Yes, if everyone practices chastity, you do end up with a lot more virgins. I'm not arguing with that.
There are still several downsides that come with the focus on virginity, and in that hangup we lose some understanding of the Gospel.
One of the saddest examples I have is from Elizabeth Smart. In her own telling, after being kidnapped and raped, she did not think anyone would want her anymore. One of the things that made her feel that way was an analogy that had been taught, about how nobody wants a chewed up piece of gum.
Women are not pieces of gum. I can't believe that even needs to be said. Remember last week when we were talking about how some things just make you sound stupid? Well, saying that no one wants to have sex with someone who has already had sex could easily fall into that category.
Theoretically the first time a woman has sex results in the hymen being broken (though there are apparently other ways that can happen), but people have enjoyable post-hymen sex all the time. It would be silly to make that much out of it, except that it does happen. There are two ways that can go.
One is that placing a premium on virginity causes men to look for younger and younger girls, before they are "spoiled". This can lead to the rape of very young girls, as has been shown in Sierra Leone. Men want to get to the girl first, because they like to be the ones to take the virginity. That's what can happen when you make virginity a prize, and its acquisition a status symbol.
It dehumanizes women, of course, and part of that is the double standard. Religions that believe in chastity should believe in it equally for men and women, but somehow men and women are never viewed quite the same. That can even poison a marriage:
http://www.xojane.com/sex/true-love-waits-pledge
I am glad for her that her husband was so understanding, but I am sad that it damaged her faith. "I couldn't figure out how to be both religious and sexual at the same time." Surely we can do better than that.
Just like our response on narcotics has to evolve beyond a knee-jerk "Drugs are bad", we have to be able to do better than "Sex is bad!"
We don't believe sex is bad. We believe it's a wonderful things that allows a husband and wife to grow closer together, and to share physical pleasure, and to have children. That's not dirty; it's beautiful.
We also believe that intimacy belongs inside marriage, so we need to be able to articulate why. Yes, we can say it's part of our covenants, but we should be able to have at least some understanding of why it would be a commandment, and why it would matter.
We can easily remember that sometimes, even when you think not all of the factors are in place, that children do get conceived. That is something that is better if it happens in marriage.
We can talk about how marriage finalizes the commitment, while acknowledging that there are people who are committed in many ways without getting officially married. There needs to be some acknowledgement that marriage is not magic, and that the feelings that inspire people to marry may fade, and how to deal with that.
There can be communication about how the intimacy that is developed through sex is best limited to one person, rather than spreading bits of your heart all around. There is certainly room for talking about how there will be people who will tell you that they love you and not mean it, or they will mean that they love you, but without sufficient maturity and selflessness to make it last.
If at this point my arguments sound weaker, okay, having been chaste all my life, and never having been married, I am a virgin, I do not have personal experience of this. People raising children do.
I do know of the heartache many of my friends have experienced who did have sex, and I have learned things from that, but I don't want to focus on the negative. I believe that there are a lot of positives to chastity, for everyone.
And yes, you do have more virgins that way, but if someone comes to the Gospel later, and has had sex, or if someone was trying to live the Gospel but slipped (because those are very powerful urges) and then repented and tried again, that does not make them any less. We believe in forgiveness.
And especially important to say, if someone is raped, that does not make them any less. They will have enough trauma to work through without having to deal with society's stupid lessons that virginity is a prize.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Being able to speak with the world
One of the things I hate most at church is that it seems like whenever someone mentions "the world" it is bolded and italicized, like it is one step away from needing a euphemism because it is too horrible to say. The "world" is not Voldemort, and even if it were, it was silly of the members of the wizarding world to be scared of a word.
The bigger point that I want to get to is to take a better look at what we mean when we say "the world", and if we are on the right track, but we are not there yet. Instead we are building on last week's themes of not being afraid of words or warping their meanings. This is necessary so we can communicate effectively. Once we start changing words around communication is muddied, and even our own perceptions can be unclear.
There is a lot of room for this discussion in the realm of sex, but let's start with something easier and look at drugs.
Many people have been upset by the recent legalization of marijuana in some states, because they feel like the state condoning its use will make its use more common.
My feelings were mixed because at the same time that I hate marijuana, I know that the war on drugs is a fiasco and makes things much worse than having them legal would be, so that we are just allowing the one, but maintaining the structure of illegality that is so harmful, is a concern.
