MrShorty

But that's my point.  She should do it because you are asking, unless you are being unreasonable.  I do lots of things I don't "want" to do, but they need to be done.  Sometimes it's out of a feeling of obligation, sometimes it's out of need.  This isn't about her or her sexual needs.  From what you are describing she is completely satisfied, and that's enough....FOR HER. 
 
Unless you are a total brute (are you a total brute?) she should want/need/feel obligated to do this with you regardless of her actual drive/desire/satisfaction level.  It is part of a healthy normal marriage, and a physical manifestation of love.
 
You can't make her change.  She likely will not change.  She can decide to behave in a different way, and this may or may not have an effect on her sexual desire.  She needs to understand this is not about her, but about the relationship, and it's continuity.  Have you said that to her?  Oh, don't say that to her unless you mean it.  
 
If you are not going to put a nuclear option on the table then you have to learn to deal with what you have.  Keep in mind she will likely never change.  How are you going to deal with that now?  How are you going to deal with that for eternity?  I suspect there are many other areas in your marriage where she is very selfish as well, this just happens to be the one that hurts the most.

I have a question.
 
I caught a brief segment on Kate Kelly and she made a comment, which I can't directly quote, but went something like the following:
 
 
Is this true?
 
If no, then fine. Does someone have a source that supports this? But if yes, I'm curious where the barring against women comes in. What would be the reasoning behind it?

I would disagree with the statement that you are asking her to change fundamentally.  It has been my experience that as a whole most people do not change.  To ask her to change would be unsuccessful at best. 
 
I do think she needs to modify her behavior to come into line with your expectations.  She may not desire sex more than once a month, but her husband does.  She therefore needs to modify her behavior to satisfy her husband.  If as you say she is completely satisfied with each encounter then she has no downside to the experience.

Can we straighten something out in this thread, please?  In case you only read the OP, but not the linked article, you might not realize that neither Kate Kelly nor John Dehlin have been excommunicated.  They've each been notified, by their own individual local leaders, that they are now subject to official Church disciplinary action.  Such action has not yet taken place.  They are currently still members of the Church, in good standing, even, so far as we can tell.

One thing Dr. Schnarch says a lot is that "marriage is a people growing machine." Yes, you are asking her to "change" and "grow" sexually. That is difficult, but it just might be an important part of what marriage is. On the flip side, she is also asking you to "change" and "grow" sexually. It often seems to me that the real skill is how to take two sexually different individuals and blend them together into "one flesh".
 
Sister Brotherson (in a podcast on her strengtheningmarriage.com website) talks about "awakening" versus "bridling" sexuality. The basic premise is that some of us (maybe you) need to work on "bridling" our sexuality, and others (like your wife) of us need to learn to "awaken" and develop our sexuality.
 
Try not to give up. It's a long and sometimes painful road, but this can be overcome.

To the first question, no, clearly not.
//I think of it more like something I would here from a motivational speaker. When you are feeling despondent because you are not good enough, because you continue to make mistakes, don't let your past sin define who you are. Don't let recurring sin define who you are. When sin happens, pick yourself up and turn back to God.//
I like that.
//...and to remember that he can and will save us from our sins.//
And has.

The first question is 'no' as I'm a firm believer in free agency.
To the second question, I'd say that is kind of where I was going. It seems that according to Paul, when we receive the righteousness of Christ, we die to our sin nature and are ressurrected with our new nature. After this event, sins committed aren't done by us anymore, but a nature that has been nailed to the cross with Christ. If this is the case, how are we resposible for our sins if Paul says, "It is not I that sin..."?

Through lack of repentance/submission to God.  Through allowing the sins/mistakes we will inevitably make, to turn our souls away from God and undo the conversion we once experienced.
 
 
Paul clearly didn't think he had been fully and finally "delivered" as of the time he wrote Romans 7:24.  Whatever event or process we pass through at conversion that allows us to describe ourselves as "saved" or "redeemed", while vitally important, is apparently not equal to that final state in which we are resurrected and the earth has been finally purged of wickedness and pain.

Our final redemption was completed by his death?
Colossians 1:20-22
And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,

Just a question about worthiness and being filthy. In Romans 7, I read...

17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

vs. 17 and 20 both say the same thing. That once we have become alive in Christ, it is no longer us that sins. If we aren't sinners when sin that dwells in us does the deed, why are we held to be filthy and not worthy?

In 1 Corinthians 6 it sounds to me like our justifications is a one-time thing. Read...

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
 

In some ways, I will agree with applepansy, though I can certainly empathize with Windseeker. I am reminded of this post just a few days ago by Brad at One Flesh Marriage (http://www.onefleshmarriage.com/2014/06/look-great-no-i-dont.html). For whatever reason, it seems that this is a common problem in our society. How to learn to give and receive honest compliments is difficult enough. Combine with the familiarity of marriage relationships and the outside world's fluctuating, irrational definitions of "beauty", "attractive", etc. and it is probably a wonder that anyone manages to get this right.
 
