Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
(Song of Solomon 1:2)
- Aaron B.
- Aaron R.
- About BCC:
- Amri Brown
- BCC Papers
- BCC’s General Conference Portal
- BHodges
- Brad
- Cynthia L.
- Info & Contact
- J. Nelson-Seawright
- J. Stapley
- Jacob
- John C.
- John F.
- John Hamer
- Karen H.
- Kathryn Lynard Soper
- Kevin Barney
- Kristine
- Kyle M
- M Miles
- M. Norbert Kilmer
- Margaret Blair Young
- Mark Brown
- Matt Page
- Natalie B.
- Rebecca J.
- RJH
- Russell Arben Fox
- Sam MB
- Scott B.
- Steve Evans
- Steve P.
- Sunny Smart
- The Emeriti
- Tracy M.
- W. V. Smith
About
Sideblog- Mormons: what we actually do (meme)
- Paul Reeve on Mitt and alleged Mormon racism.
- I lurve you
- Bowman in Slate.
- Contribute to the crowdsourcing project: Addressing the Temple “Issue”, Period.
- Old Skool Pokemon
- 100% pure Mariolatry
- Book Giveaway for Steve P.'s excellent A Short Stay In Hell
- I'm thinking this isn't really the Official Cat Fancy Twitter Feed.
- Best dog photos ever?
Your Friday Firestorm #39
March 21, 2008 — Steve Evans49 Responses to “Your Friday Firestorm #39”
- LDS Headlines
- Mormon church apologizes after posthumous baptism for Jewish parents of Nazi ... - National Post (blog)
- LDS official: Don't let trust blind you to scams - Salt Lake Tribune
- 'Book of Mormon' coming to SF's Curran Theatre - San Francisco Chronicle
- French Mormons find a less hospitable 'Mormon moment' - Washington Post (blog)
- Mormon Economics and the GOP - Truthdig
- Body found in Ogden LDS church parking lot - Salt Lake Tribune
- Mormon Baptism Controversy Threatens Romney - NPR
- Old LDS Church Gets New Life As Apartments - LocalNews8.com
- News roundup: LDS Church urges caucus participation - Salt Lake Tribune (blog)
- The Queasy Liberal - CounterPunch
- Authors Elsewhere
- Two and a half hours is just not a lot of time madhousewife
- What can I say? madhousewife
- Floating to the Surface Tracy M
- Contention! “You might as well argue with the wind.” WVS
- Gratitude Tracy M
- Some new stuff on Wednesday madhousewife
- And She’s Down… No, wait… Maybe not…Holy Crap Tracy M
- Jonathan Edwards, Freedom, Henry Tappan, Joseph Smith and Foreknowledge WVS
The BCC Zeitcast
Subscribe in iTunes
Meta
March 21, 2008 at 6:08 am
….but wine is all I have.
Will your love ever be mine?
Steve, what’s so controversial about Stephen Duffy lyrics? The song’s got a great melody and very danceable beat. I gave it a ’10′ back in the mid 80′s church dance days.
March 21, 2008 at 7:01 am
So let me get this straight (pun mayhap?), er, this is the Song of Solomon and the first thing that he sings is “let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth…” hmmm…
March 21, 2008 at 7:05 am
I’m just kidding. In the next verses we see that it is a woman talking about kissing Solomon.
March 21, 2008 at 7:29 am
Steve, thanks to this I listened again to my recording of the double choir setting of the text by Lassus. He and Palestrina both set the Vulgate text, slightly different from the above:
Osculetur me osculo oris sui: quia meliora sunt ubera tua vino
Zarlino used the version of Isidoro Chiari (Venice, 1944) that corresponds more closely to the KJV:
quia meliores sunt amores tui vino
March 21, 2008 at 8:22 am
Bill, the Vulgate has a particular charm about it, no doubt. It’s perhaps the best instance of a vulgar Vulgate.
March 21, 2008 at 8:26 am
This song was “banned” in my stake dances. I always thought it was the use of the word “wine,” but now I’m wondering whether it was because of quoting the Song of Solomon.
