chasingthewind
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by chasingthewind
-
-
9 minutes ago, Vort said:
Then you are clearly someone who should be ignored.
Says the person condemning those who marry for reasons he judges inadequate. The irony is palpable.
This may be the most bizarre, perverse scriptural gloss I have ever heard: An apostle encouraging sin to avoid a greater sin.
If I am clearly a person who should be ignored, then why did you respond to my post? Why didn't you ignore me? lol! Instead of trying to (unsuccessfully) ignore me, why can't you simply show me scriptures or teachings of modern prophets that contradict my reasoning?
-
2 hours ago, Vort said:
It means that lusting after a woman is committing adultery in the heart.
Lust is illicit sexual desire. But sexually desiring one's own wife cannot be illicit. Thus, by definition, one cannot "lust" for one's own wife. Thus Paul teaches that it is better to marry than to burn with lust. The feeling doesn't go away when you marry; on the contrary, it often greatly strengthens. But it's not lust, because she's your wife.
That's good and all but the person you’re marrying isn’t your wife yet. And lusting after someone who isn't your spouse is a sin, no?
QuoteNonsense. You do not understand what you're talking about. You should read the scriptures more carefully (setting aside your perverse sexual preconceptions) and study the teachings of the modern prophets.
Moroni 7:6-10 makes it clear that God will judge the intentions behind our actions and if we have evil intentions then our ‘good’ works profit us nothing. So it seems pretty obvious to me that God will condemn couples who get married just for sex since lustful desires are evil per Matt. 5:28. Can you show me scriptures or the teachings of modern prophets that contradict this line of reasoning?
Your condescending remarks make me sad, btw.
2 hours ago, Vort said:What does 1 Corinthians 7:9 mean to you?
In 1 Cor. 7:9, Paul says it is “better to get married than to burn [with lust]”. Okay?
There are some sins you’d be “better off” committing than others since the severity of different sins comes on a spectrum. For example, you’d be “better off” stealing someone’s property than blaspheming the Holy Ghost. But does that mean stealing isn’t a sin? No, they’re both sins and God can’t look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.
There are sins that will put you in the terrestrial kingdom. There are sins that will put you in the telestial kingdom. And there are sins that will put you in Hell. The sins that put you in the terrestrial kingdom are ‘better’ than the ones that put you in Hell.
-
21 hours ago, Grunt said:
I've never seen anything written to my recollection that tells me I can't marry for lust
Check out Matt. 5:28.
-
21 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:
Did wife #2 know that their marriage was only about sex? I mean hypothetically speaking. If she knows and she's okay with it, then to each their own. I don't think it is a good foundation for marriage, but their choice. BUT if she didn't know....I would be heart-broken if I discovered after the wedding that my husband ONLY married me for sex...not for love. Ick, ick, ick.
As I just told Neuro, to me it matters a lot whether the wife knew and was okay with it. If she is, then I don't think it is a good foundation, but other than that, it's not that big of a deal to me. Heavenly Father understands how intense sexual desire can be, He gave us those desires. At least the hypothetical person we are discussing waited until marriage.
Why does it matter if the first wife is okay with it? Her opinion has no bearing on what is morally right and wrong. God alone determines what is right and wrong.
Yes, Heavenly Father gave us those desires but those desires are weaknesses that we're supposed to overcome. It's similar to how homosexual desires were meant to be overcome.
-
17 hours ago, Vort said:
marriage is not unrighteous, even if you're marrying because you want her physical goods.
What does Matt. 5:28 mean to you?
-
On 9/3/2017 at 6:38 AM, NeuroTypical said:
Just so you know, a marriage is between three entities. Both spouses and the Lord. Who cares if the wife is fine with it? That would be the wife, the husband, and the Lord. Three different parties should care if the wife is fine with it or not.
If I was in such a position, and it was true, of course I'd feel comfortable telling that to God.
chasingthewind - I just need to come out and ask you directly. You do know that sex done right is one of the greatest good things we humans can experience on earth, right? And you know that lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of frequent, mutually beneficial, spiritually connecting sexual intimacy in a marriage is a great blessing for two people with similar drives and inclinations, don't you?
I fully agree that 'sex done right' is a great good. But I do not believe the scenario you just described of a man getting married after the death of his wife because "sex is too good to go without" is 'sex done right'.