(For more on that topic, I strongly recommend Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari.)
For the LDS, this shouldn't be a problem. We already abstain from legal substances like tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea; we know that there can be things that are reasonably legal but are still bad for you. Many members also abstain from cola, even though that is not something that is officially included. We can do that. Therefore it should be completely possible to have a discussion on reasons not to take marijuana beyond "Drugs are bad!"
Some of my reasons for not liking marijuana are narrow-minded. It just seems to make people act a lot stupider, in the moment and then as a result of prolonged use. At the same time, I know people who use it who are not stupid, and I need to be willing to accept that. Different people do have different reactions - some people get really paranoid on marijuana, though that's rare - so it probably does have less of an effect on others.
One reason I don't use any drugs, including marijuana, is that not using them is part of my baptismal covenant, and that's a choice that I made and that I honor. People who have not made that choice are not sinning. It may not be a beneficial choice, but they would not have any motivation to honor beliefs they don't have. I have no room to judge that.
I do have room to notice the ways that I am blessed for honoring my covenants, and this is where I can gain a better understanding of why we are given that. I have observed people lose common sense and judgment while using substances. That can have more serious consequences that it usually does, but I like having my faculties.
Many people who use substances, including marijuana, are trying to deaden feelings of pain or emptiness. I understand this motivation, and I have a lot of sympathy for it, but I ultimately believe that deadening the feelings delays their healing, and the healing feels better than the deadening.
Most importantly for me is that when I am substance free it leaves me more open to inspiration. I get thoughts and ideas and clarity that would have a hard time making it through the fog. Acting on those things allows me to help others and to be more creative, both of which are things that I highly value. Because of that, the choice to abstain becomes stronger.
I can have that discussion with people, and they might not be convinced to try it themselves, but they can at least respect it. That leaves an opening where they are more likely to consider it in the future.
That discussion doesn't get very far if all I have to contribute is "Drugs are bad!"
The bigger point that I want to get to is to take a better look at what we mean when we say "the world", and if we are on the right track, but we are not there yet. Instead we are building on last week's themes of not being afraid of words or warping their meanings. This is necessary so we can communicate effectively. Once we start changing words around communication is muddied, and even our own perceptions can be unclear.
There is a lot of room for this discussion in the realm of sex, but let's start with something easier and look at drugs.
Many people have been upset by the recent legalization of marijuana in some states, because they feel like the state condoning its use will make its use more common.
My feelings were mixed because at the same time that I hate marijuana, I know that the war on drugs is a fiasco and makes things much worse than having them legal would be, so that we are just allowing the one, but maintaining the structure of illegality that is so harmful, is a concern.
(For more on that topic, I strongly recommend Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari.)
For the LDS, this shouldn't be a problem. We already abstain from legal substances like tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea; we know that there can be things that are reasonably legal but are still bad for you. Many members also abstain from cola, even though that is not something that is officially included. We can do that. Therefore it should be completely possible to have a discussion on reasons not to take marijuana beyond "Drugs are bad!"
Some of my reasons for not liking marijuana are narrow-minded. It just seems to make people act a lot stupider, in the moment and then as a result of prolonged use. At the same time, I know people who use it who are not stupid, and I need to be willing to accept that. Different people do have different reactions - some people get really paranoid on marijuana, though that's rare - so it probably does have less of an effect on others.
One reason I don't use any drugs, including marijuana, is that not using them is part of my baptismal covenant, and that's a choice that I made and that I honor. People who have not made that choice are not sinning. It may not be a beneficial choice, but they would not have any motivation to honor beliefs they don't have. I have no room to judge that.
I do have room to notice the ways that I am blessed for honoring my covenants, and this is where I can gain a better understanding of why we are given that. I have observed people lose common sense and judgment while using substances. That can have more serious consequences that it usually does, but I like having my faculties.
Many people who use substances, including marijuana, are trying to deaden feelings of pain or emptiness. I understand this motivation, and I have a lot of sympathy for it, but I ultimately believe that deadening the feelings delays their healing, and the healing feels better than the deadening.
Most importantly for me is that when I am substance free it leaves me more open to inspiration. I get thoughts and ideas and clarity that would have a hard time making it through the fog. Acting on those things allows me to help others and to be more creative, both of which are things that I highly value. Because of that, the choice to abstain becomes stronger.