March 21, 2008 at 8:44 am
Sorry. That song didn’t exist back when I went to stake dances. As close as we got was Sealed with a Kiss. And I don’t think that had anything to do with the temple.
March 21, 2008 at 8:47 am
Footnote 1 to that chapter says (Mormon version): Note: the JST manuscript states that ‘The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.’
I disagree. I actually think they’re inspired. I just don’t think that they’re inspired by the spirit.
Also, I read my wife a couple of lines from SoS last night as part of my scripture study, and she referred to it as “Bible porn.”
March 21, 2008 at 8:58 am
Everyone stop. Read Ed Snow’s post about the SoS. Then return and…
(Ed, we miss you.)
March 21, 2008 at 9:05 am
What’s next? Psalm 40?
March 21, 2008 at 9:06 am
I miss Ed, too. That’s a terrific post, Ronan.
I was going to put up something Good Friday-ish, but I couldn’t think of anything particularly great, and nobody out-devotionals Kristine (witness RAF’s attempt — well might he have stuck his arm in the mighty Mississippi to divert its course than to write a better devotional post than Kristine).
March 21, 2008 at 9:12 am
I remember an old episode of M*A*S*H where Father Mulcahey asks a soldier recovering in the hospital what part of the Bible he is reading. The solider sheepishly replies that it is the SoS. After perusing a few verses, presumably to refresh his memory, Mulcahy recommends that the soldier read something “a little less, uh, inspirational.” It may not be inspired, but it is certainly inspiring.
March 21, 2008 at 9:55 am
Speaking of Bible porn, and given that I think we can assume that regardless of who is purported to have spoken these words, it was a man who recorded them, I have the following thoughts:
Doesn’t this sound like something that a man *wishes* a woman would say to him, ie, the kind of tacky, insincere man-ego-stroking dialogue that you get would get in porn movies (ahem, I assume…). “Oh you’re so sexy! Oh I want you!! You’re the best I’ve ever had!!” etc etc.
I’d like to get this woman’s thoughts on their little tryst unfiltered-like. Note that none of this is to imply that women shouldn’t or don’t enjoy sex and all that. I just find the over-gushing praise and circumstances of the recording a little suspect.
March 21, 2008 at 10:07 am
Sister Blah,
Have you never read any romance novels? Talk about tacky dialogue…
March 21, 2008 at 10:09 am
It’s ok to get drunk on love. I would think Mormons would like this verse.
Fwiw, I’ve heard SofS referred to as “bedroom scripture”.
March 21, 2008 at 10:16 am
MattG–Actually, no. Are you saying you have? ;-)
March 21, 2008 at 10:40 am
Sister Blah 2, To my chagrin, my wife loves them. I’ve thumbed through enough of them to find plenty of fodder to mock her with. She doesn’t appreciate my jests. However, the dialogue in the “steamy” parts (ok, those are the only parts I look for anyway) is often surprisingly male ego-centric (you’re so strong, I want you, etc. etc.), and they are written almost exclusively by and for women. Very puzzling.
March 21, 2008 at 10:47 am
So, the Song of Solomon is chick lit?
March 21, 2008 at 10:55 am
Having tasted both wine and kisses, I have got to agree that kisses win.
Milkshakes would be a harder call.
March 21, 2008 at 11:03 am
Bruce R. McConkie, in one of his last public speeches (at a BYU symposium on the JST) referred to the Song of Solomon as “biblical trash.”
Personally, I think it’s a tragedy that our culture has adopted the falsehood that something as beautiful as human sexuality must be at odds with spirituality.
March 21, 2008 at 11:29 am
I think sexuality and spirituality are intristically tied.
March 21, 2008 at 11:32 am
I agree entirely, Tracy, to the point that if one denies either, it hampers the other.
March 21, 2008 at 11:35 am
Nick, would it be safe to say that from a mainstream LDS perspective, you are obsessed with human sexuality?
March 21, 2008 at 11:47 am
Steve, it would be “safe” to say anything you like, since I’m not going to try to make snide or dismissive comments toward you. :-)
As for your real question, I suppose that depends on what the “mainstream LDS perspective” really is on the matter. Perhaps to Bruce R. McConkie, or to the woman who declared that the Song of Solomon was “porn,” even you might appear “obsessed with human sexuality” for even bringing up a discussion of the Song of Solomon. Honestly though, I don’t think many of McConkie’s comments represent a modern “mainstream LDS perspective” on the subject.
