[Provo Tabernacle on fire]

I walked around the block yesterday after work. It surprises me how much this empty building affected me. I didn't grow up in Utah Valley or anything like that. Maybe it is part that I feel a connection to old church buildings because they are a part of church history. Another part something I share with other church members. Another part is just a love for old buildings (and hating to see them lost).

Here's a link to the Daily Herald's story. They have a bunch of pictures. Major fire destroys the Provo Tabernacle

[Are we really "the scum of the earth"?]

I think an important thing to understand is why the comparison to dust is made. My favorite description is from Hel. 12:7-9. In verse 8, we read that the reason dust is so wonderful is because it is obedient to God's commands. People, on the other hand, are quick to do iniquity and slow to remember (let alone obey) the Lord their God. I'm summarizing, Mormon used about all of chapt. 12 to describe how quick people are to do iniquity. This comparison to dust has nothing to do with the worth of my soul. The fact that Christ would suffer for my sins is a better measure of the worth of my soul. The comparison to dust is a reminder to me that I should aspire to be obedient.

[Getting Sealed in a few weeks...Red Flags]

Have you considered premarital counseling? As Rameumptom said, issues with in-laws can be pretty damaging to a marriage.

[Did sex change for you after marriage?]

On one hand, I might say, "of course it changed. How could it not change? Your relationship doesn't stay stagnant, so naturally things change.

On the other hand, I feel your pain. I remember how awesome making out was. And it wasn't like it lost its allure immediately after the ceremony -- There was a while where we enjoyed making out just as much as we did before we got married (only we got to take it farther). Now, it seems like I'm lucky to get a "peck on the cheek" when leaving for work or coming home or going to bed (aside -- I remember somebody on Focus on the Family, one of their marriage advice couples, who had some rather unkind things to say about the "peck on the cheek" kiss). I don't know what it is - whether the newness wears off, or "familiarity breeds contempt," or if someone's just too tired because of all the stress in life or what. Those couples who manage to keep the passion alive seem to be few and far between

[positive affirmations on sexuality?]

Here's another article that I read this morning. Think about sex in a positive light | Mormon Times I enjoyed the article, but this seemed a good summary of the attitude Mormons have (or should have).

As mentioned in last week's column, Mormons have the most positive and awesome view in the world of sex and of the role it can and should play in our lives. We literally think it is the gift of God to become one and to procreate eternally. We believe that gender is a part of an eternal plan in which everlasting families are formed.

Our greatest motivation and incentive for waiting and for avoiding early, promiscuous, recreational sex are not fear of STDs or emotional scars or even the punishment of God; it is the knowledge of how wonderful and beautiful intimacy can be when it is exclusive and committed and practiced with full fidelity.

[positive affirmations on sexuality?]

I thought I was going to let this "fade into the sunset", but I came across an interesting positive "anecdote" that I wanted to share. Natasha Helfer Parker interviewed Dr. Jennifer Findlayson-Fife about her dissertation on sexuality and Mormon women. 214-216: LDS Female Sexuality with Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife | Mormon Stories Podcast Part of the interview that tood out to me regarding the thread topic was Dr. Findlayson-Fife's description during the first ~5 minutes of the second installment of a woman she interviewed who, in her estimation, seemed to have it all together sexually. As she described it, this woman seemed to

1) Accept her sexuality as a good, wholesome, positive thing.

2) The law of chastity, rather than overly restrictive or making sex shameful, was a commandment from a loving Father in Heaven which she accepted as an important part of her relationship with Him and her future husband.

3) Because she could see the positives both in sexual self-restraint and sexual expression within marriage, she could actively make solid decisions about her sexuality before and after marriage. I was impressed with the example of her being able to tell a young man she would not kiss him because in her judgment, it was not part of God's and her plan for her sexuality. A decision that wasn't made because kissing/sex is dirty/ugly.

She brings this woman up again later in the 2nd podcast, too, if you want to listen further. I'm about halfway through the three podcasts, but looking through the comments made, it appears that some find some of what is said during the podcasts offensive. Be careful listening if you are easily offended by some of these things.