One observation on Charity Pierce: Even in her case (grossly overweight due to physical illness), we frame the discussion of "is she beautiful" in terms of finding a man who says that she is beautiful and worthy of love and affection. Maybe it is difficult to describe "hotness" without it, but it sometimes seems to me that some of this issue needs to be about our relationship with ourselves. Can we each learn to describe ourselves as attractive, beautiful, valuable, "hot", acceptable, loveable, or whatever on our own terms without needing someone outside of ourselves to prop us up? Can we learn how to do it without deluding ourselves?

In some ways, I will agree with applepansy, though I can certainly empathize with Windseeker. I am reminded of this post just a few days ago by Brad at One Flesh Marriage (http://www.onefleshmarriage.com/2014/06/look-great-no-i-dont.html). For whatever reason, it seems that this is a common problem in our society. How to learn to give and receive honest compliments is difficult enough. Combine with the familiarity of marriage relationships and the outside world's fluctuating, irrational definitions of "beauty", "attractive", etc. and it is probably a wonder that anyone manages to get this right.
 
One observation on Charity Pierce: Even in her case (grossly overweight due to physical illness), we frame the discussion of "is she beautiful" in terms of finding a man who says that she is beautiful and worthy of love and affection. Maybe it is difficult to describe "hotness" without it, but it sometimes seems to me that some of this issue needs to be about our relationship with ourselves. Can we each learn to describe ourselves as attractive, beautiful, valuable, "hot", acceptable, loveable, or whatever on our own terms without needing someone outside of ourselves to prop us up? Can we learn how to do it without deluding ourselves?

First of all, take a deep breath.
 
Second, feel a giant hug from God.
 
Third: repeat steps 1 & 2 over and over.
 
God loves you last year, last month, and today.  Yes, you've messed up (we all do), that's why Christ's atonement exist and why the scarament in administered every week.  Now that you've (hopefully) calmed down, you can take steps to have (and keep) Christ in your life.  
 
Remember, the bishop isn't the person who decides whether or not you get into heaven.  What the bishop is a person to help you along your course there.  Don't let embarrassment keep you from getting the help you need!  
 
I assure you, you're not the first person to have these issues--- in fact your bishop has probably talked to >10 different people with this same issue just this month!  Again: Don't let embarrassment keep you from getting the help you need!  
 
Go, talk to the Bishop!  Get on your knees and talk to God and Christ!  Let them help you!!!!
 
(Note, if you do need to take some time off from passing the sacrement you can just sit in the pews like everyone else, there's no need for you to get kicked out of the room.  And if some gossip has nothing better to do that think "Oh Mickey's not passing the sacrement- he must be a horrible person!", well then severe shame on that gossip!!) 

In some ways, I will agree with applepansy, though I can certainly empathize with Windseeker. I am reminded of this post just a few days ago by Brad at One Flesh Marriage (http://www.onefleshmarriage.com/2014/06/look-great-no-i-dont.html). For whatever reason, it seems that this is a common problem in our society. How to learn to give and receive honest compliments is difficult enough. Combine with the familiarity of marriage relationships and the outside world's fluctuating, irrational definitions of "beauty", "attractive", etc. and it is probably a wonder that anyone manages to get this right.
 
One observation on Charity Pierce: Even in her case (grossly overweight due to physical illness), we frame the discussion of "is she beautiful" in terms of finding a man who says that she is beautiful and worthy of love and affection. Maybe it is difficult to describe "hotness" without it, but it sometimes seems to me that some of this issue needs to be about our relationship with ourselves. Can we each learn to describe ourselves as attractive, beautiful, valuable, "hot", acceptable, loveable, or whatever on our own terms without needing someone outside of ourselves to prop us up? Can we learn how to do it without deluding ourselves?

In some ways, I will agree with applepansy, though I can certainly empathize with Windseeker. I am reminded of this post just a few days ago by Brad at One Flesh Marriage (http://www.onefleshmarriage.com/2014/06/look-great-no-i-dont.html). For whatever reason, it seems that this is a common problem in our society. How to learn to give and receive honest compliments is difficult enough. Combine with the familiarity of marriage relationships and the outside world's fluctuating, irrational definitions of "beauty", "attractive", etc. and it is probably a wonder that anyone manages to get this right.
 
One observation on Charity Pierce: Even in her case (grossly overweight due to physical illness), we frame the discussion of "is she beautiful" in terms of finding a man who says that she is beautiful and worthy of love and affection. Maybe it is difficult to describe "hotness" without it, but it sometimes seems to me that some of this issue needs to be about our relationship with ourselves. Can we each learn to describe ourselves as attractive, beautiful, valuable, "hot", acceptable, loveable, or whatever on our own terms without needing someone outside of ourselves to prop us up? Can we learn how to do it without deluding ourselves?