Actually, I’ve found that many highly “religious” people (and I’m distinguishing “religion” from “spirituality” here) are among those most “obsessed with human sexuality.”
March 21, 2008 at 11:52 am
(deep breath) Nick’s right- insofar as when you repress something as vital and important as human sexuality it tends to rear it’s (ugly) head elsewhere, in less healthy ways.
That said, I have no intention of engaging in a discussion of what types of repression lead to ugly-head-rearing.
March 21, 2008 at 12:03 pm
That said, I have no intention of engaging in a discussion of what types of repression lead to ugly-head-rearing.
Neither do I, Tracy. I think Steve may have mistakenly assumed I was raising an issue that I wasn’t addressing at all.
March 21, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I certainly don’t want to rear ugly heads.
March 21, 2008 at 12:43 pm
No, no. No one here ever tries to add a little fuel to a dying fire.
March 21, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The second paragraph is a non sequitur of the first. McConkie can consider SoS “biblical trash” without also thinking that sex and spirituality are “at odds” with one another.
March 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm
jimbob,
Of course McConkie could have considered such a thing. He also could have considered any number of things, and frankly, he consider many things which many or most modern LDS would disagree with.
Since the Song of Solomon is primarily notable among LDS for its allegedly sexual language (as compared to some other christian writers, who twist it into an allegory of the love between Jesus and the church), it’s probably not a stretch to presume that McConkie’s condemnation of the book was based on that aspect of its subject matter. That’s not a rebuke of McConkie (I’m actually a McConkie fan, in general, for many reasons), but rather a comment on how his particular generation/culture responded to such material.
I think it’s worth mentioning that the Song of Solomon quite likely represents the mutual adoration (albeit mildly erotic) of a married couple, i.e. Solomon and one of his hundreds of wives. As such, there should be nothing inherently “dirty,” “trashy,” or “pornographic” about it.
March 21, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Ugh…that should read: “…and frankly, he considered many things, which many or most modern LDS would disagree with.”
March 21, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Nick,
First, I think you’re taking unwarranted liberties with McConkie. Until I see more of his quote, I do think what you’re inferring is a stretch. SoS is generally pretty useless stuff, Ed Snow’s comments notwithstanding. As a result, “trash” could have several meanings here.
Second, without reference to whether SoS is pornography, pornographic material is still pornographic material even if the actor couple is married. Cinemax after 10PM would still be porn even if the actors in it were married.
March 21, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I prefer the phrase “brain candy” to “trash.” Not nutritious but not harmful if consumed in moderation.
March 21, 2008 at 1:35 pm
#30–I resent the implication that the mutual adoration of a married couple should not contain anything inherently “dirty” or “pornographic.” (I know what you meant!–the traditionally negative connotations of those words. Just sayin’ :-))
PS: “Trashy” is also ok by me personally, as long as it is ironic-trashy, like the marital-relation equivalent of a vinyl trucker hat.
March 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm
jimbob,
The context of McConkie’s remark was a keynote address to a BYU symposium on the JST. McConkie briefly mentioned nearly every book in the Old Testament, with comment on each. He only negatively commented on two books, the other being Job (resulting in my all-time favorite McConkie quote: “Job…[long pause]…is for people who like Job.”). He did not elaborate on why he considered the Song of Solomon “biblical trash.”
I wouldn’t know about Cinemax programming, since I haven’t subscribed to that channel in 15-18 years. I suspect, however, from the way you’ve expressed yourself, that you consider any depiction of physical intimacy to be “pornographic material.” If so, I personally find that viewpoint unfortunate.
Most definitions of pornography seem to include the idea that the material has been produced with the intent of creating arousal in its audience. Do you think the author of the Song of Solomon (whether it was Solomon or not) wrote with such intent? I’ve met a handful of people who declare that the Song of Solomon was included in the Bible purely to give celibate monks something for personal entertainment.