[KJV verses modern English Bibles]

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but this is a topic that I've recently taken an interest in. I've put a few searches through Google, found some interesting discussions, and wanted to offer a few comments/observations.

1) As PrisonChaplain indicated early on, there is a "King James Only" (KJO) movement throughout English Christianity that argues against the newer translations. While this really didn't surprise me, what did surprise me was how angry, hateful, spiteful, and contentious this debate sometimes became. One ministry indicated that the most "virulent and spiteful" hate emails they receive are not from Mormons, Catholics, or Muslims, but from other "KJO" Christians. The little contention I saw could certainly the contention I've witnessed in Mormon vs. Christian sessions. One unfortunate thing I saw in the original post about the discussion in EQ was how that discussion judgementally assigned such malevolent intent to those producing the newer traslations. The discussion over which manuscripts to use in a translation of the Bible is a healthy and important discussion. But, as Christ taught the Nephites, such a contentious approach is not going to help in the search for truth.

2) I was impressed, after reading through the history and considering the amount of time we are talking about, at how well the Bible has been preserved. I would even say, it seems a bit miraculous -- like God had a hand in preserving it.

3) I enjoyed reading the FAIRmormon article about changes to the BoM that someone posted. It was interesting to me to that they mentioned some of the different stages where human error appears to have entered into the process of publishing the BoM.

[names in the book of Daniel]

One interesting observation I made, albeit a very trivial one, is the names we associate with the book of Daniel -- in particular the names used for Daniel and his three Hebrew associates. These four people carry Hebrew names of Danel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Upon being taken to Babylon, they are given "Babylonian" (or would we call them Aramaic) names of Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego (Daniel 1:7). What I find interesting is that we all refer to Daniel by his Hebrew name, but we refer to his three friends mostly by their Babylonian names. Maybe it stems from the way the book of Daniel is structured in the original texts -- part being written in Hebrew (and the Hebrew names would have been preferred in this portion) and part being written in Aramaic (where the Babylonian names would be preferred). Pretty trivial, I know, and doesn't take anything away from the accounts related in the book..

[Can Religion be a big issue?]

I like Dr. Willard Harley's discussion on this topic Conflicts of Faith (Part 2) #1 You may want to read through some of the basic concepts so you understand what he's talking about.

I remember another article of his that talks about some difficulties of inter-faith marriages, but I can't find that one now. The key point I remember from that article was that the problem that comes into play when your differing religious beliefs create situations that neither can "enthusiastically" agree to (such as a hypothetical marriage between an orthodox Jew and someone who believes in a strict pork diet.) The key idea here being that you need to know what your "non-negotiables" are going to be and what hers are potentially going to be, then decide between the two of you if you can live with each others non-negotiables.

[Old Testament Gospel Doctrine lesson #46 Daniel 2]

I don't see many responses to these posts, so I hope you don't mind Rameumptom if I put in an observation from this lesson. It has to do with faith and prayer.

As far as they were concerned, “there is not a man on earth that can shew the king’s matter” (Dan 2:10), and so no previous ruler or king had ever asked such an impossible task of his counselors in the past.

Go on to verse 11, where they say, "...there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh." These people acknowledge that there is a higher power who has the ability to reveal the dream to them, if only "the gods" were willing to do so. The thing I find interesting is that these men's faith was so weak (or perhaps their "faith" to the contrary -- that their god could not/would not reveal the dream) that they seem unwilling to even approach deity to save their own lives. Contrast that with Daniel, who immediately asked for time to approach God and asked his friends to pray for God's mercy in revealing the king's dream (see vs 17 and 18). I don't know if Daniel knew at this point whether or not God would answer his prayer, but he knew that God could and he was going to ask.

Interestingly, I see the same thing paralleled with Laman and Lemuel (see 1 Ne. 15:9). Sometimes I wonder what blessing I could be denying myself when I choose not to ask for it because I've convinced myself beforehand that God doesn't want to hear my concern.

