why chastity? (warning: slightly explicit)

today we had our annual chastity lecture from the bishop. he posed the question, "why does god want us to live the law of chastity?" the two usual answers came about: because it's playing with the power to create life (ie. you might get pregnant), potential std's, and 'because god said so'. as expected i disagreed with all of these, but it got me thinking - why should we live the law of chastitiy?

as i have written earlier, 'god's saying so' is not any justification of a commandment. to the issue of potential pregnancy and disease, the response should be given (as i gave in sunday school) that if this were the reason, then if we knew that the partner was safe and proper protection was applied then we should be okay to have extra-marital sex. my bishop oddly agreed, said that there must be deeper reasons, but did not open it up for any further exploration. this got me thinking

as i had just mentioned, it couldn't be just about the potential stds and pregnancy because then sex with proper protection would be ok. one could respond that no form of protection is 100%. sure, i agree, but let's say that hypothetically, two persons are medically sterile (fertility and std). if the law of chastity were about about potential stds and pregancy, then it would be ok for them. one might argue that miracles do happen and couples who have been told they could not have children have conceived and given birth. though this goes against my hypothetical example (in which they are in fact unable to conceive) it still leaves oral sex, petting, and such which (As far as i am aware) cannot cause pregancy (excluding levi-lovin which is supposedly how allen iverson was conceived).

i believe the reason why the lord wants us to live the law of chastity is that in the act of sex (or related activities), one objectifies their partner. the other person goes from human to sex toy. from soul to commodity. the partner is a tool for one's self-gratification. a thing to be used. this is the same condemnation of murder. turning a life into a commodity. using another person for a personal gain.

but what then if it is consensual? i don't think this necessarily matters. all this means is that both parties are turning their partner into a thing for self-gratification.

how is marriage any different then? marriage should be different in that rather then seeking pleasure, sex should be an act of love. if real love is present then then the partner is not objectified into a sex-toy, but is rather seen as a person loved. if however, even in marriage, if one uses their husband/wife for sex, then that person is just as guilty as breaking the law of chastity.

if two people really love eachother, couldn't they then have sex out of wedlock? if they really love eachother so much, then they should get married? if they are holding back from getting married... then perhaps their love isn't all that real.

this view, i believe, also covers why other forms of sex, petting, masterbation, and even pornography are wrong. each of these in one way or another objectifies the other into a commodity for self-gratification (in the case of masterbation and pornography, though nobody may be directly involved, they usually go together and involve the objectification of persons).

furthermore, all of these things can be addictive and thus reducing free-will.


of course there still remain many questions and problems such as engaged couples, homosexuality, and a few others things...

anways, as always... lemmee know what you think

new books

i finished eats, shoots, and leaves by lynne truss about a month ago. it was a pretty interesting book. made me think about my punctuation a little more. though, it was quite discomforting to know that someone could be so passionate about commas, apostrophes, and periods. in that period i also finished rene descartes' meditations on first philosophy and sophecles' antigone.

next up is the lord's university: freedom and authority at byu which will explore issues of academic freedom (or the lack thereof) at byu over the past twenty years.

atonement

a buddy of mine asked me about my thoughts on the atonement. here is a little bit of what i e-mailed to him. this shouldn't be as controversial as some of my previous posts (i think).

............................................................................................

my view of the atonement stems largely from my view of god and punishment. i think that god works within some sort of already existing framework of laws, most of them being physical. moral laws are based primarily on love/charity. did you love or did you not love (which is theme of judgement in matthew 25:31-46).

a predominant view of the atonement in mormonism and christianity is the 'substitutionary penal theory'. this is the belief that man is to be punished for certain sins, but christ instead takes on those punishments, and both mercy and justice is served. i find this view problematic for several reasons. first, i do not believe that either mery or justice is served by this theory. while mercy may be seemed to be applied if one holds the traditional christian view of a triune god, it does not seem to work in the lds view of the godhead. while christ may be extending an arm of mercy, this leaves god the father as a stubborn being who demands that punishment be made. concerning justice, how is justice ever accomplished here? let's say that saddam hussein is tried in an iraqi court and condemned to be beheaded. in my mercy, i step up and say that i'll take on saddam's punishment. they let saddam go free, and i get my head lobbed off. would anyone ever argue that justice was served here?

some could counter the latter arguement (as many do) that jesus actually took on our sins. this, i guess assumes that sins have some actual ontological status. that when you do wrong, you actually collect sin-stuffs on your soul. in this sense, out sin-stufs are placed on christ, and he is punished as the guilty one with all of our sin-stuffs on him. i find this unlikely, not only because i don't believe that these metaphyscial sin-stuffs actually exist, but more because of my view of god and punishment.

to say that there exists certain laws which we must keep or be punished seems to indicate to me that god creates certain arbitrary laws which must be followed or punishment must ensue. i see this as no different than myself telling my brother to make me a sandwhich or get beat with a stick. if he does not obey my commandment, then he gets beat and that'll suck pretty bad for him. if he does make me a sandwhich, he will get the glory of not being beaten.

