am i twisted backwards?

[Zyzz]

I am not LDS but have been getting dropped some heavy bombs by the missionaries and was just wondering what the deal is with contact with a women. I have been around but according to chastity (not sure if im using that right) i have basically committed the 2nd most serious crime in the religion. I was hoping to gather some info before my next visit

[selek]

I am not LDS but have been getting dropped some heavy bombs by the missionaries and was just wondering what the deal is with contact with a women. I have been around but according to chastity (not sure if im using that right) i have basically committed the 2nd most serious crime in the religion. I was hoping to gather some info before my next visit

To quote from a movie, "You killed someone?"

[Zyzz]

To quote from a movie, "You killed someone?"

most def

[Dravin]

Your request is kinda vague but I'll supply what comes to mind:

Chastity

Gospel Principles Chapter 39: The Law of Chastity

[Lakumi]

To quote from a movie, "You killed someone?"

which movie?

[Zyzz]

Your request is kinda vague but I'll supply what comes to mind:

Chastity

Gospel Principles Chapter 39: The Law of Chastity

thank you for the response and we went over something very similar to that which is why i came here. I just dont understand how it is sinful to be with a women you enjoy spending time with when it is basic mammalian instinct...im not trying to be rude or disrespectful so please dont take it that way i understand the word of wisdom to a point (aside from green tea) but this is tough to wrap my head around

[Dravin]

I just dont understand how it is sinful to be with a women you enjoy spending time with when it is basic mammalian instinct...

Do you have a hard time understanding why other basic mammalian instincts are considered sinful? Or is it just for this one? You may find this address, given by at the time BYU President Jeffery R. Holland, concerning the topic of intimacy to give you some insight into how LDS view the matter: Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments

Edited May 7, 2013 by Dravin

[Lakumi]

thank you for the response and we went over something very similar to that which is why i came here. I just dont understand how it is sinful to be with a women you enjoy spending time with when it is basic mammalian instinct...im not trying to be rude or disrespectful so please dont take it that way i understand the word of wisdom to a point (aside from green tea) but this is tough to wrap my head around

Plenty of people, LDS or not, feel sex and intimacy should be an expression of love. Some take it a step further and "only within marriage" (religious and non religious people I have net have adopted chastity in their lives).

I understand where that comes from, and I do wish that the experiences I had were with someone I loved, but alas they weren't and I do hold a bit of regret sometimes about it.

[estradling75]

thank you for the response and we went over something very similar to that which is why i came here. I just dont understand how it is sinful to be with a women you enjoy spending time with when it is basic mammalian instinct...im not trying to be rude or disrespectful so please dont take it that way i understand the word of wisdom to a point (aside from green tea) but this is tough to wrap my head around

Ultimately it boils down to "Because God Said So..."

We can give all Reasons and Ideas and thoughts on why God said so but until you get to the point where you believe that its not really going to help much.

[selek]

which movie?

Mask of Zorro (Antonio Banderas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Anthony Hopkins).

Banderas character is hiding in the confessional when Catherine Zeta Jones admits to "breaking the Fourth Commandment".

After a frantic (and futile) search of his memory, Banderas replies, "You killed somebody?"

Zyzz,

The links given you are good ones to follow and research. If I am tracking your thoughts accurately, sexual transgressions are very serious, but they are not "the second most serious" crimes in the religion.

For the record, the first two are "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" and "murder" (hence my movie quote).

As far as why sexual congress outside of marriage is a problem, the short answer is "because the power to create life is sacred, the procreative acts are reserved for marriage".

The links provided will help you explore that concept, and we are here to answer specific questions if you need us.

[Zyzz]

[Guest]

thank you for the response and we went over something very similar to that which is why i came here. I just dont understand how it is sinful to be with a women you enjoy spending time with when it is basic mammalian instinct...im not trying to be rude or disrespectful so please dont take it that way i understand the word of wisdom to a point (aside from green tea) but this is tough to wrap my head around

That's the foundation of the Gospel of Christ. The Purpose of our lives here on earth is to train our Eternal Spirits to overcome our Mortal Body's Weaknesses. This mortal life experience determines how our Eternal Spirits will progress beyond death.

So, as it pertains to Chastity. Our sexuality is ordained of God to be the ultimate expression of love. Such expression needs to be made under the Covenant of Marriage. This expression is so powerful that it has the potential to be part of the Creation process - that by which innocent children are provided passage into their own mortal experience. Jesus Christ teaches us that the greatest commandments are to love God will all our hearts and to love each other as God loves us. Love does not flow inwards. Love flows outwards. And when Jesus Christ gave the commandment to his apostles to Love One Another, he demonstrated it by kneeling infront of his apostles to wash their feet. Love, therefore, is ultimate charity and is expressed in service.