[Jacob 6:1]

I find this an interesting scrpiture, especially when someone is "looking" for how the gift of prophecy is seen in the church. The time this was impressed on me, I read this verse and told myself that this doesn't sound like a "prophecy," it sounds more like he's "bearing testimony." And then I made the connection. Sacrament meetings and testimony meetings aren't perfect, but do you ever think of those occasions as "prophetic?" This verse suggests to me that prophecy isn't always (or often?) about revealing grand new truths -- but about comeing to know for yourself that a principle is true. Couple that with John's teaching that the "testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" and everytime we bear testimony of Jesus, we might say that we are exercising the gift of prophecy.

[positive affirmations on sexuality?]

My desire to do intimate things with her is not shameful, dirty or sinful unless I do not bridle those desires. They are an outgrowth of my deep feelings for her (and biology, that can't be discounted), now is just not the time to express those aspects of those feelings but I am not ashamed of them. I do not find them negative even if sometimes trying to control.

Thank you for this.

A lot of this problem is a failure of the topic to be taught at home. The onus is on the parents to properly teach about sex and sexuality.

Isn't that the truth! Like you said, I'm not even sure I want all of this taught in church. One of the great challenges as a parent is facing a topic like this that gets so lost in taboo and discomfort.

For example, in What a Difference a Daddy Makes, Kevin Lehman made an interesting observation. Do children know that their parents have sex? He observed that children kind of know when it happens with single parents because the boyfriend/girlfriend is there having breakfast with them. What about more traditional married couples? That's certainly not to say that our children need a "play-by-play," but it might help them to at least vaguely understand that it happens and that mom and dad enjoy it. Maybe as part of this whole thread was to see who could go from "sex can be enjoyable" to the more personal "I enjoy sex."

The problem, as I see it, is that it is difficult to make teaching about chastity and sexuality all rainbows and unicorns because, frankly, the Law of Chastity is more about 'don'ts' than it is about 'dos'. Quite simply, the positive commandments inherent in the LoC are outweighed by the negative commandments, especially in its application to the prevailing secular ethic of our time regarding sexuality. I don't know that it is itself positive or negative; it simply "is."

Thank you for this comment, Last_Daze. You are probably correct that there is a greater need for a warning voice about the misuse of our sexuality than encouraging proper use. I don't think the church needs to put forth less of a warning voice. I'm not sure it's even the church's fault. Maybe it's a natural consequence as the gulf between the world and the church widens. It just seems that, as that gulf widens, the world is taking sexuality with them and not leaving anything good/wholesome behind for the righteous. Laura Brotherson blogged, "Satan has made sex his realm. He’s usurped the whole thing as if sex has nothing to do with God and goodness at all." Good Girls Do! - Laura's Strengthening Marriage Blog - Official Blog of Author and Intimacy Expert Laura M. Brotherson I wasn't really trying to get less air/screen time for the warnings -- just wanted to have a little air/screen time for people to say that sexuality is "good and Godly."

[I need a little help here...]

A couple of books I might recommend in addition is The Sex-Starved Marriage and The Sex-Starved Wife by Michelle Weiner-Davis. From what I have read, she seems to have a good grasp of the emotional turmoil.

I struggled a little reading Dr. Schnarch's Resurrecting Sex because he is open to all kinds of relationships. However, he was perhaps the first and best at being "anti-stereotypical." That is, he actively promotes the idea that a lot (50% maybe) of couples with "desire discrepancy" are like yours: the wife has a stronger sexual desire than her husband. I might suggest reading Passionate Marriage because he focuses more on marital relationships.

I mention the idea of stereotypes, because sometimes I wonder if these stereotypes contribute to the issue. Men are stereotypically supposed to be sexual "monsters" and, when a man finds himself "ho-hum" towards sex, he may feel like he's the only man in the world with this problem. Couple the "I'm a failure as a man because I lack libido" anxiety with performance anxieties, and you've got a recipe for trouble. If you and he can get nothing else out of some these authors, realize that you are not a flawed couple or anything like that. One of the biggest things I took out of what little I read of Resurrecting Sex was Dr. Schnarch's attitude that couples who struggle with their sexuality are more "normal" than those who don't.

I might also suggest counseling. Sometimes these things are just too much to fix without outside help.

[positive affirmations on sexuality?]

