Mike

I don't think your remarks are poorly articulated as I believe you said about yourself earlier. I think your viewpoint is reasonable. And frankly I don't know what to believe about (all the details of) sexuality after this life--I've heard some people express views all along the spectrum. For what I consider to be obvious reasons most of the views I've heard came from men. My own feelings have run the gamut, too, from time to time. I hope my effort to make a positive remark here doesn't end up offending anybody. I'm intending not to.

I'm thinking that intimacy itself is a fine word to those who have experienced the joy that comes of it. It may be that many men and women seldom experience intimacy--instead experiencing only sexual gratification. I think that Satan has not experienced either of the two, but he understands how to achieve his objectives. (Perhaps he has never tasted cold water., but he understands how to utilize others' thirst in his strategy.)

That's fair. I didn't understand whether the challenger was LDS or not, and I think context is useful. I wasn't questioning the OP motives but I'm still non-plussed. I'd like to contribute to the thread but the phrase "sexual beings" in an LDS marriage context tends to lead my thoughts in a direction that may or may not be useful; and I don't want to go where the OP doesn't really expect to go. I'm also somewhat cautious having recently read "New rules for sexual discussion" Started by pam, October 2, 2013

I don't understand where you want this to go. Forgive me if you think I'm obtuse, but what are you really asking? Perhaps you should tell us what was behind the challenge given to you--what was the challenger seeking from you?

Yes, this part resonates in my own heart and mind. It's tempting to elaborate and even to speculate, but I don't want to go that far. I'm mindful of the counsel included at the beginning of this "page" on lds.org from "Gospel Principles" (shown below in parentheses) which strikes me as wise counsel--the take away for me is that these things are something for me to ponder more than for me to presume to elucidate. In any event it's meaningful to me personally. (For teachers: The subject of the Millennium sometimes leads people to speculate about ideas that are not found in the scriptures or the teachings of latter-day prophets. As you guide this lesson, be careful to avoid such speculation.)

I read that Jospeh Smith said that immortal beings will frequently visit the earth. These resurrected beings will help with the government and other work. (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 268.) --lds.org (ibid)

I hadn't thought much about this recently, and so you caused me to think about it, and I'm pondering what I read on lds.org https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-45-the-millennium?lang=eng The following caught my attention: I realize I haven't complied with your request for scriptural references. However, I'm interested to know whether you find the above interesting. I do.

I certainly appreciate your position and background, and I appreciate the gravity of changing a fundamental opinion which is based on what you were taught previously (probably since very early childhood). Also, I can appreciate what you expressed above about your perception, i.e. "God wanting us into sinful bodies, then punish us for the sins that come with it." If this means that your one-on-one conversation with me is impossible to continue (taken as part of the larger group of thread participants vying for your attention) , I'll understand. I do want to express my gratitude to you for taking the time to share your personal feelings with me.

OK, so I'm understanding you to say that you rejected the theory of pre-existence as taught by Origen, but after pondering it you began to feel it made sense. However, as you've encountered claims in Mormonism so far it makes less sense to you after all. Do I take your meaning accurately? I'm mindful of the risk I might run by asking you questions because you might misconstrue them as efforts to lay a trap, but I guess you'll have to trust my intentions. For example, you ask (of yourself, I presume) why you would want to occupy a sinful body and displease God. And yet here you (and I) are in a sinful bodies, right? I think I'm having difficulty at the moment keeping pace with your thinking that sounds like it starts with [is there really a pre-existence(?)] and leads you to ask [why would we want to occupy sinful bodies]. In other words, I'm reading that you seek information about a claim that can't be proven; and you end up asking about the propriety of something else, the reality of which is (painfully) obvious and needs no proof. Can you see why I'm confused? In any event am I to understand that at the moment you don't believe and don't wish to believe in a pre-existence?

The photo of the angel, Moroni, reminds me of things I've wondered about since I was a boy.

I won't presume to add my voice on this topic where other forum members are doing just fine addressing your interest from an instructional angle. But I personally would like to know about you, and about what you think *in terms of your feelings* apart from any arguments from authority so to speak. Specifically I'm interested in knowing what feelings come into your heart, or what thoughts come into your mind regarding the concept of a pre-mortal existence? In other words (and without wanting to put words in your mouth) is the concept alien to you? Does it strike you personally as preposterous, or does it strike you as reasonable? What personal (or philosophical) notions of your very own with regard to the topic do you have? I'm not interested in debating you--just saying so as to avoid making you uncomfortable.

