Doctrines on Preparing and Thriving in Marriage


Recommended Posts

Having a thriving, happy, eternal marriage in today’s world seems to be more and more difficult. As a student of gospel doctrines and as a Marriage and Family Therapist I find it my passion and joy to work with couples and guide them on a path to increased success and happiness in marriage.

 

During my time working with clients and teaching the gospel I developed a questionnaire to help individuals and couples explore their individual readiness and marriages. I would value your insight and feedback on the questionnaire. You can remain anonymous if you would like. Or feel free to post your ideas here to this thread.

 

Please rate and comment on the questionnaire here.

 

What are your thoughts on the questionnaire?

Where the question relevant? Helpful? Thought provoking? Dumb?

Would love to know what you believe makes your marriage or future marriage joyous, exciting and profoundly enduring and loving.

 

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/dbmft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Be cautious if you are tempted to dismiss stupors of thought, concerns, anxiousness,   lack of clarity, etc. as lack of faith or fear. Anxiety or stupors of thought or a lack of   peace and clarity are some of the tools of the Holy Ghost to help us identify unwise   choices. Fear is very different; one can be very clear in mind and heart and fear the   decision. But if you are not feeling peace and clarity it is a witness that something is not   right. Additionally, when it comes to marriage, if there is fear, that individual must either overcome that fear on their own with Father, or NOT marry. Entering marriage with   fear will create resentment and problems. If someone other than Father “guides” you or   helps you through the fear, it is a form of self-betrayal and also has a high probability to   create resentment in the marriage."

 

I don't know if this is helpful...but....:

 

I have a general problem with the above. Lack of peace, or clarity and/or having anxiety is not explicitly linked to poor choices. I also disagree with the extreme p.o.v. that one should NOT marry if they have fear. Fear and anxiety are part of life and will be experienced even by the most faithful, selfless, righteous people. It is not indicative of a problem, but is only one aspect that MAY indicate deeper problems in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a general problem with the above. Lack of peace, or clarity and/or having anxiety is not explicitly linked to poor choices. I also disagree with the extreme p.o.v. that one should NOT marry if they have fear. Fear and anxiety are part of life and will be experienced even by the most faithful, selfless, righteous people. It is not indicative of a problem, but is only one aspect that MAY indicate deeper problems in some cases.

Thanks for the insight, yes, very helpful. I actually believe we might be on the same page.

 

I agree that "Lack of peace, or clarity and/or having anxiety is not explicitly linked to poor choices." There is however, a real and maybe a bigger problem that I find with pre-married couples and even those who have been married many years is dismissing or not distinguishing valid fears and anxieties verses spiritual and good decisions. I find more often than not many, in the name of "faith" dismiss or push through their fears/anxieties hoping the issues will be resolved.

 

As a result, a good decision to marry a good or the "right" person eventually soured over time because the fears grew and unresolved anxieties never appropriately dealt with. Ergo the poor choice wasn't the marriage but the unresolved, misplaced faith or fears. It lends to a whole host of emotional, spiritual and even sexual codependences and issues that sometimes don't surface for many years.

 

Therefore it was my hope to distinquish valid fears/anxieties verse normal stressors, that needed to be resolved PRIOR to marriage with this comment, "Fear is very different; one can be very clear in mind and heart and fear the decision. But if you are not feeling peace and clarity it is a witness that something is not right."

 

How might you phrase it differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the insight, yes, very helpful. I actually believe we might be on the same page.

 

I agree that "Lack of peace, or clarity and/or having anxiety is not explicitly linked to poor choices." There is however, a real and maybe a bigger problem that I find with pre-married couples and even those who have been married many years is dismissing or not distinguishing valid fears and anxieties verses spiritual and good decisions. I find more often than not many, in the name of "faith" dismiss or push through their fears/anxieties hoping the issues will be resolved.