So then, our expression of love under the Marriage Covenant needs to be patterned according to this example - making love is, therefore, not self-aggrandizing. Making love is completely about service. And it needs the fulfillment of covenants to go with it.

Edited May 7, 2013 by anatess

[Lakumi]

Mask of Zorro (Antonio Banderas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Anthony Hopkins).

Banderas character is hiding in the confessional when Catherine Zeta Jones admits to "breaking the Fourth Commandment".

After a frantic (and futile) search of his memory, Banderas replies, "You killed somebody?"

That was a pretty good movie, my favorite Zorro movie comes from 1974

best Zorro theme by far

[Lakumi]

wait I don't get it:confused:

[Zyzz]

That's the foundation of the Gospel of Christ. The Purpose of our lives here on earth is to train our Eternal Spirits to overcome our Mortal Body's Weaknesses. This mortal life experience determines how our Eternal Spirits will progress beyond death.

So, as it pertains to Chastity. Our sexuality is ordained of God to be the ultimate expression of love. Such expression needs to be made under the Covenant of Marriage. This expression is so powerful that it has the potential to be part of the Creation process - that by which innocent children are provided passage into their own mortal experience. Jesus Christ teaches us that the greatest commandments are to love God will all our hearts and to love each other as God loves us. Love does not flow inwards. Love flows outwards. And when Jesus Christ gave the commandment to his apostles to Love One Another, he demonstrated it by kneeling infront of his apostles to wash their feet. Love, therefore, is ultimate charity and is expressed in service.

So then, our expression of love under the Marriage Covenant needs to be patterned according to this example - it is not self-aggrandizing. It is completely about service. And it needs the covenants to go with it.

I can understand where you are coming from completely but it was service that had me intrigued about the religion in the first place. I volunteer weekly at the Boise rescue mission and met some terrific young lds people who eventually lead me to the missionaries which i was ironically more than happy to listen to. until now i found everything quite engaging and understandable. I am a bio-chemist focusing on hormone manipulation and immunohematology so understand why i bring this up and please i do not mean to offend or discredit anyone but i just want to understand and get rid of this road block in my way for further missionary talks. If god wanted to inhibit sexually activity why did he flood our cells with vasopressin (the initial attraction hormone) and subsequently allow oxytocin (the "binding" hormone) to take place only after sexual activity? If oxytocin is only allowed to be physically produced after sexual intercourse or the bonding between parents and their children then if there is no pre-marital sex there is no possible way for that bond to take effect alas no true connection between partners before committing to hopefully a life long agreement of mutual monogamy. I personally do not want to get married (perhaps it will change) so therefore i have to completely cut off any sexual interaction which is the base nature of any species survival instincts and remain abstinent. We were hard wired from birth to mate with the opposite sex and it is difficult to believe that we are hard wired evil and the only way to reverse that evil is to sign a marriage certificate comprising a piece of paper and ink. again i am simply stating my view i do not mean to be rude or come off as offensive

Edited May 7, 2013 by Zyzz

[Zyzz]

That was a pretty good movie, my favorite Zorro movie comes from 1974

best Zorro theme by far

[selek]

If oxytocin is only allowed to be physically produced after sexual intercourse or the bonding between parents and their children then if there is no pre-marital sex there is no possible way for that bond to take effect alas no true connection between partners before committing to hopefully a life long agreement of mutual monogamy.

This is a false premise, at best.

You are arguing that we, by nature,- and by extension, our relationships- are nothing more than the sum of our chemical interactions- a dubious philosophical proposition, at best.

[Lakumi]

[Guest]

I can understand where you are coming from completely but it was service that had me intrigued about the religion in the first place. I volunteer weekly at the Boise rescue mission and met some terrific young lds people who eventually lead me to the missionaries which i was ironically more than happy to listen to. until now i found everything quite engaging and understandable. I am a bio-chemist focusing on hormone manipulation and immunohematology so understand why i bring this up and please i do not mean to offend or discredit anyone but i just want to understand and get rid of this road block in my way for further missionary talks. If god wanted to inhibit sexually activity why did he flood our cells with vasopressin (the initial attraction hormone) and subsequently allow oxytocin (the "binding" hormone) to take place only after sexual activity? If oxytocin is only allowed to be physically produced after sexual intercourse or the bonding between parents and their children then if there is no pre-marital sex there is no possible way for that bond to take effect alas no true connection between partners before committing to hopefully a life long agreement of mutual monogamy. I personally do not want to get married (perhaps it will change) so therefore i have to completely cut off any sexual interaction which is the base nature of any species survival instincts and remain abstinent. We were hard wired from birth to mate with the opposite sex and it is difficult to believe that we are hard wired evil and the only way to reverse that evil is to sign a marriage certificate comprising a piece of paper and ink. again i am simply stating my view i do not mean to be rude or come off as offensive