In holy matrimony there should be no shame. In paired commitment there should be joy.

I can certainly believe that this should be true. And, yet, sex and sexuality are significant contributors to what drives couples apart. While president Kimball didn't publish data, his fairly well-known statement about divorces being caused by sexual incompatibility (without specifying what sexual incompatibility is) is echoed by others. There are so many couples driven apart by pornography and infidelity and other violations of the law of chastity. Perhaps the "shame" (if that's the right word) derives from that fact that when we discuss sexuality, all we talk about are all these ways that sex drives couples apart. It is estimated that 20% (1 iin 5) of marriages is clinically "sexless" (meaning they make love less than 10 times per year) and this also drives couples apart (Involuntary Celibacy - Laura's Strengthening Marriage Blog - Official Blog of Author and Intimacy Expert Laura M. Brotherson). We don't really talke to couples (and singles before they get marrieda) about how their sexuality contributes to their joy as a couple. How does sexuality help bring you joy, Bensalem? Sexuality gone wrong is probably modeled after Babylon as you say, but there are many who get it wrong (more than get it right??).

The model for a consecrated union has been laid out by God in Christ.

I'm never quite sure how I feel about this as a model or the model of Christ and the church as outlined in Ephesians. While I can see how these models describe how we are to love each other, these models are so "sterile" and "asexual" and I have a hard time in my own mind putting a sexual component to them. How do you see the model of God and Christ or Christ and the church as a model for improving the sexual relationship between a couple? How does this model help someone struggling with pornography or other sexual incompatibilities?

It is a necessary God given gift for procreation and intimacy between husband and wife.

I can certainly agree with this. One observation: it seems that all the positives that go with our sexuality are within a married context. Do singles find any positives in their sexuality? One of my frustrations with the model for sexuality that we seem to teach is that any positives only apply to married people. I remember when I was single feeling so much frustration with my sexuality, never seeing anything good in it, except to do everything I could to be asexual. Then, when I got married, I could, within the context of a 20 minute ceremony, suddenly become sexual. Only to find out that that 20 minute ceremony did not make it easy. As Traveler said, that 20 minute ceremony is just the beginning of a lifelong quest as a couple to find the good in sexual relations. As one single person put it on another blog (and I paraphrase). She was "taught" that, "sex is dirty, wicked, evil, gross, sinful, terrible, awful, ... so save it for someone you really love." Expecially since our society encourages singles to delay marriage longer and longer, how do we help singles see the positive in sexuality, when it seems that all the positives are denied them?

[positive affirmations on sexuality?]

In fact, I dare say that those who overcome the natural man enjoy sex more than those who don't.

I appreciate your responses, Margin of Error. I believe this is true. Someone who overcomes selfishness and has a proper understanding of what God intended will learn how to enjoy sex like Bini described (thank you for you post bini). I also find it to an interesting contrast to those "righteous" people who will claim that sex is only for procreative purposes or who use religious arguments to say that there should be minimal enjoyment of sex.

There are can nots in many things. It doesn't always make it a negative thing. To me those that find it mainly in the negative or express negativity are those that choose not to follow.

Thank you for your thoughts, Pam. I've found that this can actually be a good filter to apply to my attitude. I can't think of the reference right now, but it seems like Alma in talking to his son Corianton talked about trying to gain joy from wickedness which is contrary to the laws of God, because "Wickedness never was happiness" As noted above, it seems that some well-intentioned righteous people, in focusing only on the negatives, can turn sex into a necessary evil without fully understanding God's real intentions.

Dravin, I didn't realize you were single. I appreciate your comments on this thread all the more by representing that demographic. I have heard of that talk by Elder Holland, but hadn't yet read it.

Thanks to alll who have shared their insights.

[positive affirmations on sexuality?]

So different that it is impossible for agreement and real harmony when following “natural” urges. For the whole sexuality thing to work there must be concessions by both the male and the female. There must become giving and giving up. And none of this is static but dynamic as families grow and the aging process takes place.

Regardless of our tendencies and/or temptations, we must seek to overcome the flesh, put off the natural man, and become the spiritual Christ-like being.