Yes, I know a marriage is between three entities (both spouses and the Lord). I am not disputing that. The point I am making is that what is right/wrong is up to one entity - God. God alone determines what is moral/immoral and since He has forbidden lustful desires in Matt. 5:28 then a marriage built on lustful desires is immoral.
I guess I phrased my question poorly in my last comment. I should have said, "Who cares whether the wife thinks it's morally acceptable to marry just for sex? What matters is whether God thinks marrying just for sex morally acceptable."
-
11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
No. Rape is entirely different from adultery.
Can you explain?
-
2 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:
Because by definition adultery involves physical relations outside of marriage. One's spouse is decidedly in the marriage relationship and can therefore not commit adultery within said union.
What if someone rapes their spouse? Isn't that adultery?
-
6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
I knew a guy, married in the temple. His wife died early, he was in his early '60's. He remarried a year later to someone who wasn't LDS. He was an open book on a lot of topics, and when we asked him about his pick, he just said "sex is too good to go without". "Time only" worked for him for wife #2, while he waited to rejoin his first wife. He told us it was just fine with her too.
I guess that's the main point - if chasingthewind's friends brothers wife is fine with friends brothers reason for marrying her, then who is anyone else to poo-poo the arrangement?
Who cares whether the wife is fine with it or not? What matters is whether God is fine with it.
Would you feel comfortable telling God on judgment day the reason you entered into marriage was because "sex is too good to go without"? I sure as heck wouldn't.
-
2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:
Well the thing is you can't commit adultery with your wife.
How do you figure?
-
5 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:
Look, there are many worse reasons for marrying than sexual attraction, such as marrying for money, marrying for social status, marrying because your parents arranged a marriage. Yet, many people get married for these reasons and still have successful marriages that get better and better over time.
If a man and a woman marry in the temple because 1) they are sexually attracted to each other and 2) they get along passably well, they have all the ingredients in the world for a happy marriage. There is nothing "wrong" or "immoral" or "unholy" about marrying for those reasons, as long as the couple truly commits.
I am not sure what you would consider a "valid" reason for marrying, if sexual attraction is not valid. And no, marrying for sexual attraction does NOT reasonably correlate with someone's belief in God.
There are certainly worse reasons for getting married. But so what? Just because one action is more sinful than another doesn’t make the less sinful action ‘moral’. At the end of the day, both actions are sinful and God can’t look upon sin with even the least degree of allowance.
“Happy marriage”? I am not so much interested in a ‘happy marriage’ as I am in a ‘Godly marriage’ – a marriage that is acceptable in the eyes of God. There are plenty of ungodly marriages that are “happy”. I consider the only ingredient necessary for a Godly marriage to be a sincere commitment to follow Christ. And since Christ commands us in Matt. 5:28 to rid ourselves of lustful desires then a marriage founded on lust fails to qualify.
-
39 minutes ago, Vort said:
No, I would not.
*EDIT* I need to make a correction to my previous post: "It may be 'false' that marrying for sex is just as bad as extramarital sex but it is still 'unrighteous'. Would you agree?
-
Just now, DoctorLemon said:
In the context of this thread and what your friend's brother's actions are? Bingo!
I find that quite disturbing. To each his own...
-
1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:
Immorality.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
Are you saying you don't find it immoral to turn God's temple into a place to fulfill one's lustful desires?
-
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:
Ok, I'll bite.
So, what is your definition of righteous judgment? What is the purpose of you calling this brother out on a forum as a non-believer?
The way I see it, if a person doesn't believe in God, he wouldn't go through all the trouble of preparation for a temple marriage.
1. An action is 'righteous' if it is in accordance the the commandments of God and 'unrighteous' if it violates those commandments. Since Matt. 5:28 commands us to rid ourselves of lustful desires then it is unrighteous for lust to be the prime motivator of a marriage.
2. There are a lot of people who are religious just because that's the way they were raised. They go to church, serve missions, get married, read scriptures, etc. not because they really believe in God but because they're just doing what's expected of them.
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:
I could hardly agree less. Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. Even if your claim about his reasons for marrying is true, your judgment is false. Marrying for sex is not the best reason for marrying, but it is better than extramarital sex. A man (or woman) who marries for the sex may grow into better reasons. In the meantime, let them grow up as they can. Reserve your judgment, especially false and unrighteous judgment as you have shared with us.
