Heather

Tyler Glenn of Neon Trees controversial new video shows anger towards Mormon religion

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I often reflect and wonder exactly what are the purposes of human sexuality? I wish I understood it better.

I find the traditional wording of the marriage ceremony in the Anglican Church's Book of Common Prayer to be both beautiful and apropos to this question:

Quote

 

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tesuji: It is difficult to say whether you understood or not -- I am not sure I fully understand my ramblings. To avoid too much of a threadjack, I will perhaps suggest these two threads that I started some time ago that tried to touch on questions around whether sex is "necessary" to marriage, how do we as a Church body view sexless marriages, and the like. These might explain what kind of thinking leads to my reaction here.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vort, I agree that the Anglican marriage ceremony expresses some of this quite well. Additional comments/questions that I don't think it answers (not that we would expect an Anglican homily to really define LDS theology).

First -- procreation. Clearly, even in LDS thought this is one of the purposes of sexuality in marriage. In a Church is that is tolerant (at least) of natural and artificial birth control, sex after menopause, and other non-procreative sexual activity within marriage, clearly this is not the only purpose. Quantitatively, procreation seems to be a fairly minor purpose. Obviously, this is the one purpose that homosexual sex (in or out of marriage) cannot fulfill.

Second -- kind of mixed reaction. The Anglican expression seems to elevate celibacy above marriage, which we don't believe (though in some discussions around sexless marriages, I hear of some low desire spouses who seem to believe that celibacy is to be preferred). This also seems to carry echoes of what St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7:9 -- "It is better to marry than to burn." (JST renders it "...better to marry than that any should commit sin"). I have occasionally reflected on this idea and wondered, if this is indeed one of the purposes of marriage, why it is different for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.

Third -- for the strengthening of bonds between husband and wife (to use the kind of phraseology that we LDS typically use for this). Clearly we agree with this purpose. The longer discussion would be about how does sexuality fit into this purpose (a lot of times we talk about strictly as a reaction to love rather than proactively to build love). And, as it relates to Tyler and other LGBT, in what way does monogamous, homosexual sex fail to fill this purpose within a committed homosexual relationship?

If these are the purposes of human sexuality, they do not seem to me to justify our adamant opposition to gay marriage. My main point is, while waiting for further light and knowledge on this topic, I find myself empathetic to the frustrations expressed by my LGBT brothers and sisters. Tyler's reaction seems a little over the top -- he could have just quietly "went inactive" or something, but I can kind of understand his pain and anger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

@MrShorty  I think what you might be trying to say/ask...  Under what conditions (if any) would sexual incompatibility render a marriage a mockery of what the Lord would have it be?

 

Perhaps. That might be a good summary of the "sexless marriage and the sacrament" thread I linked to. In my opinion, as long as each spouse is trying to stay together, trying to make it work, they are "honoring marriage" -- no matter what level of sexual incompatibility they are dealing with (or not dealing with as the case may be). As I have thought it through, it is really about building a life together. If Pres. Kimball is to be believed, most divorces are caused by sexual incompatibility. I don't know about "most" or "a majority", but it seems fairly well established that sexual incompatility is frequently a factor in many divorces, and that is how it makes a mockery of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Vort, I agree that the Anglican marriage ceremony expresses some of this quite well. Additional comments/questions that I don't think it answers (not that we would expect an Anglican homily to really define LDS theology).

...

If these are the purposes of human sexuality, they do not seem to me to justify our adamant opposition to gay marriage.

Agreed that the Anglican rite does not define or even describe LDS theology. I just thought it was a nice and perhaps useful encapsulation of some important ideas. And obviously, I disagree with the implication that a sexless life is somehow preferable to a married life -- though I thought that the Church of England pretty much rejected this idea, too.

Our justification for adamantly opposing homosexual "marriage" is ultimately the word of God to us. But to me, it's obvious enough that heterosexual marriage fundamentally defines the relationship between men and women, and thus is the foundation of all society. I find this far more than adequate reason to oppose homosexual "marriage".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vort said:

Our justification for adamantly opposing homosexual "marriage" is ultimately the word of God to us.

Ultimately, it seems to me that you are right. All other attempts to justify or explain these things fall short, and it ends up in "this is what we believe God has told us to do." And, I would add, whether each individual has their own personal testimony that God is truly behind the Church's pronouncements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now