MrShorty

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. 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.

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.

Thank you for this. 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." 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."

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.

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??). 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? 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?

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. 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.

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. 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? 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? 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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.)

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.

Boxer style or brief style? I've been quite happy with the cotton brief style that I get. You might try a different style and see if they fit better.

Maybe I'm just more cynical, but it really seems to depend on the law or the importance we attach to the law in question. Observe the way we drive, and it seems we follow the law only as strictly as we think the law is enforced, or only when we think we might get caught.

I really liked his talk as well. His experience with the scorpion was a good way to illustrate the principles he was trying to teach.

(I'm not seeking advice for me personally, moderators, so feel free to move this thread if you feel it belongs somewhere else. As it is an issue specific to marriage/divorce, I thought this was a good place to put this question.) Many of us have seen the following quote from President Kimball: As a scientist, I look at this assertion and say, "this needs some supporting data to back it up," and Pres. Kimball alludes to the existence of such data. My question is -- does anyone know if the data supporting this assertion was ever published/made available to the public? Is it based on data the church collected or was it based on data the church found publicly available? I think my interest in this question is to further explore how, "they did not get along sexually." Can you break these causes into different categories? As examples: mismatched libido, coercive/abusive, unhealthy attitudes, or whatever the data might show.

The subject that stood out to me was the importance of the Holy Ghost in our lives. It seems like at least three made reference to the account in the Book of Mormon of the disciples praying to receive the Holy Ghost.

A couple of weeks ago, I woke up with the thought in my head, "I choose to love." As a previous post mentioned, and Dr. Chapman in Five Love Languages talked a lot about, the head-over-heels "in love experience" is fairly short lived (I've heard anywhere from 6 to 24 months). After that you have to consciously choose to love and court your spouse. In other contexts, we say that love is an action and not just a feeling. I'm still married because I choose to be. Yesterday I came across a copy of the Love Dare and flipped through it and read someone's blog about it. While I didn't get all warm and fuzzy about every dare, I did see the value in developing specific skills to show and receive love that become the ""what you do" when you make that choice.

Hello, my name is Mr Shorty, and I am a Utah Mormon. Served a mission to Quebec. Married with 4 children. BYU graduate and currently work in a chemical laboratory. I look forward to participating in this community.