Comments on: Celibacy in (New York) City

By: anon

anon — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:26:15 +0000

#254

Thats for salvation. Being unified with the Saviour and thereby being unified with God is the atonement.

“Jesus Christ came to accomplish the at-one-ment, not the great alone-ment. He came to overcome our separation from God and from one another. He seeks to bring us to his father, to himself and to each other, at one, through the gift and power of His Atone-ment. Even though we do need some space for ourselves, something deep inside of us instinctively responds to this gospel of belonging, drawing us to certain people and to God”

Elder Bruce C. Hafen and Marie K. Hafen

I think having a healthy view of sexuality is one way to be unified with yourself and to another person. For example you love yourself as it says in Matthew and you want to meet someone to share love with, emotionally and physically. This isn’t really something you get at Church although you should!

By: Pedro A. Olavarria

Pedro A. Olavarria — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:07:54 +0000

#192
No. KB asks:”Is it celibacy in all events come hell or high water?” The answer is: YES. We are here on earth to learn, grow and be tested. Obedience to all the laws and ordinances of the gospel is the name of the game. That is how we prove to the Savior that we love Him.

By: RG

RG — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:30:51 +0000

First I’d like to recommend this: “Adult Virginity and Other Things”
http://lydaclunas.livejournal.com/176383.html?format=light

It’s a woman writing about reasons for choosing virginity (beyond just religious), and how society in general has stigmatized this choice. She’s not Mormon, by the way.

Second: re #43 (statement that chastity seems a lot less noble at 35 than at age 25). I’m bothered by the whole idea of “nobility” in this context. Being noble isn’t my goal. Hopefully it can be a nice side-effect of obedience.

By: Mytha

Mytha — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:21:04 +0000

Sorry. I have SWK issues.

By: Kiskilili

Kiskilili — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:14:07 +0000

If the point is to emphasize our values by going out of our way to exclude those who don’t “measure up” for whatever reason, why limit that exclusion to singles? I move that from now on all adults in the Church who are unendowed, single, divorced, have an inactive spouse, lack a current full-privileges temple recommend, drink caffeine, have seen an R-rated movie in the last year or wonder whether the priesthood-temple ban was inspired be asked to sit in the pews to the left of the speaker, behind a curtain. When especially holy topics come up the unworthies can be politely invited to adjourn elsewhere so their contaminating presence doesn’t inhibit the spirit. /snark off/

By: bnielson

bnielson — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:15:54 +0000

Mytha, I didn’t read it that way at all.

By: Mytha

Mytha — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:08:22 +0000

#242 – So…. basically, you can have a happy, successful, eternal marriage, if you and your spouse are both perfect. Of course it’s a “never-failing” formula… It’s never failed because no one’s ever been able to follow it.

By: Anon and on

Anon and on — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:25:06 +0000

The biggest reason why singlehood is looked down on is because in LDS doctrine marriage is tied to eternal exaltation. Doctrines like that diffuse out and influence church culture.

So it’s like if you’re an older single in the church people judge your lifestyle as somehow choosing to go against God’s will.

By: bnielson

bnielson — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:03:33 +0000

Ack!

Typo again!!!

“Still, I’d have to agree with any idea that if your marriage failed it logically means you were selfish.”

supposed to say:

“Still, I’d have to DISagree with any idea that if your marriage failed it logically means you were selfish.”

By: bnielson

bnielson — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:02:05 +0000

244 was worded badly. This is what I was trying to say in the first line. (Please don’t be offended by the bad previous wording)

Anon, I hear ya on this, but I want you to think of this thought for a moment: “Is there a better way to put this and keep ‘marriage’ as the ideal? I don’t think there is.”

But your mileage my vary. Still, I’d have to agree with any idea that if your marriage failed it logically means you were selfish. This isn’t stated by Spencer W. Kimball (and he actually denies that) and any one that says such a thing would be wrong, even if they are a general authority — not that I know of any GAs that have ever said such a thing.