It is an interesting question, though I'm still not sure I understand the question fully, nor do I think I will fully understand the answer when (and if) we come up with an answer. In an attempt to clarify the question, it seems to me that it is headed in one (or both) of two possible directions:
 
1) My first reaction to these questions is to wonder if you are thinking about questions of "free will" or, what LDS call "agency." While I can in no way call myself an expert in the discussion, I know Christian philosophers have been discussing it for a very long time. Do we have free will, or are we puppets on a string? When we develop faith in Christ, is it because we chose to develop faith, or did God pull the "believe" string and we suddenly believed? When we go to church, is it because we wanted to go to church of our own will, or did God pull the "go to church" string and we went? Is this the kind of thing you want to discuss?
 
2) In another way, it looks like a question along the lines of "Do LDS believe in a variation of 'once saved always saved'?" Another question that Christianity has attempted to understand for a long time. Some do indeed believe that, once we have believed and/or done anything else necessary for salvation, that nothing we say or do or choose after that point can "unsave" us. Is that where you are headed with this?

This is just my opinion, but from anecdotes I see around the internet, bishops do not universally see this kind of situation as "automatic" disqualification to go to the temple. They seem to consider temple worthiness in these cases on a case by case basis (part of why we here cannot give you specific suggestions).
 
In keeping with the other advice given here, I would suggest you call your bishop. Tell him, "We have this temple trip on Saturday, and I'm not sure if I'm worthy to go to the temple. Can I meet with you between now and then to talk about it?" Then see if he can find a few minutes to sit down with you and discuss it. If, together, you and he decide you should not go, then you don't go to the temple, and nobody else needs to know why (and I personally have no qualms about little white lies to others in a situation like this. "I ate something that disagreed with me, so I decided not to go at the last minute" is as much as anyone else needs to know). If, together, you and he decide you can/should go to the temple, then go.

In some ways, I will agree with applepansy, though I can certainly empathize with Windseeker. I am reminded of this post just a few days ago by Brad at One Flesh Marriage (http://www.onefleshmarriage.com/2014/06/look-great-no-i-dont.html). For whatever reason, it seems that this is a common problem in our society. How to learn to give and receive honest compliments is difficult enough. Combine with the familiarity of marriage relationships and the outside world's fluctuating, irrational definitions of "beauty", "attractive", etc. and it is probably a wonder that anyone manages to get this right.
 
One observation on Charity Pierce: Even in her case (grossly overweight due to physical illness), we frame the discussion of "is she beautiful" in terms of finding a man who says that she is beautiful and worthy of love and affection. Maybe it is difficult to describe "hotness" without it, but it sometimes seems to me that some of this issue needs to be about our relationship with ourselves. Can we each learn to describe ourselves as attractive, beautiful, valuable, "hot", acceptable, loveable, or whatever on our own terms without needing someone outside of ourselves to prop us up? Can we learn how to do it without deluding ourselves?

I actually don't take much issue with the fact that the Church chooses not to meet with Ordain Women.  It isn't really how I'd handle the issue myself if I were the one calling the shots, but I'm not.  
 
What I take issue with is the claim that "we don't meet with extreme groups" when, in fact, they meet with the opposite extreme.  The actions thus far paint the picture that the MWS stance of unfailing conformity is the moderate stance, and anything beyond that is pushing the boundaries of apostasy.
 
It's worth noting that there are far more moderate voices out in the bloggernacle.  In any forum other than Feminist Mormon Housewives (which has become almost unreadable at this point), I read a lot more comments calling into question the assumptions OW makes.  There's a lot of middle ground to be found, but the only acknowledgement I've heard of middle ground from the Church is "we could train our leaders better."  It's all a little too black-and-white for my tastes.  

To also quote from the MWS facebook page: "LDS Women who, without hesitation, sustain the Lord's Prophet, the Family Proclamation as doctrine and our divine role as covenant women for Christ." (emphasis mine).  On their website, they describe an expectation of "unequivocal support."  Those are the elements I find extreme, and I consider them unhealthy.  So I find MWS as extreme in their positions as OW is in theirs.  
 
Add to that, statements such as "Many sisters have come up to me and argued that we should all be Mormon Feminists. And I have continued to attempt to make my point that there is no such thing as a faithful Mormon Feminist."  and my decision to label it as an extreme group is solidified.  

I find this letter to be a mixed bag.  It's nice to get more clarification from their side of things, but I was pretty irritated by their claim that they "don't meet with extreme groups."  I consider Mormon Women Stand to be an extreme group as it isn't welcoming of any questioning of church policy or leadership.  If you got to read my blog post on conformity, MWS is a group that I would argue is promoting all the dangerous aspsects of over-conformity.
 
