char713

I have always been taught that one of the reasons we are here in mortality is not only to gain a body, but to learn how to control it.  This body is after all, very new to us.  There exists a continual conflict between the desires of the body and the needs of the spirit.  The goal is to subject the desires of the body to the will of the spirit.  However, as observation will indicate, the spirit is in many instances subdued and over shadowed by the demands of the carnal.  What do the scriptures say?... to be carnally minded is death and to be spiritually is life eternal.
 
Giving in to the carnal desires contrary to law is sin.  We want things and in giving in to them contrary to the law is what sin is.  A choice is always involved.  Making this choice constitutes the use of agency.  I don't think it is inevitable that we sin in the sense that we have no choice in the matter.  We always have a choice and acting on either obedience to the law or the desires of the flesh is what agency is.
 
As an aside;  Claims by some that they are just being who they are when they do behaviors contrary to God's law are saying that they have capitulated to the desires of the flesh and at that point they are indeed being who they are.  They are being who they have allowed themselves to become as a consequence of acting on their choices.  Actions have a tendency to cement character traits.  The atonement's ability to save such an individual depends on the individual's ability to overcome years and years of repeated behavior through repentance.

I think it is an important distinction to remember that that the Savior is perfect - the most perfect person to have ever lived - not just because he committed no sins, but also because he committed no transgressions. I do believe that sinlessness, while not easy or very likely, it is possible. Transgression-lessness(?) is impossible. Even young children who pass away before the age of accountability commit transgressions. 
 
And to quote C.S. Lewis (because that's what I do):
 
"No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. …A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means – the only complete realist."

This counsel should come as a surprise to no one, of course seeking other entertainment during an ordinance is not appropriate. If a child is old enough to take the Sacrament (having been baptized), he or she is old enough to sit quietly for the 10 minutes or less that the ordinance requires. I have some attention issues myself, but we are given something to do with our hands - taking and passing the Sacrament. If we need something else to do, maybe some individuals could quietly move to assist a young mother whose little children are out of control? 
 
Edit: Hard-copy scriptures and hymnals are usually within arms reach too. 

Just like every other expression of faith, gratitude, respect, and love, sex could become part of "vain repetition" if it is done more for frequency's sake than anything else. 
 
I think it is a fair assumption to make that most "sexless" marriages have much bigger problems to work on, many bigger fish to fry, before their sex life can start to become the best it can be for both husband and wife.

If we leave out the part about frequency, the entire article is reduced to what we already know, that sex is an important part of marriage and spouses should try to make each other happy in that and every other facet of marriage. The article said that because Elder Holland called sex a sacrament, it must mean that we must partake of it often or be held accountable. If we want to have a discussion about selflessness and attention to your spouse's needs, then we need a completely different article to use as a jumping off point, because Coach Sam's piece had very little to do with that. 

I disagree with this author's overall point. He has equated THE Sacrament with A Sacrament, saying that all types must be "partaken of" regularly. 
 
Here is Elder Holland's original explanation of the term:
 
 
There is nothing in there at all about it needing to become a habit or something to be regimented or kept track of. And with that, I think the rest of the article is pretty much left unfounded. Yes, intimacy is important for the health of a marriage and its members. But it is not sinful to let that aspect of a marriage dwindle a bit, just so long as you are as united as you can be in other aspects. 
 
My parents have been living apart for almost 12 years. My father has been trying to find gainful employment in the US during all that time, but has been working in the Middle East the rest of the time. By the definition quoted in the article, their marriage is completely sexless, they only see each other one month or so out of every year. But they are more united than they have ever been, I think.. having to manage their household, the family, and their lives just by phone and email contact, and they are making it work. They aren't living in a state of sin by omission. 
 
Neither are any other couples who may have grown together toward "sexlessness." Obviously there are exceptions, but that's because there are other bigger sins in the lives of one or both members. Pornography use might have a lot to do with most of these instances, I would guess. But couples who have one or more members who are suffering from depression or other prolonged illness, or disability.. these people are not to be held accountable before God for their sexlessness. Even less so by a blogger without a degree in counseling or psychology or any other certification, or any other kind of "wise fool."