March 21, 2008 at 1:41 pm
#34:
Whoops! I must not have been clear in what I was saying. What I meant was that if a married couple expresses their mutual adoration of one another, there is no reason that others should judge that as “trashy,” “dirty,” or “pornographic.”
Of course, as the scriptures suggest and at least a few LDS presidents have noted, “to the pure, all things are pure.”
March 21, 2008 at 1:57 pm
#36: No, no, no, I totally know what you meant and was just teasing you.
By the way, this will now also be my all-time fav McConckie quote. “Job…[long pause]…is for people who like Job.” hahha thanks for sharing.
March 21, 2008 at 2:00 pm
For what it’s worth, I don’t consider the stuff on Animal Planet to be porn.
Also, I don’t know what you mean by “physical intimacy,” but I know that if a couple holds hands in a movie I’m watching, I get up and walk out. Then I go home and take a cootie bath.
Most people find most of my viewpoints unfortunate. It’s a burden being me.
So porn isn’t porn so long as when I make it I don’t mean for it to be porn? Sounds like you could use some clarification from Potter Stewart on the issue.
March 21, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Well, Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” is about as useful as Harry Potter. (BTW, why does nobody quote the rest of his sentence, “and the motion picture involved in this case is not that”?)
So porn isn’t porn so long as when I make it I don’t mean for it to be porn?
Well, if you really think that anything that causes somebody to experience lustful feelings is pornography, then you’d better stay away from that “Animal Planet” you’ve been watching. There are, after all, some very sick people in this world, and it doesn’t matter what the producers intended to create….right?
March 21, 2008 at 2:59 pm
re: 23 – 24
Yikes. I feel a need to defend Nick here. He doesn’t seem “obsessed with human sexuality” to me, but of course I’m not from a “mainstream LDS perspective” so what do I know. But one might argue that Steve Evans is hardly “mainstream LDS” either based on much of he writes. Or does holding a TR make you de facto mainstream no matter what?
Here’s what I HAVE noticed: Many LDS seem quite obsessed with porn. Not looking at it; rather, talking about it, ruminating about it and warning against it ad nauseam. Then lo-and-behold, apparently there’s this huge problem with “porn addiction.”
As a person who lives in a secular and very liberal environment, it’s odd that the only time I ever give the topic a thought is when I’m blogging in here.
There’s something really weird and unhealthy going on vis-a-vis conservative Christians (including the LDS) and porn. The underlying psychodynamics merit further discussion.
March 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Mikey, it was just a question. He could have just said “no.”
March 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Anyone know where I can get a copy of Bruce R. McConkie’s speech? It sounds like fun. :)
March 21, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Oops, Try here.
March 21, 2008 at 5:35 pm
re: 23 Stevie, is it safe to say that adding “safe to say” to a question often implies that one already has an answer in mind?
March 21, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Mike, it’s March Madness. NOTHING is safe to say. But, yeah.
March 21, 2008 at 8:10 pm
You know what, Steve? I had to look up the wiki entry on March Madness to even know what you were referencing, and I still don’t quite understand why a basketball tournament makes “nothing safe to say.” It’s like I’m on another planet.
March 21, 2008 at 8:49 pm
LOL, Mike. If it helps, I bet even more people have to look up WeHo to figure out that one.
March 21, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Mike, having been to West Hollywood, I think it’s “safe to say” that, yeah, it’s a lot like being on another planet.
Susan #10, thank you, thank you, thank you.
March 23, 2008 at 1:59 am
I had always wanted to use the SoS in a contextual setting. A few years ago I had the opportunity to say a few words at my daughter’s wedding. I read a beautiful verse and shed tears while reading it for them.
What greater expression of love can there be than bodies and spirits united? Is this not why bodies are important? If you say that the body is simply to be overcome, as in the natural man, you have missed the point, I think. Why do we think that we have to have a body to be perfected? Is it not to perfect our happiness?
Can we not sing praises to the body and to its love? In my understanding one of the beauties of the SoS is its quality of equality, both man and woman being equally inflamed and in love. This idea of reciprocity is the underpinning of the equality of the sexes in our society. Imagine if the SoS were also in the Koran….
A sexist society can not tolerate reciprocity in love.