am i twisted backwards?

[Dravin]

Fundamentally, assuming I'm parsing it correctly, the question seems to be, "If God didn't want me to do something why does it feel good?"

[Zyzz]

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.

very eloquently put and i couldn't agree with you more aside from the religious aspect as of which i am still in the infant stage of trying to figure out so if i sound ignorant, it's because i am. By posting what i have i do not want to sound as if i have ever condoned blatantly irresponsible intercourse or how it should be treated as if it were nothing more than a round of Halo. I have always held myself to a standard of treating women with respect and never have slept with a women who i hadn't been serious with, i guess i'm mostly baffled as to why a simple piece of paper with two signatures on it is what defines whether it is a mortal sin or a hall pass. I believe the moral fiber of our society is decaying and hence my interest in a church that stands and practices morality, this is truly my only qualm since in order for me to maintain a serious relationship with any sort of physical interaction it will have to be through a formal ceremony no matter how serious we are or how long we are together

[estradling75]

very eloquently put and i couldn't agree with you more aside from the religious aspect as of which i am still in the infant stage of trying to figure out so if i sound ignorant, it's because i am. By posting what i have i do not want to sound as if i have ever condoned blatantly irresponsible intercourse or how it should be treated as if it were nothing more than a round of Halo. I have always held myself to a standard of treating women with respect and never have slept with a women who i hadn't been serious with, i guess i'm mostly baffled as to why a simple piece of paper with two signatures on it is what defines whether it is a mortal sin or a hall pass. I believe the moral fiber of our society is decaying and hence my interest in a church that stands and practices morality, this is truly my only qualm since in order for me to maintain a serious relationship with any sort of physical interaction it will have to be through a formal ceremony no matter how serious we are or how long we are together

To whom much is given... much is required...

There are many out there who like the results of what the LDS teaching produce... And want to gain the benefits of that production.

So we show them how we get those benefits and they think its to hard or think they know a better way to get the results.

They are of course welcome to try their own way for as long as they wish. When they are willing to do what is required we(the Church) will be here for them.

[selek]

... i guess i'm mostly baffled as to why a simple piece of paper with two signatures on it is what defines whether it is a mortal sin or a hall pass

Once again, your definition and characterization is questionable, if not inflammatory.

No one here has put forth the proposition that marriage is simply a "piece of paper with two signatures on it".

In point of fact, such a characterization would be offensive to most everyone here.

According to legend, there was a rash of BYU and UofU students making weekend trips to Nevada, getting a quickie marriage, having sex, and then getting a quickie divorce- all as a means of having sex without violating the law of chastity.

Such behavior is egregiously offensive, and is direct mockery to God and his commandments. Even though it satisfies the letter of the law, such behavior demeans and diminishes the sacrament and sacred nature of marriage.

Finding excuses and means to work around the law is itself an act of disobedience.

I believe the moral fiber of our society is decaying and hence my interest in a church that stands and practices morality, this is truly my only qualm since in order for me to maintain a serious relationship with any sort of physical interaction it will have to be through a formal ceremony no matter how serious we are or how long we are together

And we applaud you for your stance in that regard.

[Zyzz]

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.

I understand your point and you made it very well, you were thinking far broader than i was. Yes in the aspect you put it in it is very much a philosophical question with a strong sociological undertone and a well made theory. I do not deny that we are all individuals built from the construct of our own past experiences, life aspirations, and knowledge we have gained throughout our lives, if we were not you and i wouldn't be debating right now. However to deny the fact that you took the time to respond to my post showed passion in some regard to either disprove me or to enlighten me with what you believe....that action in itself showed some hormone slightly elevating enough to manifest a physical response via a thread on a forum. I am not saying you did not already have those thoughts but if you were completely indifferent and your brain had no chemical fluctuation you would not have felt the need to respond to anything.

[selek]

However to deny the fact that you took the time to respond to my post showed passion in some regard to either disprove me or to enlighten me with what you believe....that action in itself showed some hormone slightly elevating enough to manifest a physical response via a thread on a forum.

