A Serious Posting
This topic is a bit odd for this blog, but the question has been posed to us, and we'd like our readers' input. Please comment if you have insights that we lack.
In the Spencer W Kimball manual, chapter 17, page 183, the third paragraph from the top (footnote 11) discusses the relationship of husband and wife and presents a bit of phrasing that has us stumped. Since we're in nursery, we missed (or were fortunate to miss, depending on how the lesson went and who was teaching it) this discussion in RS and Priesthood. But the word "indiscriminate" has us wondering. What could this mean in the context of marriage? Isn't monogamy by definition discriminate? Is there something here we're missing or misunderstanding?
To delve a bit deeper, I looked up the source of the passage. It's the First Presidency message from the October 1975. As anyone who's read The Miracle of Forgiveness knows, President Kimball's views on morality are simultaneously outspoken and occasionally cryptic, and the historical context of the 1970s is important. Since I was not aware of the social movements of that era (finally, I get to feel too young...), the thoughts of our more mature audience are especially appreciated. What was going on in the middle part of that decade that might explain what this means?
Any input from our readers, via comments, email (you've got our addresses), and even phone calls would be illuminating. It probably goes without saying that we don't want this blog flagged for "adult content," so let's be pretty general (no personal narratives, please!), but your insightful and careful thoughts are welcomed. Thanks.
5 comments:
While I am not comfortable explaining the author's meaning, it does seem logical that indescriminate is used with a meaning other than the primary or most recognized. I suspect that the meaning is more likely "Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending."
Thanks. I like that idea.
But I still go back to the question: "Isn't monogamy by definition discriminate?"
Here's a nother thoguht that has been proposed. Would indiscriminate also imply that the motivation for intimacy is not love, but manipulation? I don't get this, but it's worth discussing...
monogomy is not necessarily discriminate in the sense of unrestrained or wanton.
indiscriminate may imply selfishness rather than love and unselfishness.
Just a thought
Thank you. That my get ot the heart of the matter--selfishness. Which, I suppose, is the heart of all sin...
Since it was I who posed the question in the first place, I guess my motivation in doing so was that I was hoping to receive some sort of assurances that what has been going on at our house behind closed doors for almost 50 years might not be considered 'indiscriminate' if a Prophet has cautioned against such.
Post a Comment