Kind of sounds like, "sex is a necessary evil to be tolerated and endured and someday we will transcend (if that's conveys the right meaning) our sexuality." While I can certainly appreciate the importance of overcoming our fallen natures, I guess, in terms of natural vs. spiritual man, I might ask if there is room for sexual urges on the spiritual man side of the coin? I guess that's somewhat rhetorical because I know that the answer to that question is, "yes." I think part of my intent was to get ideas/testimonials on how sexuality fits on the spiritual man/woman side of the coin.

It is the perfect trial that can unite a couple as one and cement an eternal bond.

This is certainly in my mind one of the great positives of sex -- the way it can help "cement that eternal bond" between husband and wife.

Dravin: I like the food analogy. It suggests that sexuality by itself is a neutral thing -- the positive and negative elements are in the use/implementation. So, if you feel so inclined, how do you make it a positive?

Sexuality is a gift from God and part of the beauty of creation; like all of God's gifts, it is meant to be used properly. Scripture and the teachings of the church lay out very clearly what the proper use is, at least for those who are part of the church. That's what the Law of Chastity is all about.

And, yet, it seems that whenever we talk about the law of chastity, all we talk about are the "thou shalt nots" (pornography, adultery/fornication) and the many evils associated with breaking the law of chastity. If you had to put a positive spin on the law of chastity, what would you say those positives are?

Um, sex.

Um, I enjoy having sex.

Um, by having sex.

lol spoken like a man.

Gwen, I know your response is lighthearted and joking, but I'm going to ask a serious question, anyway. Are you implying that only men can find enjoyment in sex? Are women incapable of enjoying sex? As has been said, the world's attitude towards sexuality has little bearing on my sexuality. However, my spouse's attitude will have a significant impact. As Traveler said, one of the great trials of marriage is working together as husband and wife to overcome those sexual differences and find common ground. I guess I want to address these questions to those of the female persuasion, too. What positives do you see in your sexuality?

I'm glad you seem to enjoy your sexuality, Margin of Error. There's no question I enjoy it, too. Dravin's food analogy reminded me of the alleged "better-than-sex-cake" that some have claimed to make (usually involving lots of chocolate). I love chocolate/sweets as much as anyone, but "better-than-sex"??? I can't see it. And, just as it can be difficult to put into words how wonderful doughnuts taste (mmmmmmm..... doughnuts......where's a pic of Homer?:) ), it is probably difficult to put into words just how enjoyable sex is. I hate to be a stick in the mud, but this is a little nerve that Gwen's joke hits in me. Underlying is the implication (or perceived implication) that, if you and I had sufficiently overcome the natural man, we wouldn't enjoy sex as much.

[positive affirmations on sexuality?]

First off, if the mods/admins find this inappropriate, I'll understand. I'm not out to offend or anything.

Without going into great detail, I have found myself with a real negative view of sexuality lately. At the low points, I've found myself staring at the stars wishing G-d could have found a way to cleanse me and the world of all sexuality (For the record, I consider myself a normal, healthy heterosexual male). I would look at all the negative ways that sexuality impacts me. There are so many temptations and difficulties (pornography, infedility/adultery, sexless marriages, sexual differences, and so on) that are difficult. So many societal evils the spring out of our sexuality (rape, pornography, sexual abuse, sex trades, prostitution, and so on). Honestly, there are days when I can't find any positives in our sexuality.

I've seen some who opine that Satan has done very well at making our sexuality into something dark and evil, and removing any hint of goodness/Godliness from our sexuality. If God created sex/sexuality, then it must be good, they will say. They will say that we should maybe figure out how to reclaim our sexuality from Satan and make it something spiritual and uplifting. This morning it occurred to me that maybe a community like this one would like to take on a challenging question (all the better if you don't find the question challenging). What positives have you seen from your sexuality? How does being a sexual person uplift you? How do you "rejoice" in your sexuality rather than being shamed by it? Or however you want to phrase it.

[Elder Lawrence's: courageous parenting vs. overprotecting]

I reviewed Elder Lawrence's talk from the Sunday afternoon session of conference, and wanted to suggest a discussion topic from it.

