Your interpretation of Tad Callister’s point near the begining of your article is too limited, and you don’t finish developing your analogy with bacon. You infer that he means arousal IS a problem instead of arousal CAN BE a problem. Also there is no mention that LDS leaders have many times trumpeted the glories of arousal. So to further the bacon analogy, yes, the smell of bacon peaks my appetite for bacon, and according to LDS doctrine we could say the consumption of bacon is ordained of God. Therefore, I eat bacon. A woman in a bikini may peak my appetite for sexual expression. Heck, a woman in a nice sweater does the same! Sexual expression and its associated bodily chemistry are fantastic and ordained of God; however, any enjoyment of that chemical response outside the bonds of marriage is not ordained of God. God expects me to man up and do two things: one, accept the reality of arousal and its place in his plan; two, develop dominion over it. He would say, “Yes, I gave you this ability. It’s a gift, but I expect you to limit your enjoyment of it entirely to your marriage. And if marriage isn’t in my personal plan for you, I still expect you to guard your arousal as sacred until the hereafter.” This is the spirit of the whole “he who lusteth after . . .” law. Arousal CAN BE a problem because its associated neurotransmitters in the brain have a way of commandeering the prefrontal cortex, thus making you forget your values and covenants with God. Any message that endorses the enjoyment of personal sexual chemistry outside the limits of marriage is, strictly speaking, not endorsed by God.
Otherwise, as a mentel health counselor, I love and endorse what you have to say about shame. Spot on. Brene Brown is my spirit animal.