It would be foolhardy to deny that an electrochemical alteration attends the response- but I reject the notion that said alteration is the sole source and impetus (let alone the sum) of the response.

I am not saying you did not already have those thoughts but if you were completely indifferent and your brain had no chemical fluctuation you would not have felt the need to respond to anything.

Since I would at that point, by definition, be dead- I am inclined to agree with your statement.

[Zyzz]

Once again, your definition and characterization is questionable, if not inflammatory.

No one here has put forth the proposition that marriage is simply a "piece of paper with two signatures on it".

In point of fact, such a characterization would be offensive to most everyone here.

According to legend, there was a rash of BYU and UofU students making weekend trips to Nevada, getting a quickie marriage, having sex, and then getting a quickie divorce- all as a means of having sex without violating the law of chastity.

Such behavior is egregiously offensive, and is direct mockery to God and his commandments. Even though it satisfies the letter of the law, such behavior demeans and diminishes the sacrament and sacred nature of marriage.

Finding excuses and means to work around the law is itself an act of disobedience.

And we applaud you for your stance in that regard.

you have to understand i do not mean offense as i was not raised with the same beliefs and am trying to learn so if my marriage comment did offend then i do apologize. Just like the law people will find loop holes, In regards to your comment about the students does that sort of action not help enforce my statement? They abuse marriage to have brief sex and it is a sinless act by this definition but an unmarried couple who love each other deeply and have been together for a substantial amount of time are the ones who have sinned. Selek btw i am actually really enjoying this conversation i am not trying to be argumentative but when i get caught into a good discussion i tend to take as much as i can out of it so thank you for your patience

[Zyzz]

Since I would at that point, by definition, be dead- I am inclined to agree with your statement.

haha you understand what i meant, from your previous baseline to where you were after my initial post but touch'e my friend

Edited May 7, 2013 by Eowyn
language

[Guest]

through a formal ceremony ...

The formal ceremony is not a stage show. The formal ceremony is a COVENANT. The difference between making that covenant and not making the covenant is - the covenant is a binding promise between you, your partner, and God that both of you will put love (remember, this does not go inwards - this is complete charity) above everything else. Making that covenant has ETERNAL blessings. Breaking the covenant has ETERNAL consequences.

Now, we're moving on to the concept of man as an eternal being...

But, let's not go into that just yet. Line upon line, precept upon precept...

So, even without the eternal aspect of marriage, you will find the social differences between the traditional home of a mother, a father, and their children bound by "vows" (a form of covenant) that the society recognizes as protected and the family's investment in that "vow" as a symbol of security and identity (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, etc. etc.)... and the non-traditional home of a mother, the boyfriend, the children without legal binds whose security is threatened by the ability of one or the other to "jet when the seas get rough" at any moment. Because, why else does one withhold marital vows as recognized by law?

Edited May 7, 2013 by anatess

[selek]

you have to understand i do not mean offense as i was not raised with the same beliefs and am trying to learn so if my marriage comment did offend then i do apologize.

I took no offense- I was merely offering a warning and explanation.

Just like the law people will find loop holes, In regards to your comment about the students does that sort of action not help enforce my statement? They abuse marriage to have brief sex and it is a sinless act by this definition but an unmarried couple who love each other deeply and have been together for a substantial amount of time are the ones who have sinned.

You miss my point: despite the fact that it met the "letter of the law" definition of sex between man and wife, these were NOT sinless acts, as they mocked both God and the law.

As you yourself admitted, they abused the sacrament to achieve physical gratification.

They, too, were treating marriage as a matter of "two signatures on a piece of paper"- an act which most of us would find blatantly offensive and almost deliberately provocative.

Selek btw i am actually really enjoying this conversation i am not trying to be argumentative but when i get caught into a good discussion i tend to take as much as i can out of it so thank you for your patience

Likewise.

I very much enjoy wading into a good back-and-forth argument without rancor or hostility (an all-too-rare opportunity in today's society).

I have been striving to dismantle your arguments and suppositions rather than to attack your credibility or personal integrity. If I have come across in any other fashion, I apologize.

I have not taken offense at anything you've offered thus far, though we clearly disagree on several basic premises.