 

As a result, a good decision to marry a good or the "right" person eventually soured over time because the fears grew and unresolved anxieties never appropriately dealt with. Ergo the poor choice wasn't the marriage but the unresolved, misplaced faith or fears. It lends to a whole host of emotional, spiritual and even sexual codependences and issues that sometimes don't surface for many years.

 

Therefore it was my hope to distinquish valid fears/anxieties verse normal stressors, that needed to be resolved PRIOR to marriage with this comment, "Fear is very different; one can be very clear in mind and heart and fear the decision. But if you are not feeling peace and clarity it is a witness that something is not right."

 

How might you phrase it differently?

 

Hmm. I think my problem with the concept, overall, is that it is misusing the concept of Faith. Dismissing action because of faith is not faith. Faith is action. Faith that things will work out requires the working of things out. We may not know how to work it out, but ignoring something in the name of faith is faith in name only.

 

Here's my effort at rewording - not perfectly worded (you can do that work yourself.  :)). But I think it puts across my thinking on fear and anxiety:

 

"A spiritual confirmation can lead to clarity of action and choice, though an emotional sense of fear and anxiety may continue thereafter. Without that spiritual confirmation, there is danger that the fear and anxiety may be a witness that something is not right."

 

In other words, I feel that when we ponder, fast, pray, etc., we may indeed have a moment of complete peace and strength, where fear and anxiety dissipate and we know that something is right. However, the next day, being imperfect mortal beings, we may still feel a great amount of fear and anxiety concerning it. Some may not, but to imply that if one does it means the spirit is decidedly giving a stupor of thought could introduce confusion.  I have experienced this personally. There are many wrong choices I have made in my life, of course. But there are a few that I accept as right because of an answer to a prayer, but then still felt anxious about afterwards.

 

I will give an example. We had the chance (my wife and I) to potentially put our house up for sale or rent and move into my parent's home while they were on a mission, basically saving ourselves the mortgage payment for that year. Logically, in almost all ways, this seemed like a wise course to try and follow. However, we prayed, fasted, and attended the temple. In the temple I felt a strong spiritual impression that I was to stay put. So I did. Now, since that time, I have had a fair amount of second guessing, fear, worry that I misread the spirit, etc.  That is just me. It is part of my personality. I am a second-guesser, I guess. But I rely upon the experience in the temple and, accordingly, push forward with faith, in spite of my fear and anxiety. (Point of note, as of yet, I have had nothing occur that helps me to logically understand why I am supposed to stay put.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went through the survey and left several comments on several questions. A lot of my comments were about how should the person taking the survey define words (I particularly didn't like the use of the word "struggle" in many of the questions). There were also a few questions that I wasn't sure how the answer would have been useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went through the survey and left several comments on several questions. A lot of my comments were about how should the person taking the survey define words (I particularly didn't like the use of the word "struggle" in many of the questions). There were also a few questions that I wasn't sure how the answer would have been useful.

Thank you for your feedback! Went through it all. I am very familiar with all the references you sited and the research. I appreciate your perspective. I choose struggle for the very reasons you mentioned in your comments. I feel and believe other surveys or questionnaires actually are too specific and don't allow for a discussion between partners. Based on yours and the many many other reviews there will be some refining. However, in my research and experience I am finding this approach to be very effective and driving the open dialog necessary between couples. 

 

The questionnaire is not so much a matrix of whether or not to marry. But like you mentioned or alluded to in your comments its to help the couple open, honestly explore each others understandings, beliefs and to break from of cultural and our religious taboos, myths and perspectives. I loved your comment about the sex question about how will you respond if x is done. Loved that, yes. That is the idea!

 

As for the APA not defining Porn as an addition, that is more of an issue and fear that Porn will be classified and treated like substance abuse. But for that matter the DSM 5 really doesn't call anything an "addiction" but rather disorder. Nonetheless, I haven't come a psychiatrist who doesn't believe Porn is addictive. but I digress... It appears you are well read on the topic, do you have a background in therapy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears you are well read on the topic, do you have a background in therapy?

