilt is what changes sexual behavior, not religion in and of itself. From the conclusion:

Sexual guilt is a far better and more powerful
predictor of level of sex information obtained,
sexual attitudes held, and sexual behavior
expressed than either a college student's
frequency of church attendance or
present religious interest.

That says absolutely nothing about how sexual behavior is influenced. Consequences? Of course, but negative? Doesn't say, but satisfaction being the priority in all consideration of husband/wife sexual relationships, religious people report just as much and sometimes more satisfaction than non-religious (see James W. Maddock's book, Human Sexuality and the Family)

The first article is basically saying that people who share sexual interests are more likely to have happy marriages. The major theme is censorship, and most of the articles from more recent years use it to support ideas about censorship on television, and not necessarily censorship of pornography (Jennifer L. Lambe's "Who Wants to Censor Pornography and Hate Speech?" Mass Communication & Society 7.3 (2004):279-299. can give you better information about that.). I don't see how the fact that people who don't see a lot of pornography are more aroused by it adds anything at all to this debate. I don't eat at Taco Bell very often, but I bet you I love a soft taco supreme more than anyone who eats there regularly. That doesn't mean I have unhealthy eating habits. Also, Maddock's book states that "the magnitude of physiologic responses does not correlate with the subjective appreciation of sex." He goes on to show that sexual arousal is often just a physiological reaction to stimuli that means nothing to a person's attitudes towards and enjoyment of sex. How many teenagers (both of the above studies tested college students) have gotten spontaneous erections when they really didn't want them? Does that mean they're sexually unhealthy? I'm afraid not. Please, don't use lazy research. You might end up in someone's signature line.

Mak, don't make more of this than it is. I did not use google, these were simply papers posted in another bulletin board discussion. Let me reiterate that I did not post them as "proof" against any position but they were offered to provide something else to consider, not intending to Trump anything else. I make absolutely no pretense that they represent "truth" nor do I make any claim that they represent research on my part. I saw them, and posted them so that you could look at them if you wanted, which you did.

Don't go charging me with lazy research; this wasn't research, I don't claim it was. You're trying to "gotcha" me, but this is not a good place to do it.

As for the articles being old, I too am skeptical of older articles, not because they are not good research, but because there is the possibility that something may have been done in the interim that addresses the same topics and gives new insight. That said, in the social sciences, there is rarely a smoking gun; and one is likely to find evidence for what one wants; so a bit of caution is necessary. Which is again why I like the "preponderance of evidence" standard.

But, just because something is old, per se, doesn't disqualify it. It is a reason to have caution, but not to dismiss outright. "Administrative Theory," for example, is still a classic, although it is a bit dated and people have done other research. The insights it provides are still quite valid.

I'd look at the totality of what the studies say, rather than try to play "gotcha" by citing and presenting what we naïvely imagine to be smoking gun evidence.

Don't dismiss something just because it's older. Using this line of thinking, one might as well dismiss contemporary studies under the assumption that something will come along later anyway that will address the same topic and reach different conclusions.

Finally, let me say that I have no problem with people pulling research off the internet and posting it here. Unlike some here, I have no expectations that people have the time or inclination to carry out time intensive research just to score points on some dumb internet discussion board. I assume that we all have other pressing needs (such as a job in my case), so we find what we can, do it quickly, and post it, hoping that it scores the points we want it to score. My job is taxing and time consuming, and I only post here at intervals when I have or need a short break. Plus, I prefer not to spend all my free time debating here.

To me, in fact, it's a bit of a silly waste of time to spend an hour or so doing research just to score debating points that mean nothing anyway other than giving us a short-lived sense of self satisfaction because we handed it to an internet debating opponent.

So, I couldn’t care less if someone does “lazy research,” I don’t blame them, in fact I expect it of them, not because they lack the intellectual capacity to do in-depth research, but because they, like me, lack the time and do not put it necessarily at the top of their priority list. I would wonder about the priorities of someone who does spend hours researching topics to score debating points here. I think the expectation by some on this board that we conduct something akin to Ph.D. level research for internet discussion board debates to be silly and misguided. I would caution all here not to confuse intelligence and/or knowledge with time constraints and different personal priorities.

That said, my dig at Coggins in a previous post was not because he did “lazy” research, but because he “lazy” research and then attempted to pawn it off on us as if he had exhaustively researched the issue, when all of us, include he, knows he did a quick internet search, found what he thought would support his position, and then posted that. It was the dishonesty of his approach I was commenting on, not the approach itself.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Guy Sajer is right, I certainly do not expect anyone to do quality research to prove their points on this board. I don't have the time or inclination for that and I don't expect others to, either.

The problem is, I do not think premarital sex is a sin, and the Mormons on this board do. That doesn't mean I necessarily encourage it, and it should be practiced carefully in all instances. We're just not going to have a meeting of the minds on this one. What I do think is that the Mormon church doesn't need to be so punitive. They manufacture consequences (punishments) when they don't need to.

If a young woman or man has sex prior to marriage, which is a sin to Mormons, then let them repent in a private prayer, feel forgiven, and move on with their lives free from guilt. If there's no pregnancy or STD passed along, no harm, no foul. If the premarital sex results in pregnancy or STD's, isn't that consequence enough? Why would any church heap insult on injury by punishing the sinners even more? Why keep them from the atonement by denying them the sacrament? What denying them the sacrament says to me is: "You're not worthy of forgiveness. The atonement is of no effect on you until you've been punished long enough. You're too dirty for Jesus and too dirty for a worthy mate." I personally know two Mormon girls who did get pregnant and that is exactly how they felt about being disfellowshipped and denied the sacrament. I know they felt that way because they told me.

I can say this: The punitive nature of Mormonism drives many people away. I'm all for people getting the heck out of the Mormon church. But for the poor kids who can't leave, and the folks who believe it's true and won't leave no matter how much they're abused by Mormonism; I feel sorry for them - especially the licked cupcakes. It's disgusting how they beat themselves up because of Mormonism's cruel and twisted view of morality and forgiveness. I think it's much, much worse, even evil, how the Mormon church treats people "guilty" of violating their chastitiy. It's much worse than the "sin" of premarital sex any day.

KA