I look forward to continuing the conversation in the same vein.

Edited May 7, 2013 by selek

[Zyzz]

It would be foolhardy to deny that an electrochemical alteration attends the response- but I reject the notion that said alteration is the sole source and impetus (let alone the sum) of the response.

Well absolutely not it was your A)withheld knowledge meeting B ) my post which created C) an emotional response to respond which was caused by D ) hormones :)

we could argue this all the way down to genetics and how varying DNA and RNA essentially cause different hormone levels, neurophysiology, susceptibility towards aggression, and why i have 20 toes but do know i agree with you 99% we are arguing the same principle from different view points

[Guest]

haha you understand what i meant, from your previous baseline to where you were after my initial post but touch'e my friend

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Did selek just find a match?????

[selek]

Well absolutely not it was your A)withheld knowledge meeting B ) my post which created C) an emotional response to respond which was caused by D ) hormones :)

we could argue this all the way down to genetics and how varying DNA and RNA essentially cause different hormone levels, neurophysiology, susceptibility towards aggression, and why i have 20 toes but do know i agree with you 99% we are arguing the same principle from different view points

Agreed.

In my estimation, the argument about whether electrochemical alterations or individual (I loathe to use the word metaphysical) aspects of personality drive behavior is akin to arguing which blade on a pair of scissors is more important.

The two are inescapably and inseparably intertwined, and one cannot/will not function without the other.

Of course, if we really wanted to glaze people's eyes over we could get into the theories of "metagenetics" and genetic "triggers" as switched on or off by varying environmental factors.

I have to admit though, in pursuing that digression, I would be "bringing a knife to a gun fight".

I am well-read, but am really only a dabbler in the heavier aspects of biochemistry.

[estradling75]

this is truly my only qualm since in order for me to maintain a serious relationship with any sort of physical interaction it will have to be through a formal ceremony no matter how serious we are or how long we are together

I guess I have never really understood this mindset...

If you are in a committed serious relationship... what it the problem with formalizing it?

The only thing that comes to mind is that you are trying to keep one foot out the door, to keep your other options open. That strikes me the opposite of committed.

When you take wedding vows and you mean it (For better or for worse, sickness and in health etc) That is commitment... Anything else you are simply waiting for something better to come along. (assuming of course you mean the vows... anything else and it is just a piece of paper)

[Lakumi]

I guess I have never really understood this mindset...

If you are in a committed serious relationship... what it the problem with formalizing it?

The only thing that comes to mind is that you are trying to keep one foot out the door, to keep your other options open. That strikes me the opposite of committed.

When you take wedding vows and you mean it (For better or for worse, sickness and in health etc) That is commitment... Anything else you are simply waiting for something better to come along. (assuming of course you mean the vows... anything else and it is just a piece of paper)

what if she's an atheist and refuses marriage in the church sense?

or you don't- or both of you don't (whichever)

[Zyzz]

I took no offense- I was merely offering a warning and explanation.

You miss my point: despite the fact that it met the "letter of the law" definition of sex between man and wife, these were NOT sinless acts, as they mocked both God and the law.

As you yourself admitted, they abused the sacrament to achieve physical gratification.

They, too, were treating marriage as a matter of "two signatures on a piece of paper"- a blatantly offensive act.

Likewise.

I very much enjoy wading into a good back-and-forth argument without rancor or hostility (an all-too-rare opportunity in today's society).

I have been striving to dismantle your arguments and suppositions rather than to attack your credibility or personal integrity. If I have come across in any other fashion, I apologize.

I have not taken offense at anything you've offered thus far, though we clearly disagree on several basic premises.