so where is this all going, what do i think of the atonement? i believe our ultimate duty here is to love. that is the one commandment that christ himself gave during his mortality. most other commandments are god's and the prophets' attempts to place us in a position in which we could love the most (though this is greatly abused and misunderstood). our 'punishment' will not be the result of breaking arbitray commandments, but rather will be the guilt brought upon ourselves when we realize that we did not love as we could/should have.

this is where christ's mecy comes in. this mercy comes from forgiveness. even as we have done it unto others, we have done it unto him and likewise, even as we have not done it unto others, we have not doen it unto him. i believe that christ acts as the proxy forgiver for all those whom we did not love enough. he is able to forgive us for the wrongs we have done to others.

so where does christ's suffering fit in? somehow (and i'm not sure exactly how) christ suffered both the injustices we have done to others and the guilt of our realization in what we have done (or not done). this enables him to understand both parties and give real forgiveness. i am sure you have, at one time or another, betrayed a friend. this kills you and is almost unbearable. the only peace you find is when you realize that your friend has really forgiven you. this is the same kind of forgiveness that christ is able to offer us.

this and that: news from the real

my submission got posted on provopulse.com you can check it out here. it seems the consensus in happy valley is that i'm the anti-christ and am going to hell. check it out and post something.


my professor told me that a minor in religious studies will be available in the next few weeks and that he wanted me to be one of the first students in it. sweet.


my classes are going pretty good. there are some good lookin' ladies and the classes seem like they will be quite exciting and somewhat controversial.

preface

this is a little preface i wrote to my preceding post in an attempt to get it posted on provopulse.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
preface

the restored gospel is something that is continuously on my mind. it's in my classes. in my drive to work. at the gym. and in my studies. i decided to jot down some of the things that have crossed my mind lately. some of you may agree with what i have to say. some of you may find it controversial. some may want to label me anti-mormon and kick me out of town.

i am far from anti-mormon. i love the gospel. i love what it teaches. i believe in it. if i didn't, i would not care about the direction much of the church has taken. i firmly believe that joseph smith wa a prophet of god. i love the book of mormon. what that book teaches can change the world if people would just open it up and really follow it. i love the teachings of god that joseph revealed. i believe president gordon b hinckley is a prophet of god. sure, sometimes i think what he is saying is the voice of an old guy who sees the world through old man eyes, but that doesn't make him less of a prophet. a prophet is not a marionette puppet dangling on strings guided by god's fingers. there is no papal infallibility in the church. the prophet is a man. a man who speaks and reasons with god and is inspired to make certain choices to bless human lives. his vision of mini-temple, the perpetual immigration fund, and such are great examples of his revelatory calling.

with all of this, i see that in some senses the church is failing (by 'church' i mean the people of the church). we are human (and yes, this includes church leaders). we make choices. sometimes we choose well. other times we don't. what bothers me at times is the beauty i see in the restored gospel being tarnished by pride, self-righteousness, selfishness, and power. this is the same problem that plagued the nephites continually in the book of mormon. unfortunately, it seemed that it usually took some pretty heavy destruction to set them right... not by fear, but by removing the power structures that bred their failings.

my latter quick notes on polygamy may seem the most troubling to some of you. to others, it may seem like nothing. the history (especially early history) of polygamy in the church is quite chaotic, i wish it were easy to settle. i've tried for several years to make sense of it. it's interesting that the dangers of polygamy are spoken of greatly in the book of mormon, yet there is also a polyamy clause as well... long before the idea crossed joseph's mind. i believe it is based on revelation. however, through studying much of it's history, it becomes quite obvious that there was much else going on and it became quite a mess. the bofm says that there is a place, time, and reason for it. i'm not sure what those are, but for several strong reasons, i do not believe that polygamy has any necessary value for salvation or glorification.

anyways... i'm posting this cuz i want to know how other college students here in happy valley feel about it. do you agree? do you you disagree? should i be tarred and feathered? why?

musings on mormon doctrines

alrighty. i decided to jot down a bunch of random things that i have been thinking about lately to see what you all may think. am i apostate? stupid? right on?

satan, pharisees, and mormonism today

according to different views of satan in the pre-existance, his primary goals were to reduce free-will and glorify himself. i don't think it's possible to take away someone's free-will; but if i put a gun to someones head, i could do a pretty good job at undermining that person's free-will. likewise, if i were to offer millions of dollars to somone, i could pretty much get that person to do whatever i wanted.

the pharisees of christ's time modeled these two aspects of satan's ideals. they expanded on the commandments and created a religious order of punishment and reward for one's deeds. free will was reduced as harsh penalties were placed for breaking commandments. on the other hand, promises of earthly and heavenly rewards were made for those who followed the commandments. the freedom to choose to or to choose not to follow god was diminished by a fear of punishment for breaking, or self-glory and salvation for following.