As a springboard for the discussion, I'll start with the example of a gaming son as described to Elder Lawrence by the mother. Mom was "worried" about her son's gaming and tried to prevent the son from playing games. Dad saw no harm in it, so he "vetoed" mom's decision. The implication being that the son's gaming was important in his drifting away.

I want to point out that I agree with Elder Lawrence that parents need to be united. Mom was correct in expressing her concerns and attempting to enforce rules. If Dad didn't agree with Mom, he should have discussed his point of view with Mom until they could come to an agreement that they could both enforce.

The real question I had, both when I first heard this talk and after reading it again is how to tell when we are following the Spirit, and when, out of fear or other influence, being overprotective. How do you as parents try to balance protecting your children without being overprotective? How did your parents manage this balance?

[Christian view of eternal families]

I hope this question will be received in a positive way. I like to listen to Christian radio, and occasionally I will hear someone speak of being with a loved one in the next life. Most recently during a Focus on the Family Broadcast (Oct 22, 2010) where the Smiths speak about their experience losing a baby at birth. During their talk, they mentioned one day meeting and being with their daughter in the next life. Maybe I'm just viewing this through Mormon eyes, but it seemed to imply that they were expecting to still be a family in the next life. I guess as much as I've been told that Mormons are unique in this belief, I'm wondering if we really are unique in this belief?

[Jacob 5:7, 11, 13, 32, 46, 47, 51, 66]

This is one of the things that usually impresses me when I read the allegory of the olive tree. How much care and concern the Lord of the vineyard puts into each tree. I know the trees represent whole groups of people and not individuals, but I often like to think that, as an individual member, the Lord of vineyard might be concerned about losing me as an individual, and that some things that happen in my life are the Lord's way of trying to keep me close.

[The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde]

As most, I've "known" the basic premise of Robert Louis Stevenson's story since I wax little (namely, Dr. Jekyll develops a potion that turns him into a monster). I checked out the book on tape from the library so I could experience the original story. It was a really interesting story.

The thing that really stood out to me was that the potion wasn't really about creating a monster called Mr. Hyde. Rather, Jekyll explains in his confession that it was about "separating" the two sides of one's personality: separating the "good" from the "bad" so that the "good" side doesn't have to feel guilty for all the evil desired and perpetuated by "Mr. Hyde" and "Mr. Hyde" not feeling restrained by the good side. Of course, this attempt to become "two people" leads to tragedy.

As a religious person, I guess it was interesting to see this fictional attempt to separate the spiritual man from the natural man. Perhaps it is important to realize that they aren't two separate "people", but rather one person deciding which direction he/she wants to go.

[Serriously amazing]

This has long been one of my favorite verses from the Book of Mormon. It is a reminder of how much I am willing (and not willing) to give up to know God and His Son. A motivation to work on eliminating "I don't want to give up that" to "I want to know God at any cost."

[Jacob 4:3]

One thing that has often impressed me when I read this verse (and verse 4 immediately after) is how important it is for me to tell my children (written and verbally) that I have a testimony. Granted nothing I write or say will ever be canonized like Jacob's writings. I still want my children (and grandchildren and so on) to know that I believed in Christ.

[Jacob 3:7]

The way we treat our wives could well have the greatest impact on the character of our sons.

This is interesting. I might also add how the way we treat our wives might have as great or greater effect on our daughters. I recently read What a Difference a Daddy Makes by Kevin Leman. Throughout the book, he argues that one of the most important sources of strength for our girls to learn how to properly interact with men is what they see in their father. It is important to remember that, as parents, we can have a profound influence on our children's lives. We should be diligent in trying to make the most of that influence.

An interesting thing I see in this verse is how Jacob compares the "evil, wicked" Lamanites to the "good, righteous" Nephites. In this aspect, the Lamanites seem more righteous than the Nephites of Jacob's time.

(BTW, I don't see a lot of responses to these scripture threads. As a newbie, I hope I'm not violating some forum rule by responding here.)

[Jacob 2:35]

I often consider this one of the greatest rebukes in all of scripture. I will never be a perfect husband and father, but I hope I never break my wife's heart or lose the confidence of my children.