I'm also find it a little grating the the letter tosses local leadership under the bus.  I'm glad to see an admission that more training is needed for local leaders, but the problems that arise and create experiences like bijulie's (and I expect and hope that her experiences are a bit beyond the ordinary experience) are fostered and enabled by cultural and structural elements in the Church.  So the general church leadership needs to accept some responsibility for that, and this letter attempts to absolve them of that.
 
Overall, though, there are good points in the letter, especially about not targeting people that are doing their jobs.  It's a small minority that is lashing out at some of the public affairs people, but they are vocal and they're only creating more victims.  I wish they would stop.
 
http://myuncommondissent.blogspot.com/2014/05/on-missing-context.html

In many ways, I think this is the hardest part of being in a sexless relationship. You try to be the best husband/wife you can be, and it still isn't enough. Sometimes you feel like she/he is saying "some day when you are a perfect husband/wife (and the stars and planets align just right and nobody cut me off in traffic and...), then I will condescend to have sex with you." I have no answer for it. I agree with you on just about every count -- you need to try to everything you can to be a good husband. Sometimes that means trying to lose that extra 25 pounds, sometimes that means putting extra effort in housework or childcare. I also agree that it is not right nor fair ("who said life was fair? where is that written?" if we want to add to our Princess Bride quote list) for her to wait until you have met a certain "threshold" before she responds to your requests for increased engagement in sex.
 
Somewhere along my journey, and as much as I hate to compare us "sexual pursuers" to dumb animals, but I have often reflected on something I saw in a documentary on training animals. This particular segment was about training pigeons or chickens to play ping pong. The trainer explained that, in the early stages of training, the trainer would reward the bird for "accidently" looking at the ball. He didn't wait for the bird to "do the right thing intentionally and perfectly." Any behavior that even looked like what the trainer wanted was rewarded. Like I say, I hate to compare us to dumb animals, but, if our wives/husbands really see sex as a "reward" for correct behavior, then maybe they ought to actually apply it as an animal trainer and "reward" us for doing anything. Of course, there are many who see a certain level of dysfunction in a "sex as reward/punishment/manipulation tool" like that, so that isn't a real answer, either.
 
I know, there really isn't any good advice here. Mostly just commiseration, which can be good and it can be bad, so I don't know if it helps or not. I think PC's post is spot on in one respect -- I don't think the "status quo" is sustainable. You (and me) need to keep pushing for change in the best ways we can.

If these are the two options, I would say it is more likely to be a lack of awareness. Most estimates for the US say that about 20% of marriages are "sexless" (usually defined as 10 or fewer sexual encounters per year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage). At that rate, an LDS bishop with stewardship over ~100 couples has probably got 15-20 sexless marriages within his ward. Acknowledging, as we have above, that a few of those are due to age, illness, and he probably has  at least 10 couples who are actually fighting, wishing, hoping, and otherwise struggling -- and most of them probably don't talk to the Bishop about it. Mark Regnerus (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/22/new-study-mark-regnerus-suggests-religion-can-predict-sexual-behavior/) claims that he will present some data later this year that may break this down by religious affiliation, which will be interesting.

I usually say that I 'believe' things.  That's a personal and deliberate choice.  There's a two-part explanation for my choice.
 
First, I tend to think of 'know' as a word that suggests demonstrable, objective knowledge.  The example I usually employ is that most people don't know that x * 0= 0.  They think they know it, but they really only believe it.  People often object and say that they know it, but when asked to prove it, they are at a total loss and reply "It just is."  That isn't knowledge.  That's a very strong faith put into practice.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Most people simply don't need to know that x*0 = 0.  The belief is sufficient.
 
The second reason I avoid using 'know' is that I disliked the way so many youth in my area were coached to bear testimony.  We were told to always use the phrase "I know" and never to use "I believe" because "I believe" implied doubt.  I have spoken to others in my generation who were raised in other parts of the country and were taught the same thing.  I object to the idea that "belief" is a sign of weakness, and so I am careful to state that I "believe" things are true because I want people to hear it more often.  I want to eliminate that connotation that a mere belief is bad.
 
But I think this young man when a bit too far in saying that we shouldn't say we know things that we can't prove.  As Dravin pointed out, "know" has connotations beyond objectively verifiable truth.  It makes a lot more sense to try and understand people's intent than to criticize their choice of words.

Sort of runs counter to what Elder Packer says in the Institute manual about "The desire to mate in humankind [being] constant and very strong." My own study suggests that it is certainly not constant across individuals and it varies with time, both short term in response to hormonal fluctuations and life stresses, and long term in response to aging. On average it is likely a decrease in desire and function as you've suggested. However, I see a lot of discussion and research (mostly secular sources) challenging the stereotype of "older" people becoming "asexual". I think there is a lot of room in the church and out for a discussion around what sexuality means for couples and marriages as they age.