I can have that discussion with people, and they might not be convinced to try it themselves, but they can at least respect it. That leaves an opening where they are more likely to consider it in the future.
That discussion doesn't get very far if all I have to contribute is "Drugs are bad!"
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Using proper words
Today's planned topic is going to take longer than I had realized, but sometimes you get lucky and stumble upon something:
http://cbldf.org/2015/06/college-student-wants-four-graphic-novels-eradicated-from-the-system/
I haven't read Sandman 2, but I've read the first one, and it seems highly unlikely that the second one is porn. I have read Persepolis, and I have not read all of Y, but I read the first volume, and again, no porn.
That's not to say that there is no content that someone could find objectionable. If you go through the Louvre, you will see a lot of nudity. Some of it might seem prurient, and in some cases that is clearly not the issue, but there are nudes. Sometimes in novels and biographies that can be edifying, people may use profanity, or have sex outside of marriage. Actually, by some standards the Bible is not proper reading.
Everyone has to use their own judgment about how much they want to accept. Persepolis is a great book. I didn't really care for Y. Other people might reverse that, or you could easily decide that while Persepolis is great, you want your 14 year old to wait a few years before reading it. That is also perfectly fine.
But there are a couple of points to make here. One is that if you think shutting out every mention of something that might be bed will protect you, you should consider the highly constricted home environment of the Duggars and how that neither stopped some of their daughters from being molested or their son from being a molester. What it can do is leave children completely unprepared to deal with temptations or abuse, or even to know how to recognize and articulate it.
The other point that is worth considering is that if you do want to bring others around to your point of view, it helps to not sound like a moron. Let's say one of those books is actually really horrible, and that it should not be treated like literature. Calling books that are clearly not porn, porn, undermines any argument that you are going to make.
There was an Anne Frank movie a few years ago that showed Anne, Margot, and their mother completely naked. That was reality, and you can shy away from showing that because it involves nudity, but there can be a validity to showing it too, and it is not pornography.
That's not saying that you can't have legitimate disagreements about what to show and when to show it, and why you would show it. You can decide that even if those choices are valid you still don't want to watch it for yourself and you are completely valid. You do still need to have enough respect and sense and judgment that you don't do blanket dismissals of something you don't like.
(I suspect in this case that the student chose that course out of the 14 courses available for that credit requirement because she thought comics would be easiest, which shows an ignorance of the topic that goes along well with her inability to research the titles in the syllabus or to recognize their value.)
There was also some controversy a while back about a talk where the speaker was referring to masturbation as self-abuse. Self-abuse and self-harm are words that are accurately used to describe people who deliberately injure themselves, which is an important topic. It gets used for masturbation in the church because we are afraid to say masturbation, but that does not serve a useful purpose. It might confuse some listeners. Using the proper word is not going to be more corrupting.
We have an important and joyful message. There is a plan that is open to everyone. It is a beautiful plan that takes everyone in. Some people will be skeptical of it anyway, but if we cut ourselves off from others because we can't even talk like mature adults about why you should abstain from something, how can we possibly be effective messengers?
Don't be scared of words. In fact, don't be scared. Let love and light and knowledge replace the fear.
http://cbldf.org/2015/06/college-student-wants-four-graphic-novels-eradicated-from-the-system/
I haven't read Sandman 2, but I've read the first one, and it seems highly unlikely that the second one is porn. I have read Persepolis, and I have not read all of Y, but I read the first volume, and again, no porn.
That's not to say that there is no content that someone could find objectionable. If you go through the Louvre, you will see a lot of nudity. Some of it might seem prurient, and in some cases that is clearly not the issue, but there are nudes. Sometimes in novels and biographies that can be edifying, people may use profanity, or have sex outside of marriage. Actually, by some standards the Bible is not proper reading.
Everyone has to use their own judgment about how much they want to accept. Persepolis is a great book. I didn't really care for Y. Other people might reverse that, or you could easily decide that while Persepolis is great, you want your 14 year old to wait a few years before reading it. That is also perfectly fine.
But there are a couple of points to make here. One is that if you think shutting out every mention of something that might be bed will protect you, you should consider the highly constricted home environment of the Duggars and how that neither stopped some of their daughters from being molested or their son from being a molester. What it can do is leave children completely unprepared to deal with temptations or abuse, or even to know how to recognize and articulate it.