I look forward to continuing the conversation in the same vein.

well then it boils down to basic human morality and whether or not people will abide by it or find ways around it to make themselves feel clean of a devious action of which was defined by their religion. I personally will have to deal with this aspect of non-premarital sex but thinking openly and understanding society as a whole i do in fact completely understand where the church comes from. The amount of teen pregnancies and the amount of chaos that can potentially ensue after a reckless venture for physical satisfaction can indeed be devastating. I was engaged to a girl who had a child before she was ready and i hoped to give them stability because i loved them both however i wasn't blind to how this may affect the child in the future and how it was actively effecting my fiancee. unfortunately i will never know how it ends up and all i can give them are my best wishes. Even though in that instance i could see daily the negative consequences of her action it is hard for me to believe that what we had was sinful

[estradling75]

what if she's an atheist and refuses marriage in the church sense?

or you don't- or both of you don't (whichever)

To fulfill the Law of Chasity it does not have to be a Church wedding. It just has to be legal and lawful

[selek]

I guess I have never really understood this mindset...

If you are in a committed serious relationship... what it the problem with formalizing it?

The only thing that comes to mind is that you are trying to keep one foot out the door, to keep your other options open. That strikes me the opposite of committed.

While I agree with nearly everything you've posted thus far ES, I wonder if you aren't oversimplifying a bit here.

To begin with, there are varying levels of commitment, and there are many reasons why someone might be less-than-fully invested in a relationship that has nothing to do with "keeping your other options open".

One of the primary ones, in my opinion, is fear.

I married a woman who had previously been divorced (and we made the mistake of not pursuing thorough counseling before hand).

We were in love and were both committed to the marriage and making it work. By the same token, however, the emotional baggage and wounds we both carried represented a considerable obstacle to "till death do you part", let alone to an eternal, celestial marriage.

When you take wedding vows and you mean it (For better or for worse, sickness and in health etc) That is commitment...

We DID that- and meant those words- yet the marriage still ended.

Is there more we could have done? Are their things we might have done differently?

Certainly, on both counts.

But it would be both rash and intemperate to suggest that we were not committed to one another.

[Lakumi]

To fulfill the Law of Chasity it does not have to be a Church wedding. It just has to be legal and lawful

I see...I have not done a good job forfilling any law of chastity, and as I said I do regret, at most- that there wasn't any love...

[Zyzz]

I guess I have never really understood this mindset...

If you are in a committed serious relationship... what it the problem with formalizing it?

The only thing that comes to mind is that you are trying to keep one foot out the door, to keep your other options open. That strikes me the opposite of committed.

When you take wedding vows and you mean it (For better or for worse, sickness and in health etc) That is commitment... Anything else you are simply waiting for something better to come along. (assuming of course you mean the vows... anything else and it is just a piece of paper)

I wasn't always in the mindset of denying myself marriage but i have experienced the road up to it. It isn't that i am afraid of commitment nor that i do not love the women back but i do not think my feelings or devotion to a certain person can only be shown through marriage. I honestly believe my actions shall always show more than an official government document ever could. As for one foot out the door that could come off derogatory however given the amount of positive responses here i will not take it as such, even with marriage people opt out all the time i believe it is about personal accountability, if you are truly going to commit to someone then let them know that and follow through with it. I would never lead any women on with future aspirations of eventually splitting up yet it does happen unfortunately and a divorce is much more messy

[estradling75]

While I agree with nearly everything you've posted thus far ES, I wonder if you aren't oversimplifying a bit here.

To begin with, there are varying levels of commitment, and there are many reasons why someone might be less-than-fully invested in a relationship that has nothing to do with "keeping your other options open".

One of the primary ones, in my opinion, is fear.

I married a woman who had previously been divorced (and we made the mistake of not pursuing thorough counseling before hand).

We were in love and were both committed to the marriage and making it work. By the same token, however, the emotional baggage and wounds we both carried represented a considerable obstacle to "till death do you part", let alone to an eternal, celestial marriage.

We DID that- and meant those words- yet the marriage still ended.

Is there more we could have done? Are their things we might have done differently?

Certainly, on both counts.

But it would be both rash and intemperate to suggest that we were not committed to one another.

Sorry Selek I did not mean to come off as too simplistic... nor did I mean to reopen any old wounds.

I was addressing a subset of relationships that seem to run under the mantra of "We don't need a ceremony" or a 'piece of paper' to prove our commitment. I was not intending to address every reason some people might be reluctant to formalize a relationship

[Zyzz]

Agreed.

Of course, if we really wanted to glaze people's eyes over we could get into the theories of "metagenetics" and genetic "triggers" as switched on or off by varying environmental factors.

