Sexuality within marriage

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Or in other words hedonistic pleasure is NOT part of the divine nature.

In theory you could have 1,000 wives and one husband and everything would be just dandy if everyone had a fullness of the divine nature, like Christ.

Only if sexual pleasure were hedonistic per se. I disbelieve that. I think that sexual pleasure and satisfaction with one's spouse is a part of our divine nature.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Snigmorder said:

Remember the original context.

Changed said: "I think everyone has already agreed that the purpose of gender & intimacy is not just to have children"

I then argued that non procreative sex becomes less practical with more wives (my number was 30.) And therefore "sex for fun" may not be in the nature of divine happiness.

Or in other words hedonistic pleasure is NOT part of the divine nature.

In theory you could have 1,000 wives and one husband and everything would be just dandy if everyone had a fullness of the divine nature, like Christ.

I'm afraid you misunderstood the "original context" as you put it.  Changed was advocating the abandonment of sexual intimacy in favor of other more emotional spiritual forms of intimacy because, supposedly, that's a higher level of intimacy than sexual intimacy.

So, your response really had nothing to do with her statement.  You may have intended it to be so.  But it was based on a misunderstanding of her underlying message.  So I responded to your point on its own merits.

The point I just made about the hedonism is that there is a difference between "having sex" (hedonism) and "making love" (partaking of a sacred ordinance).

[Snigmorder]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm afraid you misunderstood the "original context" as you put it.  Changed was advocating the abandonment of sexual intimacy in favor of other more emotional spiritual forms of intimacy because, supposedly, that's a higher level of intimacy than sexual intimacy.

So, your response really had nothing to do with her statement.  You may have intended it to be so.  But it was based on a misunderstanding of her underlying message.  So I responded to your point on its own merits.

The point I just made about the hedonism is that there is a difference between "having sex" (hedonism) and "making love" (partaking of a sacred ordinance).

I understand, I didn't read anything else they said, only that one post. @Vort @Carborendum It should be said I would never call sex in the divine sense hedonistic. That was the word used, so I used it.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Mike said:

Are you drawing a distinction between human life and divine human life? Also, is this meant to address my earlier question to you (notwithstanding contributions made since by other forum members?  

I still don't see how I can hold that the actions that brought about Adam's physical body are the same as those that brought about mine. (I'm hoping you'll bear with me here as I try to discuss it with you).

 

 

We are looking at creation very differently – As I understand; you see no reason why G-d would be consistent in his methods and processes and I see no reason to believe that G-d is not consistent in how he creates.

 

The Traveler

[Mike]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

We are looking at creation very differently – As I understand; you see no reason why G-d would be consistent in his methods and processes and I see no reason to believe that G-d is not consistent in how he creates.

Well, we're certainly looking at consistent differently.  I think I understand you when you say that you see no reason to believe that G-d is not consistent in how he creates. But it isn't that I see no reason why God would be consistent. It's that I see no reason why God should be talked about as if He were bound by what mere humans like us want to say is consistent or inconsistent. Its that I should think that *everything* is within God's choice of how to accomplish his purposes, and our limited knowledge of everything seems to make a conversation about God being consistent tantamount to saying "because it was done this or that way with the instances I cite, then it must needs have been done identically everywhere and in every instance." I don't want to be more annoying that I may already have become, so I do appreciate your indulgence of me so far. All my best. 

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Mike said:

Well, we're certainly looking at consistent differently.  I think I understand you when you say that you see no reason to believe that G-d is not consistent in how he creates. But it isn't that I see no reason why God would be consistent. It's that I see no reason why God should be talked about as if He were bound by what mere humans like us want to say is consistent or inconsistent. Its that I should think that *everything* is within God's choice of how to accomplish his purposes, and our limited knowledge of everything seems to make a conversation about God being consistent tantamount to saying "because it was done this or that way with the instances I cite, then it must needs have been done identically everywhere and in every instance." I don't want to be more annoying that I may already have become, so I do appreciate your indulgence of me so far. All my best. 