The other point that is worth considering is that if you do want to bring others around to your point of view, it helps to not sound like a moron. Let's say one of those books is actually really horrible, and that it should not be treated like literature. Calling books that are clearly not porn, porn, undermines any argument that you are going to make.
There was an Anne Frank movie a few years ago that showed Anne, Margot, and their mother completely naked. That was reality, and you can shy away from showing that because it involves nudity, but there can be a validity to showing it too, and it is not pornography.
That's not saying that you can't have legitimate disagreements about what to show and when to show it, and why you would show it. You can decide that even if those choices are valid you still don't want to watch it for yourself and you are completely valid. You do still need to have enough respect and sense and judgment that you don't do blanket dismissals of something you don't like.
(I suspect in this case that the student chose that course out of the 14 courses available for that credit requirement because she thought comics would be easiest, which shows an ignorance of the topic that goes along well with her inability to research the titles in the syllabus or to recognize their value.)
There was also some controversy a while back about a talk where the speaker was referring to masturbation as self-abuse. Self-abuse and self-harm are words that are accurately used to describe people who deliberately injure themselves, which is an important topic. It gets used for masturbation in the church because we are afraid to say masturbation, but that does not serve a useful purpose. It might confuse some listeners. Using the proper word is not going to be more corrupting.
We have an important and joyful message. There is a plan that is open to everyone. It is a beautiful plan that takes everyone in. Some people will be skeptical of it anyway, but if we cut ourselves off from others because we can't even talk like mature adults about why you should abstain from something, how can we possibly be effective messengers?
Don't be scared of words. In fact, don't be scared. Let love and light and knowledge replace the fear.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
The biggest thing that we miss
Let me start off by saying that this "we" applies pretty equally to Mormons and other Christians. There is a big error that we are prone to making, and it is related to the error of the Pharisees.
Remember, the Pharisees were observant of the religious knowledge for that day. There were flaws in their observance. To avoid accidentally breaking the law the put a hedge around the law, which was remarkably effective at hiding the spirit of the law. So to go from knowing that the Sabbath should be a day of rest to creating several rules about how far you could walk, and and what level of cooking was appropriate, does not actually make the Sabbath a more restful day, but there was still a level of caring about it.
I don't need to spend a lot of time on them, because the Savior did that. Matthew 23 and Mark 7 are good starting places for that. If pondering those scriptures gives you some insight into how you miss the point, despite being a scholar and being active, that's good.
Instead I want to stop by Matthew 25, where we remember that being a virgin, and being a guest officially invited to the wedding, is not enough to get you in if you are foolish. There is another parable in Luke 14 that can give us some more thoughts about that specific issue, where not making waiting on the Lord a priority, or not being prepared to act appropriately are issues, but for now let's focus on the foolish virgins. They wanted to go, and they were heartbroken not to get in, but they were not able to participate appropriately because of the lack of oil in their lamps. What made them foolish?
The chapter has two other parables that it is reasonable to assume are related. One is the parable of the talents, reminding us that we do not all receive the same abilities, but we are all expected to make the most of what we have. The other is the parable of the sheep and goats.
I know it's familiar: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
I had a touching experience with this scripture not that long ago:
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2015/04/irony-and-grace.html
Here's the thing; there is no statement anywhere of whether the recipients of the service were deserving. That some of them are in prison could mean they are criminals. They were in a time and place where you could be imprisoned as a matter of religious oppression or for debt, but that is not specified. The reference to "the least of these" isn't necessarily a compliment. The important thing is to serve.
It is terribly off track for followers of Christ to spend more effort on trying to force others to live our beliefs than time spent in serving them, but judging others has become not just a religious pastime but a political one, where everyone is afraid that any policy that will make the lives of others better is throwing it away on the undeserving.
People will work really hard to set up a new city so that their tax money doesn't get spent on the students they don't approve of (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/separate-and-unequal/), and governors will refuse Medicaid expansion - shooting their own constituents in the foot to spite the president, and Kansas will stick to cuts to business taxes even though it creates no new jobs and devastates the rest of the economy, and they feel really righteous about it, because no freeloaders! And they are so sure of it that they don't see all of the people who are working really hard and still falling behind.