Completely understandable. And there's a simple answer. Have you read the Book of Mormon yet? If not then pardon me for jump-starting your investigation. If yes, then this would flow quite well with your reading:

This is from 2 Nephi Chapter 2: It's my favorite chapter of the Book of Mormon. In this Chapter, Lehi was talking to his sons about the creation. I couldn't have explained it much better than how it is explained here. I bolded some parts. It would be great if you can read this now and then you can tell me if it answered your question and if not, then we can discuss further.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Acting on our base hormones for the purpose of self-satisfaction without inhibitions has proven time and time again that it leads to misery. Because it is but a copy of joy. Because true joy is not achieved through the hormones' ability to self-satisfy but through the strength of the relationships we build through giving of ourselves that is the source of our satisfaction. Hence, the opposition - lust versus love - as a foundation for which society is built upon.

Edited May 7, 2013 by anatess

[Zyzz]

This is a false premise, at best.

You are arguing that we, by nature,- and by extension, our relationships- are nothing more than the sum of our chemical interactions- a dubious philosophical proposition, at best.

Nice attempt but no, philosophy has nothing to do with anything i'm stating. Love is indeed a chemical reaction based for initial attraction and ensuring reproduction and essentially the survival of a species. I am NOT stating that we do not have interpersonal relationships that develop and grow throughout time. Even memories will produce hormones that can cause one to be jubilant, abhorrent, regretful, or dwindle in sorrow. Our emotions are one way or another caused by hormones actively effecting the way our brain sends signals from one synapse to another. This doesnt make us any less significant if anything it is absolutely extraordinary

[estradling75]

I can understand where you are coming from completely but it was service that had me intrigued about the religion in the first place. I volunteer weekly at the Boise rescue mission and met some terrific young lds people who eventually lead me to the missionaries which i was ironically more than happy to listen to. until now i found everything quite engaging and understandable. I am a bio-chemist focusing on hormone manipulation and immunohematology so understand why i bring this up and please i do not mean to offend or discredit anyone but i just want to understand and get rid of this road block in my way for further missionary talks. If god wanted to inhibit sexually activity why did he flood our cells with vasopressin (the initial attraction hormone) and subsequently allow oxytocin (the "binding" hormone) to take place only after sexual activity? If oxytocin is only allowed to be physically produced after sexual intercourse or the bonding between parents and their children then if there is no pre-marital sex there is no possible way for that bond to take effect alas no true connection between partners before committing to hopefully a life long agreement of mutual monogamy. I personally do not want to get married (perhaps it will change) so therefore i have to completely cut off any sexual interaction which is the base nature of any species survival instincts and remain abstinent. We were hard wired from birth to mate with the opposite sex and it is difficult to believe that we are hard wired evil and the only way to reverse that evil is to sign a marriage certificate comprising a piece of paper and ink. again i am simply stating my view i do not mean to be rude or come off as offensive

You are a perfect example on why...

Part of God's plan is to have us come to earth and gain a physical body. In addition once we gain a body its also set up for us to have one adult Male and one adult Female who have a vested interest in showing us how to figure things out.

But not everyone believes in God or his plan... So how does God try to set it up as default case while still giving people a choice in their actions? He creates a powerful sex drive... With attendant bonding hormones in both Male and Female. He makes a consequence of acting on such feelings to be a baby that needs to be cared for. Once that baby is on the way then various social pressures step in (assuming society isn't in the decline) to keep them together. Thus with out God being an acknowledged factor in the two peoples lives his purposes are being carried out (more or less) while the two of them are free to make their own choices and deal with the fall out of that.

For those that understand God's plan then are strongly encouraged to have as strong bond as possible before bringing kids into the world. (this includes the legal/social aspects of being recognized and a exclusive/committed couple) Its done by using the powerful sex drive as a carrot for getting things into place.

Now here is how you are an example... You want to have sex... Before the more effective modern birth control you would face the risk of pregnancy every time, and if that happened social pressure would be their to encourage you to "man up" in raising the child. Thus Gods purpose would be fulfilled even if you didn't believe. But now we are 'modern.' Pregnancy is less a factor now, and we have more single mothers, and we have more kids who aren't growing up to be responsible adults... Because people are choosing to avoid responsibility that God intended for us to pick up.

