JUST DON’T LICK THE CUPCAKES!!!!!

Also, I’m a little warm. And dangit! My husband’s at Scout Camp until tomorrow.

Nicely theoried, Tyler. Out of such tight structures lovely butterflies break.

(1) Mormons eschew dichotomies that undervalue physical existence and experience,
(2) Sex can be both an act of charity and communion with God, and
(3) Sex in art can be uplifting?

If so, then I am right there with you.

And don’t call a good conversation a failure. Unless you don’t think it was good.

Full disclosure: my allergic reaction to lit-crit discourse sometimes causes me to be difficult, but not pointlessly so. (And Mr. Darcy seems cold until you realize the guy has a heart of gold! Not to mention a really sweet house!)

Anyway, I think I agree with you.

And I stand by the claim that “romantic love” is not the same thing as the doctrine of embodiment, sex as a sacrament, etc., etc.

Industrialization is only a part of modernity. Other aspects of modernity (wealth, mobility, leisure time, birth control technology, erosion of family and community structures, mass media, consumerism, and on and on) cause people to obsess over sexual pleasure and “romantic love” in ways that undermine the virtues you seem to espouse. It is eros gone wild. And maybe eros done right has a lot in common with philia and agape. Maybe at a certain point they come together.

So here’s a more concrete question on the same subject. Sex in art can be uplifting. “Can be” implies conditions. What are they? What does it look like on the page?

Definitely no tangents or cross-purposes in your comments. Your reference to Elder Holland’s watershed talk reminded me of some things I needed to formulate my response to Shawn.

So thanks.

I appreciate you stopping by and that your welcome here was warm. That’s one thing I appreciate about AMV and why I keep coming back. I also appreciate the interviews you did with Javen for Meridian and for the review you posted there about Curses. Very insightful commentary.

And, as Th. said: I am relieved. And amen and amen.

First, I take Eros to mean more than just romantic love (as I hope will become more clear through this comment).

Second, I say fragmented because we’re by and large products of a culture and historical era informed to a great degree by the Cartesian mind/body, spirit/matter split.

Third, industrialized because this split has been magnified by the processes of industrialization inherent in modernity, including the increasing mechanization of the body, with all the implications of this mechanization: alienation from the self and the products of one’s body, an increased division of labor, literal fragmentation of the flesh (brought on by industrial accidents, advances in medicine, and our increasing “post”-humanness, i.e. the cyborg in all of us: anyone wear glasses, contacts, have a prosthetic limb or artificial something in/on their bodies, see the computer as an extension of the body—the arms, the hands [as it essentially is]?).

Fourth, Mormonism’s whole-bodied or, better yet, whole-souled theology collapses these divisions once and for all. God tells us in His “Olive Leaf,” His “message of peace,” that “the spirit and the body are the soul of man [and woman]” and that “the resurrection of the dead is the redemption of the soul.” Such a union is necessary, He reminds us, because unless we’re “sanctified from all unrighteousness,” we can’t be “prepared for celestial glory,” which entails living in “the presence of God the Father” (D&C 88:15-6, 18-9). Later on, He further reminds us, after stating that those who refuse the light and neglect the path of righteousness are “under condemnation,” that “[t]he elements [of which our being is comprised] are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy” (D&C 93:32-3).

Such an eternally-embodied state necessarily continues, deepens, and tempers our human passions, as is evident in the emotions God expresses throughout the scriptures, including anger, anguish, sadness, happiness, joy, and a fullness of love. Such divine love encompasses, is even heavily informed by, God’s (pro)creative power: as Nephi testifies, even though he doesn’t “know the meaning of all things,” he knows “that [God] loveth His children”—the fruits of His eternally procreative body (1 Nephi 11:17). Hence, my assertion that Eros (which existed before and beyond romantic love circa 11th C. France and present-day Hollywood—thus the reference to cultural mythologies built on the erotic) is essentially the catalyzing force in the universe. It draws together and renews bodies in a sacramental bond that nourishes the soul. Such eternal eroticism—as a deep expression of eternal love—thus nourishes us (Patricia, Wm…) and our relationships, encouraging fully empathic connections to other bodies that move us beyond our flesh into service to another’s corporeal desires. (And I think this idea is firmly embedded in The Family Proclamation you appropriately cite.)

As regards the arts, this view of Eros (in Cherniak’s words) as “ego-dissolving, desire-merging empathy which encompasses a wide variety of human interactions and always, consciously or not, includes God in the equation,” allows for textu(r)al/aesthetic interactions that can bind and nourish us in deeply human—and thus ultimately divine—ways.

That’s how I’m beginning to view it anyway, as the source and metaphor for the broader connection between material and immaterial bodies across time and space—and through eternity.

Th.: Never apologize for good conversation!

All: Please don’t rat me out to my wife about my “romantic love” reservations. They are, after all, only academic. In real life, I do my best to keep all the right fires burning. Flowers. Foot massages. Crappy movies. Talking about my feelings. Etc. Also, I am basically Mr. Darcy (the Colin Firth one).

Doug, re:(5), I’m sure Tyler is relieved to hear it.

And a hearty amen to (3).