I didn't mean it that way. I was only saying that my reaction to the statistic was unwarranted on my part.

I'm pondering the inutility (for me personally) of what I perceived to be the original objective of this thread if it was merely to discuss the link between nudity and immodesty. After re-reading @Snigmorder and @Carborendum (as well as my own remarks) I'm now pondering the differences I perceive between normal sexual desire, arousal, and lust. I'm of the opinion that the differences are real and significant; and that the most important thing I can take away from this thread is a renewed determination to be the master of the passions I understand are part and parcel of occupying a mortal body in this particular sphere. Maybe this is (partly at least) what you meant, Carborendum, when you alluded to self-awareness? I bristled at the 99.999% statistic cited above. But I realized my discomfort may have been an unwarranted knee-jerk reaction to having my normal sexual desire lumped in with men who suffer from uncontrollable and/or aberrant desires. I don't believe mine are uncontrollable, and I think I'm a better man today than I was a boy in this area if you can consider what I mean.

@anatess2 Hi, my friend. I've been reading (and re-reading to comprehend) the exchange between you and @Just_A_Guy. Among other points you mentioned I'm understanding you to say that you favor what you call Trump's more balanced position which would use the U.S. military to wipe out the current DPRK regime, establish a reunification with South Korea, and thereby remove the military force of the DPRK from the "arsenal" of China and Russia. If (your) lds.net thread to which you referred provides additional substance, would you provide a link to it to make my life easier? If not, maybe you'd like to provide more detail here (unless that's all you really care to say on the specific issue of U.S. military force as a solution to Kim Jong-un's nuclear weapons program). Apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted anything you've written.

This Tolkien reader understood Elves to be more or less immune to death in the sense that men died (as Arwen chose to become mortal as a consequence of marrying Aragorn). Thus, I did not perceive the Elves to be going into the West to die even in the sense of dying from Middle Earth--I perceived them going to their destiny which was much loftier than anything Middle Earth and the impending dominion of men could impose. Moreover, throughout the Trilogy the East symbolized the source of death and destruction and violence (Sauron and Mordor) rather than life, beauty and peace. So, it's all very relative to me. I'm aware of and enjoy many maps throughout history where the cartographers chose to place the South Pole at the top. I have friends in South America who (strangely to me) have never utilized a compass nor taken time to care which direction was which. I suspect that the land of the rising sun was a notion that had more to do at first with the geography of an island relative to a continent and later with a stronger political leader wanting top billing over a weaker one on the mainland. I suspect that majorities almost always get to decide whether God favors this or that, right hand over left hand, etc. I believe that more than a mere two thousand years ago average people, at least those who couldn't sleep at night and took advantage of the time to think, easily concluded that the world was round and that cardinal directions were an arbitrary convention developed for ease of communicating--and of course by human nature combined with human superstition. I'm prone to accept that many our notions are much more the result of views imposed upon us and perpetuated by groups and individuals throughout history who happen to wield stronger political or martial forces--and of course by what we choose to believe when it matches our predispositions, which is perhaps what I myself am doing as a I write. Anyway, I agree with you @Vort about much of what you wrote such as:

No, I don't take it personally (I've been working on *that* particular aspect of my self-control, too, hahahaha). But I'm still having a challenge being able to relate to the idea of even needing to explain things to God. There's nothing to explain, as far as I can currently see. As for my tolerating things that are contrary to His kingdom it seems this whole planet is in a sense contrary to His kingdom insofar as what people do in it. I don't tolerate such things as much as I learn to deal with them. I learn where the metaphorical cliff edge is and I learn to stay away from it whenever possible and how to seek rescue when I find myself thrust to the edge not of my own choosing. I'm still open to learning more about your viewpoint. My own viewpoint at the moment is that I am growing and have improved in some things (and have a long way to go in some other things). One small example is seeing photos of naked African women in a National Geographic magazine when I was 14 and seeing such photos today. As a 14-year old having recently entered puberty my responses were different than they are today. I should hope that even without exposure to religious instruction a real man learns such skills as self control to one degree or another as he grows up (and grows old). So, tell me more about your viewpoint.