[Lakumi]

Nice attempt but no, philosophy has nothing to do with anything i'm stating. Love is indeed a chemical reaction based for initial attraction and ensuring reproduction and essentially the survival of a species. I am NOT stating that we do not have interpersonal relationships that develop and grow throughout time. Even memories will produce hormones that can cause one to be jubilant, abhorrent, regretful, or dwindle in sorrow. Our emotions are one way or another caused by hormones actively effecting the way our brain sends signals from one synapse to another. This doesnt make us any less significant if anything it is absolutely extraordinary

not something I wanna put on a valentines day card:lol:

[Zyzz]

Completely understandable. And there's a simple answer. Have you read the Book of Mormon yet? If not then pardon me for jump-starting your investigation. If yes, then this would flow quite well with your reading:

This is from 2 Nephi Chapter 2: It's my favorite chapter of the Book of Mormon. In this Chapter, Lehi was talking to his sons about the creation. I couldn't have explained it much better than how it is explained here. I bolded some parts. It would be great if you can read this now and then you can tell me if it answered your question and if not, then we can discuss further.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Acting on our base hormones for the purpose of self-satisfaction without inhibitions has proven time and time again that it leads to misery. Because it is but a copy of joy. Because true joy is not achieved through the hormones' ability to self-satisfy but through the strength of the relationships we build through giving of ourselves. Hence, the opposition - lust versus love - as a foundation for society.

I really do appreciate all the time you put into this and indeed you strike a very valid point. I may be coming off wrong i do not sleep around and my past relationships i have cared for the other individual greatly, i wouldn't say it was lust by any means. I have no issue with relationships or marriage nor would i ever judge anyone wanting to take on that commitment. I have been in love with a wonderful girl and her beautiful daughter and even though we were not married i couldn't have been happier spending my life with them. Yes i found her very attractive but that isnt the reason i stayed with her, a matter of fact i could have cared less what she looked like but since we never married was that love ever less real because i know it was not simply lust.

[selek]

Nice attempt but no, philosophy has nothing to do with anything i'm stating. Love is indeed a chemical reaction based for initial attraction and ensuring reproduction and essentially the survival of a species.

Incorrect. The philosophical construct (and its attendant biases) lie in limiting "love" to that narrow biochemical definition.

No one would argue that such biochemical reactions attend (walk hand-in-hand with, pun intended) love; but it is begging the question to define "love" as simply the sum of those chemical reactions (and nothing more).

The logical consequence of your assertion is to define humanity- and indeed all emotion, reason, and thought- down to the merely chemical.

Instead of thinking, reasoning beings touched by a spark of the divine, we become mere machines (however complex and extraordinary), responding inexorably and inescapably to our chemical programming.

Such a worldview is indeed a philosophical construct rather than a matter of scientific fact- and one of both dubious certitude and limited acceptance.

Edited May 7, 2013 by selek

[Anddenex]

This doesn't make us any less significant if anything it is absolutely extraordinary

Yes, indeed we are an extra ordinary species. We are the only species which can logically think and progress beyond the bounds other species face, even our evolutionary cousins, which are kept back due to their genetic makeup.

As LDS we believe we are dual natured -- carnal as well as spiritual. We believe to be carnally minded is death and to be spiritually minded is life. The desire for a man and woman to belong together, to become one, is inherent in our genetics as well as within our intelligence. This desire can either be carnal or spiritual, lust or love.

The desire to kill is also a natural tendency within all mammalian species, yet we can agree that killing another human is carnal, and should be avoided, save in the protection of your life or another's.

We are taught that we should bridle our passions in accordance with the dictates of our Father in heaven, which is to be spiritually minded.

Thus the true question, is there a God? If so, which God. Once discovered, for oneself, then adhering to His teachings will grant blessings in this life and in the next. I think, for most LDS teenagers they face a similar dilemma as you. Why keep chaste if you love the person (is it really love though)?

Why keep the law of Chastity if there is no God? We keep the law of Chastity, and keep the procreative powers within the bonds of matrimony due to the entitlement children have to born to parents. However, unless you have received a witness yourself, this is just another theology.

Once a witness is received, we begin to seek to be spiritually minded and the Lord reveals truth through his spirit, his intelligence, and we become enlightened.

Your question reminds me of an investigator I once taught on my mission as we presented the law of Chastity and were leaving his house. He says, "Not only are you boys telling me to not drink coffee, now your telling me I can't have sex."

No, we weren't telling him he can't have sex. We were inviting him to keep the commandments of God and make the choice to be spiritually minded and only having sex in a committed marriage partnership.

:)