The "Good Girl Syndrome" is described in Laura M. Botherson's book as follows:
 
"A result of the negative conditioning that occurs from parents, church, and society as they teach - or fail to teach - the goodness of sexuality and its divine purposes." This conditioning leads to negative thoughts and feelings about sex and the body, resulting in an inhibited sexual response within marriage.[...] The Good Girl Syndrom represents a distorted image of what a "good girl" really is or should be. The good girl should be applauded for her desire to do what is right, but the unintentional overemphasis on the negative consequences of immodesty and immorality and the negative images in society lead many to incorrectly internalize negative teachings regarding sexuality. The good girl would rather err on the side of right than make a mistake, which is a good thing. But the sometimes unfortunate, unintended consequences are that she distances herself from anything percieved as bad or sinful to the point of not letting herself learn about or enjoy sexual relations even within marriage." 
 
In a lot of ways this seems to resemble, to me at least, a few common symptoms of those who have been sexually abused. IMHO, the correct approach is not to tell them they are "messed up" but to supply them with the necessary materials to help them to be able to notice, and correctly pinpoint their own insecurities and negative thought patterns. And then to support  them as they try to heal. Their responses, behaviors, and insecurities are not their fault, at least not until they have reached a certain point of understanding but refuse to seek help or try to heal.

If we leave out the part about frequency, the entire article is reduced to what we already know, that sex is an important part of marriage and spouses should try to make each other happy in that and every other facet of marriage. The article said that because Elder Holland called sex a sacrament, it must mean that we must partake of it often or be held accountable. If we want to have a discussion about selflessness and attention to your spouse's needs, then we need a completely different article to use as a jumping off point, because Coach Sam's piece had very little to do with that. 

If we leave out the part about frequency, the entire article is reduced to what we already know, that sex is an important part of marriage and spouses should try to make each other happy in that and every other facet of marriage. The article said that because Elder Holland called sex a sacrament, it must mean that we must partake of it often or be held accountable. If we want to have a discussion about selflessness and attention to your spouse's needs, then we need a completely different article to use as a jumping off point, because Coach Sam's piece had very little to do with that. 

Living in a fallen state neither reconciles nor justifies sinful behavior. If it did, there would be no need for a Savior and the Atonement.
 
Regarding the adulterous woman. The Lord did judge her, but He didn't condemn her--big difference! President Kimball asked, "But did the Lord forgive the woman? Could he forgive her [in her current condition]?" Then he says, "There seems to be no evidence of forgiveness. His command to her was, 'Go, and sin no more.' He was directing the sinful woman to go her way, abandon her evil life, commit no more sin, transform her life. He was saying, Go, woman, and start your repentance; and he was indicating to her the beginning step-to abandon her transgressions." Amulek taught that we cannot be saved in our sins. Think about the depth, breadth and implications of that doctrinal truth.
 
We are members of the House of Israel. We are the covenant people. We are God's elect, as Paul refers to us. Do we as a people fully understand what that means?
 
"A chosen people are called upon to make choices that evidence their covenant with Christ and their loyalty to the fathers. A chosen people are called upon to be true to their covenants. Israel is called to live the gospel.... Israel is called be the light to a world that travels largely in darkness." This cannot be accomplished with one foot in the covenant and the other foot in the world.
 
Plainly put, righteousness requires obedience. If we do not understand the gospel, or worse, if we choose to understand only cherry-picked parts, then it is vital that we come to an understanding before it becomes "everlasting too late."

Been following this thread for a while. Not sure what to say until now.
 
Being converted to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as an adult, perhaps I see things differently than others. I have to ask, in all sincerity, how can anyone who claims to have a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ (and all that implies) stand up and proudly say he supports gay marriage (and all that implies)? The two declarations are diametrically opposed. In all honestly, it's beyond my ability to comprehend.

I disagree with this author's overall point. He has equated THE Sacrament with A Sacrament, saying that all types must be "partaken of" regularly. 
 