No, my background is in the physical sciences, not the social sciences. My studies on this topic were/are inspired by several years in a sexless marriage. Over the years, I have had to study to try to understand God's real purposes for sexuality (still learning and unlearning all of the "good boy syndrome" things that I thought the Church was trying to teach me about sexuality). Over the course of that time, I have come across these authors/therapists who have taught me a lot about sex and marriage.

 

There's a possible avenue for an additional question to explore. Explore whether someone believes that any education about sex in marriage has to come from "the Church", from Christians, or if secular sources are appropriate (within certain limits). If I remember the comment about doing x correctly, it was in reference to some of Dr. Schnarch's ideas -- and Dr. Schnarch is decidedly secular. The first of his books I picked up, I quickly dismissed, because I didn't think I should be learning anything from someone who believes "that" about homosexuality (for example). Had I maintained that aversion to his writings, I think I would have missed out on some valuable teaching (because LDS sexual education materials have nothing that even begins to approach the way Dr. Schnarch approaches those kind of issues).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, my background is in the physical sciences, not the social sciences. My studies on this topic were/are inspired by several years in a sexless marriage. Over the years, I have had to study to try to understand God's real purposes for sexuality (still learning and unlearning all of the "good boy syndrome" things that I thought the Church was trying to teach me about sexuality). Over the course of that time, I have come across these authors/therapists who have taught me a lot about sex and marriage.

 

There's a possible avenue for an additional question to explore. Explore whether someone believes that any education about sex in marriage has to come from "the Church", from Christians, or if secular sources are appropriate (within certain limits). If I remember the comment about doing x correctly, it was in reference to some of Dr. Schnarch's ideas -- and Dr. Schnarch is decidedly secular. The first of his books I picked up, I quickly dismissed, because I didn't think I should be learning anything from someone who believes "that" about homosexuality (for example). Had I maintained that aversion to his writings, I think I would have missed out on some valuable teaching (because LDS sexual education materials have nothing that even begins to approach the way Dr. Schnarch approaches those kind of issues).

 

As painful and frustrating as your experience must have been. You're an example of how we as members must approach our sexual education within the church, as a culture and spiritual perspectives. I meet and work with too many who dismiss, deny, and avoid various sexual interactions because of perceived ideas and misconceptions within the faith. Good for you and again thank you for your insight, very meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As painful and frustrating as your experience must have been.....

 

In saying the following I do not mean to discount pain and frustration related to these issues, however I think there is a contemporary cultural issue at play that causes a lot of the pain and frustration needlessly. In other words, for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials. They pretty much just figured it out as they went. I do not buy into the fact that we cannot have a healthy physical relationship with our spouses without being sexually educated...in principle. But when we are raised on movies and television, we develop some pretty messed up ideologies that can cause serious problems in the future. Those problems, while real to us, are in many ways not real, but only perception.  My personal take is that we could address these issues from two perspectives. 1. Sexually educate to accommodate the cultural perception of a healthy sexual life. 2. Address the messed up psyche imposed upon us by Hollywood, calling it out to be the lie that it is. I tend toward #2 as the healthier of the options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In saying the following I do not mean to discount pain and frustration related to these issues, however I think there is a contemporary cultural issue at play that causes a lot of the pain and frustration needlessly. In other words, for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials. They pretty much just figured it out as they went. I do not buy into the fact that we cannot have a healthy physical relationship with our spouses without being sexually educated...in principle. But when we are raised on movies and television, we develop some pretty messed up ideologies that can cause serious problems in the future. Those problems, while real to us, are in many ways not real, but only perception.  My personal take is that we could address these issues from two perspectives. 1. Sexually educate to accommodate the cultural perception of a healthy sexual life. 2. Address the messed up psyche imposed upon us by Hollywood, calling it out to be the lie that it is. I tend toward #2 as the healthier of the options.