 

Thanks for your post.  I find your posts refreshing and am, by nature, interested in different views.  I believe that Moroni Chapter 10 and the references to spiritual gifts is directly related to different views and that through different views we learn and understand truth better.  But I would address your notion “I see no reason why God should be talked about as if He were bound by what mere humans like us want to say is consistent or inconsistent.”

I believe that we are governed by two kinds of principles and laws.  The first I call eternal principles and laws.  These include the what many call “natural” laws that define physics, mathematics, justice, and all other things that bring about order.  Some think of such principles as limitations or bounds that prevent us from doing things that we think we want to do.  The second kind of governing principle I believe to be what the scriptures call “the light of truth”.  There is a more to the light of truth than knowledge but for the purpose of our discussion I will accept knowledge as sufficient understanding. 

Not so long ago I was involved with a Hollywood producer about ways magic could be portrayed in story telling (movies).  I suggested that he consider that magic actually exists and can be utilized through disciplinary training and understanding of the 3 great pillars of magic.  He was very surprised that a scientist like myself would propose magic as a governing principle of our universe.  Without a lot of explanation, I suggested that the three pillars of magic were mathematics, music and compassionate love (self-sacrifice).  I suggested that each are a “discipline” that are keys to understanding and exercising power.  I also explained that discipline is a most interesting key – because at first discipline appears to set boundaries and limits that indirectly rob a person of freedom.  But what we learn through discipline is that only by controlling and governing ourselves with principles of discipline do we truly set ourselves free.

I do not see G-d as a supernatural being that can change things through what we think of as sorcery.  Rather, I understand G-d to be an individual governed by discipline.  That such discipline has set him free and prevents him from being subject to things he does not understand and has not mastered.  I do not see man as so different from G-d.  That as we learn from G-d to discipline ourselves as G-d is so disciplined – we also will become masters of magic and that what others find as boundaries we will find as the means of freedom and power.

 

The Traveler

[Mike]

59 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Thanks for your post.  I find your posts refreshing and am, by nature, interested in different views.  I believe that Moroni Chapter 10 and the references to spiritual gifts is directly related to different views and that through different views we learn and understand truth better.  But I would address your notion “I see no reason why God should be talked about as if He were bound by what mere humans like us want to say is consistent or inconsistent.”

I believe that we are governed by two kinds of principles and laws.  The first I call eternal principles and laws.  These include the what many call “natural” laws that define physics, mathematics, justice, and all other things that bring about order.  Some think of such principles as limitations or bounds that prevent us from doing things that we think we want to do.  The second kind of governing principle I believe to be what the scriptures call “the light of truth”.  There is a more to the light of truth than knowledge but for the purpose of our discussion I will accept knowledge as sufficient understanding. 

Not so long ago I was involved with a Hollywood producer about ways magic could be portrayed in story telling (movies).  I suggested that he consider that magic actually exists and can be utilized through disciplinary training and understanding of the 3 great pillars of magic.  He was very surprised that a scientist like myself would propose magic as a governing principle of our universe.  Without a lot of explanation, I suggested that the three pillars of magic were mathematics, music and compassionate love (self-sacrifice).  I suggested that each are a “discipline” that are keys to understanding and exercising power.  I also explained that discipline is a most interesting key – because at first discipline appears to set boundaries and limits that indirectly rob a person of freedom.  But what we learn through discipline is that only by controlling and governing ourselves with principles of discipline do we truly set ourselves free.

I do not see G-d as a supernatural being that can change things through what we think of as sorcery.  Rather, I understand G-d to be an individual governed by discipline.  That such discipline has set him free and prevents him from being subject to things he does not understand and has not mastered.  I do not see man as so different from G-d.  That as we learn from G-d to discipline ourselves as G-d is so disciplined – we also will become masters of magic and that what others find as boundaries we will find as the means of freedom and power.

 

The Traveler

I accept most of what you posited above, and it strikes me as a very good argument to warrant the position that God didn't necessarily create Adam's physical body identical to the way He created my physical body; and that He didn't necessarily create Eve's physical body identical to the way He created Adam's physical body.