Here is Elder Holland's original explanation of the term:
 
 
There is nothing in there at all about it needing to become a habit or something to be regimented or kept track of. And with that, I think the rest of the article is pretty much left unfounded. Yes, intimacy is important for the health of a marriage and its members. But it is not sinful to let that aspect of a marriage dwindle a bit, just so long as you are as united as you can be in other aspects. 
 
My parents have been living apart for almost 12 years. My father has been trying to find gainful employment in the US during all that time, but has been working in the Middle East the rest of the time. By the definition quoted in the article, their marriage is completely sexless, they only see each other one month or so out of every year. But they are more united than they have ever been, I think.. having to manage their household, the family, and their lives just by phone and email contact, and they are making it work. They aren't living in a state of sin by omission. 
 
Neither are any other couples who may have grown together toward "sexlessness." Obviously there are exceptions, but that's because there are other bigger sins in the lives of one or both members. Pornography use might have a lot to do with most of these instances, I would guess. But couples who have one or more members who are suffering from depression or other prolonged illness, or disability.. these people are not to be held accountable before God for their sexlessness. Even less so by a blogger without a degree in counseling or psychology or any other certification, or any other kind of "wise fool."

For me, it comes down to this:  The purpose of the church in terms of two of its three fold missions (i.e. to proclaim the gospel and perfect the saints) is to prepare God's children for temple blessings; specifically eternal marriage/eternal families.  As members, it becomes incumbent on us to support that effort.  By a member of the church supporting gay marriage, they are in effect supporting something not only contrary to the purposes of the church, but something that is contrary to God's will for His children.  There is no place in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage for a homosexual union.  If a member of the church cannot find it within themselves to promote the gospel and the eternal ordinances, it seems to me, the least they could do is not support something to the contrary.

I disagree with this author's overall point. He has equated THE Sacrament with A Sacrament, saying that all types must be "partaken of" regularly. 
 
Here is Elder Holland's original explanation of the term:
 
 
There is nothing in there at all about it needing to become a habit or something to be regimented or kept track of. And with that, I think the rest of the article is pretty much left unfounded. Yes, intimacy is important for the health of a marriage and its members. But it is not sinful to let that aspect of a marriage dwindle a bit, just so long as you are as united as you can be in other aspects. 
 
My parents have been living apart for almost 12 years. My father has been trying to find gainful employment in the US during all that time, but has been working in the Middle East the rest of the time. By the definition quoted in the article, their marriage is completely sexless, they only see each other one month or so out of every year. But they are more united than they have ever been, I think.. having to manage their household, the family, and their lives just by phone and email contact, and they are making it work. They aren't living in a state of sin by omission. 
 
Neither are any other couples who may have grown together toward "sexlessness." Obviously there are exceptions, but that's because there are other bigger sins in the lives of one or both members. Pornography use might have a lot to do with most of these instances, I would guess. But couples who have one or more members who are suffering from depression or other prolonged illness, or disability.. these people are not to be held accountable before God for their sexlessness. Even less so by a blogger without a degree in counseling or psychology or any other certification, or any other kind of "wise fool."

I disagree with this author's overall point. He has equated THE Sacrament with A Sacrament, saying that all types must be "partaken of" regularly. 
 
Here is Elder Holland's original explanation of the term:
 
 
There is nothing in there at all about it needing to become a habit or something to be regimented or kept track of. And with that, I think the rest of the article is pretty much left unfounded. Yes, intimacy is important for the health of a marriage and its members. But it is not sinful to let that aspect of a marriage dwindle a bit, just so long as you are as united as you can be in other aspects. 
 
My parents have been living apart for almost 12 years. My father has been trying to find gainful employment in the US during all that time, but has been working in the Middle East the rest of the time. By the definition quoted in the article, their marriage is completely sexless, they only see each other one month or so out of every year. But they are more united than they have ever been, I think.. having to manage their household, the family, and their lives just by phone and email contact, and they are making it work. They aren't living in a state of sin by omission. 
 