where are we today? not so far off from the pharisees. in sunday classes, conferences, firesides, and seminary, members of the church are promised punishment and reward for the choices we make. the drive to choose good, because it is right and benefits humanity has been replaced to choose good so we can get to the celestial kingdom and be glorified. love for thy neighbor has been replaced with love for thyself and for thy future. we seek our own glory more than we seek to help out those in need. tithing isn't paid to benefit the kingdom of god. tithing is paid so we can tell our bishops in december that we are full-tithe-payers, be temple-worthy, and ultimately get celestial glory. home teaching is no longer to bless the families and lives of those home taught, but is to get the elders quorum president to leaves us alone and ultimately check that off on the list of things we gotta do to get celestial glory. the same goes with fast offerings, scripture reading, callings, etc... we've strayed from choosing to love - to seeking glory and avoiding punishment.

free-will and charity

on the flipside, i believe that free-will and charity are the ultimate grounds for the gospel. it is what we as saints should be striving for. by charity, i mean 'loving thy neighbor'. we ought to be continually seeking out the welfare of others, not our own glory. by doing the former, the latter will naturally follow and we need not be concerned. any folk doctrine in the church that does not promote free-will and charity should be tossed aside. church lessons and class discussions should be geared at promoting people to freely choose to love others.

word of wisdom

this has long been abused by the saints today. it's been turned from a beautiful lesson on moderation to a pharisaic code of do and do not; in the process we ignore much of what is taught. so much talk is put into coffee, tea, and beer (the latter actually being promoted as beneficial to man in the d&c), but nothing is said of meats, grains, and such. the church today is fat. look at most of the general authorities. fat. look at your bishopric. most likely fat. look at those in your ward. fat. obesity and associated problems are an dangerous and deadly problem to us. much much much much much much more than that of coffee and tea (and yes, it is because of the addictive nature of caffeine), but nothing is said of it. as a church, we just get fatter, and die prematurely. pass the bacon.

women and the church

i don't necessarily think that women need to recieve the priesthood, but something has to be done. women are oppressed in the church. we can say all we want about the relief society and such, but they are not equals in the church. the tribal patriarchy of the old testament is still flourishing today. as mormons, we have something to elevate women that no other branch of christianity as. we have the belief in a mother in heaven - but she is silenced. it is for some reason taboo to speak of her. women in the church have a potential matriarchal model to strive for, but we don't allow it to be done. instead women are told to get to the kitchen and make us some pies. mmmmm... pies...

blacks and the church

the church leadership needs to publicly denounce mckonkie's racist theories on why blacks could not get the priesthood. it is sad that it is only privately denounced and allowed to flourish among other folk doctrines in the church.

gays and the church

i still believe it's a choice, but that is no reason to hate. we need to embrace and love those who have these feelings. too many gay and lesbian saints are marked with a scarlet letter and tossed along the wayside

poor and the church

read king benjamin's speech. read what christ said about the poor. the number one sin condemned in the book of mormon is not sex, but ignoring poverty. we are miserably failing today.

joseph smith and polygamy

i'm not sure what happened here. my feeling is that revelation, joseph's trying to link himself to and emulate old testament prophets, and a healthy libido all came crashing together into one big mess. brigham young did his best to sort it out, but in the end, it just had to go. i don't think it is practiced in heaven.

religious experience

i don't buy much into the whole 'burning in the bosom'. that is just a chemical reaction in the body to something else. religious experience is a sort of sense perception. a sixth sense if you will. religious experience is primarily grounded in rational thought. when oliver cowdery tried to translate the plates, he expected it to just come to him. he failed miserably. revelation comes through rational contemplation. you think it out in your mind. once you think it is right, if it is, you will know. the burning may or may not follow.


i think that's all for now. i'd love to get any responses positive to negative to this.

school papers

i finally got my papers from the fall semester off my school computer. here are the better of them...

beauvoir through fightclub is an examination of the different attitudes of persons given in simone de beauvoir's ethics of ambiguity.

eliminative materialism is my theory on the relation of the real world and our personal experiences and the absense of the tracitional concept of the mind/consciousness.

new year

"so this is the new year.
and i don't feel any different.
the clanking of crystal
explosions off in the distance

"so this is the new year
and i have no resolutions
for self assigned penance
for problems with easy solutions

"so everybody put your best suit or dress on
let's make believe that we are wealthy for just this once
lighting firecrackers off on the front lawn
as thirty dialogues bleed into one"

~~death cab for cutie, new year


well, once again a new year is upon me. 2004, much like 2003, was a crazy year with plenty ups and downs. so what's up with this upcoming year? i dunno. i don't do those crappy resolutions. i'm not into goals. i'm just gonna continue being me.

i spent new year's eve up at club vortex with jeff. good music. plenty of gorgeous women. 'twas nice. i forgot my camera though, so you'll just have to take my word for it.


classes start up again tomorrow. i'm registered for early modern philosophy, feminist theory, lds media and culture, philsophy forum, and philosophy of science. i want to drop the last class though and find an easy 2 credit class full of beautiful girls. after last semester, i wanna take an easier load. hopefully i'll be able to find this shangri-la of classes.