That is not something Christ wants. You can argue about how best to improve things, but an economy that keeps consolidating wealth in the hands of a few, sows despair among many, and holds it all in place by keeping the religious judging each other, that is pretty Satanic. And there is a penalty for it.
"Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
Sure, it sounds like that applies to private charity, but there are two issues with that. One is that the way things are going, people with generous hearts are getting tapped out. There is too much need and not enough resources in the hands of those who care about it.
Even more of an issue is the hearts. There are too many people who will not see it as a problem. When the Lord takes your money, He is doing it as a way of keeping your heart soft, reminding you that it isn't money that matters. He wants your heart.
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" 1 John 4:20
I know this is disjointed, and I feel like I say the same thing all the time, but it's still the part that frustrates me the most. Jesus clearly taught that we are supposed to see Him in others, and the trend seems to be looking at others and not even seeing a human there. That hurts my soul, but then people do it and still feel Christian, and I get angry too. That's what we need to change, as soon as possible.
We need to be ready before the bridegroom comes.
Remember, the Pharisees were observant of the religious knowledge for that day. There were flaws in their observance. To avoid accidentally breaking the law the put a hedge around the law, which was remarkably effective at hiding the spirit of the law. So to go from knowing that the Sabbath should be a day of rest to creating several rules about how far you could walk, and and what level of cooking was appropriate, does not actually make the Sabbath a more restful day, but there was still a level of caring about it.
I don't need to spend a lot of time on them, because the Savior did that. Matthew 23 and Mark 7 are good starting places for that. If pondering those scriptures gives you some insight into how you miss the point, despite being a scholar and being active, that's good.
Instead I want to stop by Matthew 25, where we remember that being a virgin, and being a guest officially invited to the wedding, is not enough to get you in if you are foolish. There is another parable in Luke 14 that can give us some more thoughts about that specific issue, where not making waiting on the Lord a priority, or not being prepared to act appropriately are issues, but for now let's focus on the foolish virgins. They wanted to go, and they were heartbroken not to get in, but they were not able to participate appropriately because of the lack of oil in their lamps. What made them foolish?
The chapter has two other parables that it is reasonable to assume are related. One is the parable of the talents, reminding us that we do not all receive the same abilities, but we are all expected to make the most of what we have. The other is the parable of the sheep and goats.
I know it's familiar: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
I had a touching experience with this scripture not that long ago:
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2015/04/irony-and-grace.html
Here's the thing; there is no statement anywhere of whether the recipients of the service were deserving. That some of them are in prison could mean they are criminals. They were in a time and place where you could be imprisoned as a matter of religious oppression or for debt, but that is not specified. The reference to "the least of these" isn't necessarily a compliment. The important thing is to serve.
It is terribly off track for followers of Christ to spend more effort on trying to force others to live our beliefs than time spent in serving them, but judging others has become not just a religious pastime but a political one, where everyone is afraid that any policy that will make the lives of others better is throwing it away on the undeserving.
People will work really hard to set up a new city so that their tax money doesn't get spent on the students they don't approve of (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/separate-and-unequal/), and governors will refuse Medicaid expansion - shooting their own constituents in the foot to spite the president, and Kansas will stick to cuts to business taxes even though it creates no new jobs and devastates the rest of the economy, and they feel really righteous about it, because no freeloaders! And they are so sure of it that they don't see all of the people who are working really hard and still falling behind.
That is not something Christ wants. You can argue about how best to improve things, but an economy that keeps consolidating wealth in the hands of a few, sows despair among many, and holds it all in place by keeping the religious judging each other, that is pretty Satanic. And there is a penalty for it.
"Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
Sure, it sounds like that applies to private charity, but there are two issues with that. One is that the way things are going, people with generous hearts are getting tapped out. There is too much need and not enough resources in the hands of those who care about it.
Even more of an issue is the hearts. There are too many people who will not see it as a problem. When the Lord takes your money, He is doing it as a way of keeping your heart soft, reminding you that it isn't money that matters. He wants your heart.
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" 1 John 4:20
I know this is disjointed, and I feel like I say the same thing all the time, but it's still the part that frustrates me the most. Jesus clearly taught that we are supposed to see Him in others, and the trend seems to be looking at others and not even seeing a human there. That hurts my soul, but then people do it and still feel Christian, and I get angry too. That's what we need to change, as soon as possible.
We need to be ready before the bridegroom comes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)