My body is NOT a temple!

[_KimberlyAnn]

Thank You, Lucretia MacEvil! You got it perfectly!

KA

[_son]

I like thinking of my body as a temple, it keeps me disciplined. It gave me the strength to overcome challenges with the world.
It can mess with your head, and steal joy when we are out of sync with its definition.
We roll over, crawl, walk, run.....
I enjoy my wifes company, but know that moderation improves the relationship with her and God, and the lack of moderation does take me into the animal spirit and takes away the spiritual joy that brings me peace and purpose.

Enjoy the school

son

[_huckelberry]

"animal spirit"
For those of us not in the know, what is that?

I understand that each of us has a spirit dimension and that each and everyone of us are animals. We eat, breath, run, rest with the process of all the other mammals. Is that not animal spirit? Without it we die.

Do you mean something else?

[_moksha]

I am not sure there is much value in blaming the Church or anyone else for the "twisted thinking" or the 'trauma". Fingerpointing and judgementalism is too often a fruitless exercise. Rather, I think our energies would be better served in simply "untwisting" the thinking if or when it occurs, and restoring peace and hea lth if and when "traumas" occur. That really is the essence of my point.


Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your point, as always, is that the church should not be criticized in any way because it makes you feel bad. You might try to take a good hard look within and see if you can find some solution and resolution for yourself. We can't change anyone but ourselves.

The Church can play a role in helping its members learn to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated.

[_Coggins7]

When my YW leader compared sex to dark chocolate and told us that, like very dark chocolate, it took some getting used to and that a little went a long way, I interpreted that to mean females didn't enjoy sex very much.

You forgot to mention all of the pop Feminist ideology you had absorbed prior to this in the media and culture generally that influenced you to "spin" your interpretation in such a self serving, convenient manner.

You may have a great many hang-ups Kimberly, but deep, self honest, critical thought isn't one of them. Clearly, this issue has never crossed your mind at all. Excuse my abruptness here. You're interpretations are valid for you and this, it seems, is all that really matters. Perception is reality (if this justifies the kind of life you desire to live and on what terms).

The dark chocolate analogy is actually quite apropos (and given the massive social pathologies we've seen develop over the last several decades related directly to unfettered human sexuality and its direct offspring, family breakdown, timely), and clearly has nothing to do with female sexuality per se vis-a-vis to what degree woman are supposed or not supposed to enjoy sex. This is an old radical feminist ideological bugaboo that doesn't exercise the imaginations of the intellectually and morally mature.

There are limits to sexuality within marriage as without it. The GAs have always taught this to be the case. There is no teaching in the Church, official or unofficial, as to how much we are to "enjoy" it. We are to enjoy it to our capacity within the proper moral and spiritual boundaries.

But then, there are, as Paul said, laws unto themselves that recognize no boundaries. Such it will always be, of course.

[_huckelberry]

deep self honest critical understanding,

my my.

Kimberly has made it plain that she discovered the dark chocolate analogy was not accurate. I see no reason to relate that discovery to feminist indoctrination. She is perfectly capable of the discovery on her own.

Care to explain how you correlate degree of enjoyment with the criteria of spiritually appropriate. I can understand employing the demands of fidelity honesty and mutual concern for each other as people. I have seen zero indication that Kimberly is seting these aside or making any sort of disparagement of them.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

You forgot to mention all of the pop Feminist ideology you had absorbed prior to this in the media and culture generally that influenced you to "spin" your interpretation in such a self serving, convenient manner.

You may have a great many hang-ups Kimberly, but deep, self honest, critical thought isn't one of them. Clearly, this issue has never crossed your mind at all. Excuse my abruptness here. You're interpretations are valid for you and this, it seems, is all that really matters. Perception is reality (if this justifies the kind of life you desire to live and on what terms).

The dark chocolate analogy is actually quite apropos (and given the massive social pathologies we've seen develop over the last several decades related directly to unfettered human sexuality and its direct offspring, family breakdown, timely), and clearly has nothing to do with female sexuality per se vis-a-vis to what degree woman are supposed or not supposed to enjoy sex. This is an old radical feminist ideological bugaboo that doesn't exercise the imaginations of the intellectually and morally mature.

There are limits to sexuality within marriage as without it. The GAs have always taught this to be the case. There is no teaching in the Church, official or unofficial, as to how much we are to "enjoy" it. We are to enjoy it to our capacity within the proper moral and spiritual boundaries.

But then, there are, as Paul said, laws unto themselves that recognize no boundaries. Such it will always be, of course.

Guilt is a self-indulgence that only serves to make a person believe himself to be further along the path of progression than he is but actually impedes progress.

[_Coggins7]

Granted, it may be preferred were the Church to always have competent teachers who make comments and use metaphors not prone to misunderstanding. And, I believe the Church is moving in that direction. But, even with the Church employing professional curriculum writers and teacher training courses which lend themselves to that end, the Church is, by and large, a lay ministry populated with people from diverse backgrounds and experiences and perspectives and instructional styles, and as such, the movement towards the stated objective will be slow and fallible.

And, indeed, we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. That is the ultimate solvent for all of the human fallibility the Church contains. If we will use that gift, and live such that we are able to access and use it as we need it, idiosyncratic or poorly thought out teachings here and there can be sifted for the chaff they are without undue traumatization.

But oh, how we as a people (Americans) love to be traumatized. How we love to be victims. How we love to whine and blame and wallow in what others have said or done to us, allegedly or in fact. Being a victim; having one's inner child bruised and battered, covers a multitude of sins.

[_Coggins7]

The way I read KA's post is that she's basically gotten over it, now she's just talking about it, which is supremely appropriate on this board called Mormon Discussions. We all heard the same thing, and it wasn't the random "inept" teacher, it was teachers repeating the leaders all the way up to the top and perfectly in tune with the prophet on the subject. The church is responsible. The only way any -- and I mean 99.99%, allowing maybe .01% not hearing the crap the church teaches!! -- Mormon girl could get through her church experience growing up with a healthy attitude about sex or her body would be if she wasn't paying much attention or she had sufficient healthy influence to counteract church teachings.

Keep up the pose Lucretia. "The Church" has never taught that marital sex is wrong. Individual GAs have taught that it is to be suppressed to some extent (Spencer Kimball counseled a practice of marital celibacy he termed "continence") but this is not Church doctrine. There is no body of teaching that claims what you say it claims and no authorized position on it from the leadership of the Church (the First Presidency and the Twelve). You are very, very close to intellectual dishonesty here, but no matter. That has never stopped committed critics of the Church in the past.

You know, all you good time rock n' roll, plastic banana, maggot infested, dope smoking FM type secular humanist atheist liberals really do need to get over your forty or so year obsession with sex.

Its really gotten to be such a drag.

[_Coggins7]

Kimberly has made it plain that she discovered the dark chocolate analogy was not accurate.

Not accurate in what way?

Care to explain how you correlate degree of enjoyment with the criteria of spiritually appropriate.

I'm not sure I understand this questions.