I have to admit though, in pursuing that digression, I would be "bringing a knife to a gun fight".

I am well-read, but am really only a dabbler in the heavier aspects of biochemistry.

Ahh metagenics the science of taking an amino acid and giving yourself a migraine

[selek]

well then it boils down to basic human morality and whether or not people will abide by it or find ways around it to make themselves feel clean of a devious action of which was defined by their religion.

There are a lot of assumptions to unpack in this statement.

First and foremost is the question of "basic human morality" versus "eternal law" and of "an eternal, objective standard" versus "defined by their religion".

On the former, as others have pointed out, "basic human morality" is a variable concept (at best). What I personally find morally acceptable may vary widely from your own personal baseline.

We, as Latter-day Saints, believe that the eternal standard- God's law- objectively true and immutable.

We also believe (and have considerable evidence to support the notion) that man is carnal and devious (to appropriate your term) and will generally live down to his baser instincts unless taught to do otherwise.

To us, there is no question that men will (left to their own devices) go with what "feels right" and/or is the most personally advantageous at any particular moment.

According to our understanding and theology, our mortal trials and probation exist to teach us self-discipline and to maintain a higher standard than "if-it-feels-good-do-it". The latter phrase is, of course, a bit hyperbolic, but I trust you understand my point.

The second point is the dichotomy of "an eternal, objective standard" versus "defined by their religion".

Unfortunately, this question can only be resolved as a matter of faith.

To the skeptic and the doubter, any standard taught by a Church will necessarily be artificial and arbitrary- "defined by their religion".

To the believer, on the other hand, the standard would (almost literally) be "God-breathed", eternal law.

One of the interesting aspects of the LDS faith is Moroni's promise (found in Moroni Chapter 10, IIRC):

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

To the faithful, this closely approximates the scientific method in that we are charged not only to listen to the words, but to understand and test them.

Contrary to what many believe, Mormonism is a reasoned faith, not a blind one.

We expect you to believe based upon your own "experimentation" with God's promise and what he has revealed- not simply "because your teacher told you so."

For the faithful Mormon, it is not enough to simply hear and repeat the party line, but is instead crucial that we know and understand- and consistently strive for the better and best that our faith has to offer.

I personally will have to deal with this aspect of non-premarital sex but thinking openly and understanding society as a whole i do in fact completely understand where the church comes from.

This is good; but please keep in mind that for the believing Latter-day Saint, it's not just a matter of practical outcomes, but also of that objective, eternal standard mentioned above.

The amount of teen pregnancies and the amount of chaos that can potentially ensue after a reckless venture for physical satisfaction can indeed be devastating. I was engaged to a girl who had a child before she was ready and i hoped to give them stability because i loved them both however i wasn't blind to how this may affect the child in the future and how it was actively effecting my fiancee. unfortunately i will never know how it ends up and all i can give them are my best wishes. Even though in that instance i could see daily the negative consequences of her action it is hard for me to believe that what we had was sinful

On the contrary, I doubt any Latter-day Saint would insist that your relationship with her was sinful- only that your sexual interaction with her was unlawful.

There is a distinction between the two.

[selek]

Sorry Selek I did not mean to come off as too simplistic... nor did I mean to reopen any old wounds.

No harm done, no foul.

I was addressing a subset of relationships that seem to run under the mantra of "We don't need a ceremony" or a 'piece of paper' to prove our commitment. I was not intending to address every reason some people might be reluctant to formalize a relationship

Fair enough.

In point of fact, I agree with you, I just objected to the breadth of the brush being used.

[Dravin]

On the contrary, I doubt any Latter-day Saint would insist that your relationship with her was sinful- only that your sexual interaction with her was unlawful.

There is a distinction between the two.

To add another voice to the pile, I was just out watering the seed I'd put down earlier today and thinking on Zyzz's comment concerning his relationship and thought to myself, "That's because it wasn't all wrong, but rather the sexual component of it was." To classify the entirety of the relationship as sinful is to reduce the relationship to sexual relations. It ignores the other, non-sinful, aspects of the relationship.