Well, if my reaction isn't the point I invite you to explain more about what you think the point is. It isn't difficult for me to imagine myself looking God in the face and repeating what I posted above because (a) I believe God already knows; and (b) I believe God knows I am being perfectly honest. But maybe I'm missing your point again. Please tell me more if you think it's worthwhile.

I think I see what you mean. Probably more accurate to say I'm ashamed of my behavior in times past.

At the point in my life in which I find myself today I can in all honesty say that my own reaction to nudity is situational. In other words the circumstances dictate how I will react to a large degree. You have already pointed out some of the variety of circumstances that may affect my reaction--the most important being my own personal frame of mind and the degree to which I find myself in control of my sexual feelings at the time and based upon the intentions of others. Thus I am fully capable of enjoying classic sculpture and painting of nudes without resort to prurient reactions. I am fully capable of becoming sexually aroused in the presence of a given fully clothed woman, and conversely in other situations (such as going to that same woman's aid after an accident) sexual arousal would be next to impossible. Likewise the sight of a woman's breast as she nurses is akin to the sacred in my own heart, and the possibility of sexual arousal absolutely abhorrent to me in that situation. There are times when I am capable (and ashamed at my capability) of looking at pornography intended by its producer for sexual arousal and responding as its producer intends; while there are other times that the presentation of such pornography sickens me. I have been in the presence of South American indigenous men and women in various states of undress and felt no other feelings than respect. At my best (I would like to think) I am capable of approaching the human body as a temple of God, and as such I am consciously capable of looking with reverence at another person as a brother or as a sister.

Hahaha, sadly this is accurate. But the despicable Albert Fish ate children.

I suppose that it's a matter of perception. In my own lifetime I perceived the media attacks on sitting presidents to have been disgraceful since President Kennedy was in office. I wasn't old enough to have paid direct attention before then. I readily admit that the tenor of political argument in general seems to have gone lower and lower, but I find myself wondering if even that is true (no one in Congress seems to have resorted to caning since the mid-nineteenth century, happily). But I believe (until shown otherwise) that the personal comportment of the current sitting president toward his detractors is unprecedented. One thing I find curious is how frequently we examine the flaws of a sitting president we happen to support and simultaneously feel compelled to offer a statement relating to the flaws of someone else whom we happen to hate.

I don't think Putin is a clown. I think he is intelligent, experienced, and shrewd. In terms of worrying about nuclear first strike attacks I personally don't think one should be worried about Putin specifically. I think it's much more complex than worrying about one specific world leader. I think that Putin doesn't wants his country destroyed any more than any of us want ours destroyed.

I don't believe claims that President Trump is pragmatic although I believe he knows what he wants. In that context I'm thinking about Kim Jong-un's rationale for the DPRK nuclear weapons program. I think Kim Jong-un is not a madman as some characterize him--I think he is rational despite his rhetoric--I think he also knows what he wants. I think he has no intention of launching a weapon at the U.S., but he reasons that it makes perfect sense to possess (and further develop) the ability to credibly threaten in order to prevent the U.S. or South Korea from advancing against him. As @Godless pointed out (accurately I perceive) President Trump is often about rhetoric, and so I wonder how his wants will play out in dealing with the DPRK.

Does 100% of the time mean always eventually, every day of every year, or something else? I ask because I think another socialist country (Bolivia) seems to have been doing pretty good lately compared to socialist Venezuela. And of course non-socialist countries have a good share of economic problems, too--not just right now but throughout history. So, I wonder whether the problem is a country practicing socialism to varying degrees, or whether other fiscal policies might have just as much or even more to to with economic disasters?

Help me understand because I don't follow how one could justify sin by thinking that Jesus had forgiven the woman. Help me see what you see. Not to argue--merely to state where I'm at so that you can help me get to where I ought to be: Jesus telling her (after all those who were about to condemn her were gone) that he did not condemn her she would (in my mind) have cause to rejoice, and with the admonition to sin no more she would understand that repeating her sin(s) could put her right back in the same dire situation from which she had just been rescued. If Jesus were to have said that her sins were forgiven followed by telling her to sin no more, then (in my mind) she would have cause to rejoice because there would be no case against her, and she would understand that sinning again could put her right back in the same dire situation. From this point of (my) reasoning I'm unable to find justification for sinning. Post Script: I just went back and read your remarks to @MormonGator's comment. I think I see what you mean. The woman had not had an opportunity to truly repent yet until after Jesus had rescued her from death (by stoning). Is that part of what you mean?