Mormonism Manufactures Consequences for Sin

[_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.

Thanks for the summaries. I claim no expertise in sexual behavior (other than my own, which still remains a bit of a mystery to me), and I make no claim as to being up on the relevant literature.

Based on my own observations, experience, etc., my hypothesis is that the heavy handed method of associating guilt with sexuality that is common in traditional religions (including Mormonism) produces a variety of mental, sexual, emotional, etc. costs on those who are its targets. Do these articles address these questions at all, and are there other studies that address them? These are, after all, empirical questions, not matters of faith.

I think that human sexuality is a very complicated thing. But I also believe it is part of being human. I suspect that there is no "perfect" approach to it, but there are a variety of alternatives, each with their pros and cons; some on balance worse or better than others. Some sexual practice/behaviors may be bad in some sense (e.g., masturbation, which you claim causes "fragmentation" of sorts--I forget the context) and good (masturbation relieves stress, helps maintain balance things out when couple have different sex drives, gives pleasure, and probably on balance promotes marital fidelity, though this one is more speculative).

My prior is that the approach taken by traditional, conservative religion is, on balance, not one of the good ones. I am not talking about messages related to abstinence, purity, fidelity, etc., but the way in which these messages are communicated, and the unnecessary burden of guilt they impose on people for being nothing other than human. I also believe that many of the ministers (not all) who promulgate these messages do so, not out of principle, but because they understand the power/leverage it gives them over others. In other words, power is their goal, not ministering to their flock or concerns for human morality.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Your own sources say this behavior is "unprecedented," thus rendering your predictions invalid.

[_maklelan]

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.

Then that's my bad. I have to admit I just saw your response and replied to it without checking the context n which it was given. I hope you'll forgive me for goign over the top.

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.

It was directed more at the individual who has a running total of all the "lazy research" that has been debunked by the non-Mormons. Apparently I have submitted lazy research that has been destroyed three times, but I'm unaware of which instances they are and the individual (I don't remember who) won't tell me.

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.

Agreed on both counts. Unfortunately none of us are getting paid, so the incentive for actually digging up a comprehensive bibliography on any of this is non-existent.

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.

I wasn't trying to dismiss it so much as show that whoever provided it wasn't really in tune with the scholarship, but just using a search engine.

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.

Understood.

[_Jason Bourne]

Firstly, I don't believe there is evidence sufficient to support your claims. The fact is, outside of Mormonism, many, if not most people have sex prior to marriage. I do not believe it "often" leads to relationships built too heavily on a physical foundation. Besides, aren't many Mormon marriages, at least initially, built on more of a physical foundation than those of non-Mormons? I can't tell you how many Mormons I know who married extremely young and after only a few months of dating. Some were engaged after only weeks of knowing one another, and I do not believe those are isolated cases. Exactly how much intellectual, social, emotional and communication compatibility can be determined in such a short time? Mormons are terrified of messing up and losing their virginity prior to marriage, yet the urge for sex is so strong, many are willing to marry practical strangers to whom they have an initial sexual attraction! I'd much prefer my children not marry quickly to avoid having premarital sex and instead focus more on assessing the important things you mentioned, intellectual, social and emotional compatibility, before making a lifelong committment. Those things can be determined sans a physical relationship, but it would take longer than most people are willing to wait for sex.

In one study I read 83% of all those married in th US from 1980-1985 were not virgins when the married.

[_guy sajer]

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.

Then that's my bad. I have to admit I just saw your response and replied to it without checking the context n which it was given. I hope you'll forgive me for goign over the top.

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.

It was directed more at the individual who has a running total of all the "lazy research" that has been debunked by the non-Mormons. Apparently I have submitted lazy research that has been destroyed three times, but I'm unaware of which instances they are and the individual (I don't remember who) won't tell me.

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.

Agreed on both counts. Unfortunately none of us are getting paid, so the incentive for actually digging up a comprehensive bibliography on any of this is non-existent.

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.

I wasn't trying to dismiss it so much as show that whoever provided it wasn't really in tune with the scholarship, but just using a search engine.

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.

Understood.

Thanks for understanding.

I should add that my views on sex and human sexuality have changed remarkably over the years. I can think of no compelling moral argument against pre-marital sex, assuming the usual caveats (e.g., informed consent, willing participants). I am also not a big fan of sexually active teenagers. I'd prefer they wait, but I don't believe in manipulating them to avoid it through guilt or for making them feel like lower than dirt for being, like all humans, curious about and interested in sex.