Okay, perhaps I was exaggerating a bit towards the end of my OP, lol.
My judgment may have been 'false' but I don't think it's 'unrighteous'. It may be 'false' that marrying for sex is just as bad as extramarital sex but it is still 'unrighteous'. Would you agree?
-
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:
Is he still married? Still faithful? Applying to annul the marriage? In my opinion, if he is still married and still faithful, then he is dong better than porn users or those soliciting prostitutes or what have you.
Sorry, but I didn't intend to make this thread about a specific person. I meant for this thread to be specifically focused on the act of marrying for sex and whether it's moral.
-
13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Let's get this straight.
You are telling us, that a friend of yours told you, that a brother of hers told her, why he got married.
And now you're here talking about it.
Do I have that right?
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/gossip
lol! I didn't really intend for this topic to be about the judgment of any particular person (i.e., my friend's brother). Rather, the OP was intended to start a discussion about the immorality of marrying only for sex and how such an action stacks up compared to other acts of sexual immorality.
-
2 minutes ago, Grunt said:
I try not to judge anyone for anything. I have my own sins to deal with.
Well, I don't consider 'not judging anyone for anything' to be part of the gospel. The JST of Matt 7:2 commands us to make righteous judgments and Moroni 7:16 tells us we have been given the Spirit of Christ to judge right from wrong.
-
19 minutes ago, Grunt said:
It's not my place to judge the marriage of another. That's between him, his wife, and God.
Would you judge this person if he was out at a strip club? What if he was with a prostitute? Or if he was watching pornography? If so, why does your judgment suddenly stop when it comes to marriage?
Lust is lust no matter where it rears its head and it should be condemned across the board.
-
Just recently a female friend of mine told me that one of her brothers got married for the sole purpose of having sex. What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I think when someone behaves in such a manner they are showing that they don't really believe in God. If they really believed in God, they'd believe He knows all of their thoughts, intentions, desires, and motivations. They'd believe God is the judge of their heart (not just the judge of their actions) and they couldn't get away with denigrating God's holy temple into a place to fulfill their lustful desires. So this person doesn't really believe in God at all. They're an atheist at heart all while giving the outward appearance of being a 'faithful member'. Honestly, if all you're interested in is sex then you'd be better off going to a strip club, finding a prostitute, watching pornography, etc. Keep filthiness where it belongs instead of bringing it into God's temple.
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
No, they wouldn't. That was the point of your comparison: A polygamous society to a non-polygamous one. You posited ten non-polygamous couples (twenty people), each of whom had six children, totaling 60 children and 80 people in total. You compared that with a polygamous society of one polygamist man involved in ten marriages to different women, each of whom had six children, totally 60 children and only 71 people in total. You claimed that this was a net savings of nine people, and thus more efficient.
My point is that the nine people you cut out for "efficiency" were nine of the ten most valuable people when it comes to providing for that agrarian society.
But I wasn't comparing a polygamous society to a non-polygamous one. I was comparing an individual polygamous family to multiple monogamous families in order to show the former is capable of producing just as many children as the latter.
If we're going to compare societies then I would need to update my example as follows,
Society A: 10 monogamous couples who each have 6 kids -- > 60 total children from 20 parents
Society B: 10 polygamous families where each family has one man and 10 wives and each wife has 6 kids -- > 600 total children from 110 parents
A parent-to-child ratio of 110-600 (0.54) is more efficient than 20-60 (0.3) and there is the same number of husbands in each case. I'm not cutting anyone out.
It only works if you have more women than men, though.
-
9 hours ago, Vort said:
Not really. The "missing" nine people are healthy adult men, the most productive people in an agrarian society. You are decreasing the number of your most important type of person. That's not efficient.
They're not missing. The other nine men would have plural wives as well.
-
Resources? I am just using the hypothetical example you gave.
Does masterbation break the law of chastity?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by chasingthewind
Bad news: Yes, it does.
Good news: As a former porn-addict, I can testify that breaking a porn-addiction is a wonderful opportunity to experience the enabling power of Christ! By submitting myself to Christ, I made progress resisting pornography I didn't think was even possible! My testimony of the enabling power of the Atonement is now unshakable! And Christ will do the same for you! Remember, God never gives us a commandment - such as the LoC - without first providing a way for us to fulfill it!
Good luck on your journey, brother! Check out reddit.com/r/nofapchristians/ if you need a online support group.