zeezrom wrote:Maybe a trip to The Orient might help us...
Historically, there have been two ways of viewing sexuality, according to Foucault. In China, Japan, India and the Roman Empire have seen it as an "Ars erotica", "erotic art", where sex is seen as an art and a special experience and not something dirty and shameful. It is something to be kept secret, but only because of the view that it would lose its power and its pleasure if spoken about.
In Western society, on the other hand, something completely different has been created, what Foucault calls "scientia sexualis", the science of sexuality. It is originally (17th century) based on a phenomenon diametrically opposed to Ars erotica: the confession. It is not just a question of the Christian confession, but more generally the urge to talk about it. A fixation with finding out the "truth" about sexuality arises, a truth that is to be confessed. It is as if sexuality did not exist unless it is confessed.
I see. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.
From Teach Ye Diligently by Boyd K. Packer, a book that is frequently quoted in official church manuals, as discussed in a previous thread: In 1958 seminary and institute teachers were assembled at Brigham Young University for a summer school. I was assigned by President William E. Berrett to talk on the subject "Problems in Teaching the Moral Standard." In preparation for that assignment, I made a more than usual investment in prayer and fasting, in research and inquiry, including interviews with some of the General Authorities.
In the process of that preparation I came to some conclusions that I have not since that time abandoned-indeed, they have become reinforced through all that I have since learned on the subject. I am convinced that two of the major mistakes are to teach too much about the subject and to teach it at the wrong time. I am firmly convinced of the following principles. The notion that our young people need to be taught in great detail all of the facts relating to the physical processes involved in reproduction at an early age is nonsense. The overteaching of it is not a protection. Such things as they should know about the subject should be taught in a framework of reverence and modesty.
When this is justified, if it is justified, the subject ought always to be treated in the framework of reverence.
In treating this subject, I do not personally see the necessity of using clinical terminology. I do not see the necessity of using explicit names of the organs of the body, nor for those processes by which bodies are conceived as a tabernacle for the spirit.
The one place in the Church where some frank discussions may be appropriate is during an interview for priesthood advancement, for a call to a position, for a temple recommend, or in an interview in which a member is confessing transgression in order to get it resolved.
Occasionally, deep inquiry may be necessary. This teaching process, and that's what interviewing can be, ought likewise to be shrouded in modesty and the subject ought to be treated with reverence, wisdom, and restraint.
I know of more than one instance in which a young person has been led to experiment in gross and perverted immorality because of a suggestion that originated with his bishop in an interview.
EDIT: Did you all pick up on how "frank discussions" are appropriate when a teenage boy is being interviewed in the bishop's office, but not at home when his parents are explaining the birds and the bees?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yet all too commonly, these divine gifts are desecrated.
I've always found it funny when LDS leaders talk about sex as a "divine gift."
What the...?
Think of all the creatures that have sex, I mean it is part of life for most of the millions of species covering our planet. Is it a gift to mosquitoes to have sex? How about flatworms? How about the Galapagos Giant Tortoise?
Yet all too commonly, these divine gifts are desecrated.
I've always found it funny when LDS leaders talk about sex as a "divine gift."
What the...?
Think of all the creatures that have sex, I mean it is part of life for most of the millions of species covering our planet. Is it a gift to mosquitoes to have sex? How about flatworms? How about the Galapagos Giant Tortoise?
Probably more like intentionally forced that out of my mind. Good God, man. That's beyond disgusting. If I was to have a homosexual relationship, God commanded or not, it would not be with some guy in his 90s.