I recognize there are risks to sexual activity outside of marriage, but so too are there risks of breaking the speed limit. There may be practical arguments against it, which are empirical in nature, but I do not find religiously based moral arguments compelling in this case.

I do believe adultery to be wrong (though I can think of mitigating circumstances that cloud the moral issues), but then this is more an issue of trust, honesty, betrayal, etc., and not one of sex, per se. That is, it's not the sex that's immoral, but the betrayal of trust, and the practical concern that marriages cannot function effectively without trust, etc.

I can also say with 100% certainty that were I to find myself single again, there's no way in hell I'd save myself for marriage, and were I to do it all over again, there's no chance I'd be a virgin on my wedding night, nor that my soon-to-be wife would have been my only sexual partner.

[_Jason Bourne]

Patrick Carnes, one of the foremost experts n sexual addictions and compulsions notes that a high percentage of sexual addicts are from conservative and sexually punative religions. He correlates the high level of sexual addition from such groups with the shaming process that conservative religions employ in regards to sexuality.

[_Roger Morrison]

A good post, Guy.

I should add that my views on sex and human sexuality have changed remarkably over the years. I can think of no compelling moral argument against pre-marital sex, assuming the usual caveats (e.g., informed consent, willing participants). I am also not a big fan of sexually active teenagers. I'd prefer they wait, but I don't believe in manipulating them to avoid it through guilt or for making them feel like lower than dirt for being, like all humans, curious about and interested in sex.

I recognize there are risks to sexual activity outside of marriage, but so too are there risks of breaking the speed limit. There may be practical arguments against it, which are empirical in nature, but I do not find religiously based moral arguments compelling in this case.

I do believe adultery to be wrong (though I can think of mitigating circumstances that cloud the moral issues), but then this is more an issue of trust, honesty, betrayal, etc., and not one of sex, per se. That is, it's not the sex that's immoral, but the betrayal of trust, and the practical concern that marriages cannot function effectively without trust, etc.

I can also say with 100% certainty that were I to find myself single again, there's no way in hell I'd save myself for marriage, and were I to do it all over again, there's no chance I'd be a virgin on my wedding night, nor that my soon-to-be wife would have been my only sexual partner.

To which i say, "Amen!" Also, i think some of the suppositions here are less than accurate...

Mormonism didn't invent, "irrelevant consequences for sin" they inherrited them; and personalized them as any good plagarist or patent violator would do.

Passing through childhood there is the tendency to think ourselves "original"... NO one was ever here before! NO one ever thought this before! NO one ever did this before! Which leads to the truism--"Every thing old is new again!"

So it is with sexual curiousity, "you show me...i'll show you..." Experimentation, and whatever follows... That there is a slow growth of confidence to deal realistically with the topic of "sex" is indication that ignorance, guilt and shame are giving way.

"Pre-marital sex" is not unique to any generation. It is common place in all. The difference is mainly the consequence of doing "it"... Yesteryear, most such bursts of lust resulted in "pre-mature-births"... The first 'wee-one' can take any time. ;-) The following take 9 months... Geneologists know the truth.

Was the "shot-gun wedding" an effective solution? Hardly, in homes where bitterness, resentment and abuses where not balanced with affection! But what other options were there?

KA makes her points well--from her experience. Cannot be disputed--they are hers. Coggins does the same... Reality is that OUR experience is more germane to US than it is to any one else...

From my experience, i do not lay blame on Mormonism for much more than i 'blame' distorted Christianity. Mormonism is only THE one many of us have experienced with varying degrees of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' in its application...

Is it the worse? Is one's personal opinion. Fear, deceipt, guilt and shame--wherever found-- are not principles to build one's life upon. Whenever they predominate, learn & leave.

As many have. YOU choose! Moving on smarter... Second endorsement for Guy! Warm regards, Roger

[_KimberlyAnn]

Patrick Carnes, one of the foremost experts n sexual addictions and compulsions notes that a high percentage of sexual addicts are from conservative and sexually punative religions. He correlates the high level of sexual addition from such groups with the shaming process that conservative religions employ in regards to sexuality.

Thank you, Jason.

I believe Mr. Carnes is correct. If we remove the shame and mystery from sex, it really becomes not such a big deal. That's what I'm trying to do for my daughters, and I think in the end, they will be less sexually promiscuous than many people raised in sexaully rigid religious systems.

KA