Neither are any other couples who may have grown together toward "sexlessness." Obviously there are exceptions, but that's because there are other bigger sins in the lives of one or both members. Pornography use might have a lot to do with most of these instances, I would guess. But couples who have one or more members who are suffering from depression or other prolonged illness, or disability.. these people are not to be held accountable before God for their sexlessness. Even less so by a blogger without a degree in counseling or psychology or any other certification, or any other kind of "wise fool."

She was a great speaker, and I appreciated the message she shared.
 
Was she the only sister who spoke this time who did not employ that terrible sing-songy, airy speaking voice? Is there anyone who actually appreciates being spoken to thusly? My sister adopts that kind of voice sometimes, on the phone and during family prayer... and it annoys me to no end. Maybe it works for some people, though I cannot imagine how. 

Something my husband and I did recently in Draper was visit the Aquarium and we paid a little extra to visit with and feed the Gentoo penguins there. The rest of the aquarium is okay too, the penguins and the otters are by far the best parts though. 

Something my husband and I did recently in Draper was visit the Aquarium and we paid a little extra to visit with and feed the Gentoo penguins there. The rest of the aquarium is okay too, the penguins and the otters are by far the best parts though. 

I don't know about the "truth" of it.
I am not concerned about it.
I do not believe that polygamy is an excuse or a justification for homosexuality.
dc

Watched "The Prince of Egypt" last night. I had forgotten how good that movie is. Also, the voice cast had quite an interesting range of people, my favorite was Ralph Fiennes as Rameses. 

This counsel should come as a surprise to no one, of course seeking other entertainment during an ordinance is not appropriate. If a child is old enough to take the Sacrament (having been baptized), he or she is old enough to sit quietly for the 10 minutes or less that the ordinance requires. I have some attention issues myself, but we are given something to do with our hands - taking and passing the Sacrament. If we need something else to do, maybe some individuals could quietly move to assist a young mother whose little children are out of control? 
 
Edit: Hard-copy scriptures and hymnals are usually within arms reach too. 

This counsel should come as a surprise to no one, of course seeking other entertainment during an ordinance is not appropriate. If a child is old enough to take the Sacrament (having been baptized), he or she is old enough to sit quietly for the 10 minutes or less that the ordinance requires. I have some attention issues myself, but we are given something to do with our hands - taking and passing the Sacrament. If we need something else to do, maybe some individuals could quietly move to assist a young mother whose little children are out of control? 
 
Edit: Hard-copy scriptures and hymnals are usually within arms reach too. 

Some of those who see psychologists might be looking to heal from hurts their parents deliberately caused them. Too many believe that God has deliberately caused similar or worse things to happen. With that mindset, as sad and wrong as it is, it makes sense that they would seek counsel from anyone but those who they think are their abusers. 

Bringing a third person's body or genetic material into the process of conceiving or carrying a child is always discouraged by the church, regardless of what stage the embryo is in. I imagine the church will have a similar opinion and stance about the newest form of tri-parenthood, which uses a third person's DNA to correct genetic disorders at the mitochondrial level. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31069173
 
One of my friends from high school, and a member of the church, is pregnant with twins via IVF using donor eggs. The donor is her younger sister. As thrilled as I am that they have been able to achieve this medical marvel and overcome her infertility caused by premature ovarian failure.. I would not do it if I were in her shoes. I'm sure (I hope) that it will strengthen their bond as sisters. But both of them will know, whether or not the children are told, that one of them is the biological mother and the other a carrier, and that the husband's DNA was mingled with the sister's. While traditional conception and parenthood is not free of sticky issues by any means, I believe that a big part of why the church strongly discourages these methods of conception is to prevent these certain kinds of hurt and confusion.

I've never seen one but felt one wrap his arms around me for protection. I was riding my motorcycle home from work at dawn when a car in the oncoming traffic lane pulled out to pass. The car was so close I only had time to close my eyes and get killed. The impact didn't happen so I opened my eyes to find myself, still on the bike, out of harms way. I felt as though a warm blanket had been thrown around me and wasn't the least bit shaken up. That feeling lasted all the way home and I had the best days sleep I can ever remember having.