Though you have some valid points, I don't totally agree with "for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials. They pretty much just figured it out as they went".  That's quite an assumption.  Unless you've been around that long and in everyone's bedroom, you have no way of knowing that.  For all you know, they would have appreciated a decent book to refer to for a bit of info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though you have some valid points, I don't totally agree with "for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials. They pretty much just figured it out as they went".  That's quite an assumption.  Unless you've been around that long and in everyone's bedroom, you have no way of knowing that.  For all you know, they would have appreciated a decent book to refer to for a bit of info.

 

Fair enough. I think it unlikely, but admit that it is a an assumption as I have not exactly researched it. Considering social mores surrounding sex, the general (relative) lack of access to printed materials, etc., I still think my assumption safe.

 

For the sake of argument, however, let's say I'm entirely wrong and everyone had exactly the same access  to sex ed materials. My point, I think, still stands as to the ability to live a happy and healthy sex life without access to said materials, and that the "Hollywood" corruption on our thinking concerning sex leads to unnecessary pain and frustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I disagree and there's more than just 'Hollywood' that is a problem but I don't want to risk breaking the rules of the forum so will just hope that you can see that others' experience is not easy or "happy and healthy" (for various reasons).

 

Of course I can see that. It doesn't have anything to do with my point. I'm not saying there is only one reason, nor am I saying that everything was always entirely hunky-dory in ye olden days. You're reading more into my point than is being said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not buy into the fact that we cannot have a healthy physical relationship with our spouses without being sexually educated...in principle.
In many ways I think you are right -- in the same sense that we might say that \"most\" people don\'t need to use insulin to manage blood sugar or \"most\" people don\'t need anti-depressants/therapy to be reasonably happy. I saw a statement by Michelle Weiner-Davis suggesting that only about 1/3 of couple really struggle with \"desire discrepancy\". Other studies suggest only 15-20% of marriages are clinically sexless (10 or fewer sexual encounters per year). It seems to me that you are correct in that a majority of couples probably don\'t need a lot of \"educational material\" to come together and figure out what a healthy and satisfying sexual relationship looks like.

I also agree that Hollywood (and other media: porn/romance novels/etc.) has contributed a lot of incorrect teachings around sex and relationships. On the flip side of that, though, is how the way we tend to teach about sex and relationships in the Church/religious people in general also contribute to sexual dysfunctions (what Laura Brotherson has called \"good girl syndrome\"). Ideas like \"sex is a necessary evil to be minimized\" or \"true love does not have a sexual component to it\" or \"sex is only for procreation\" show up in many different within our Church/religious culture. Some of us need real help to understand the \"truth\" that seems to be somewhere between what Hollywood seems to teach and what the Church often seems to teach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side of that, though, is how the way we tend to teach about sex and relationships in the Church/religious people in general also contribute to sexual dysfunctions (what Laura Brotherson has called \"good girl syndrome\"). Ideas like \"sex is a necessary evil to be minimized\" or \"true love does not have a sexual component to it\" or \"sex is only for procreation\" show up in many different within our Church/religious culture. Some of us need real help to understand the \"truth\" that seems to be somewhere between what Hollywood seems to teach and what the Church often seems to teach.

 

The church does not teach these things. If people within the church teach them they are teaching false principles, and if people in the church are learning them they are learning false principles. Regardless, people are learning them. In my personal experience (obviously limited as compared to the membership at large) I have never heard any of these ideas "taught", though I have heard these ideas "learned". Wherein people are learning things that are not taught is an interesting phenomenon -- assuming my perception is valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In saying the following I do not mean to discount pain and frustration related to these issues, however I think there is a contemporary cultural issue at play that causes a lot of the pain and frustration needlessly.

 

Absolutely true, but only a part of the problem.

 

 

In other words, for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials.

 

Sure, people lived without Dr. for many years, their life expectancy was also much lower. Sure people lived without sexual education for many years, but there was also a sexual repression, shaming and a plethora of misconceptions. Beliefs that some sexual activity resulted in insanity, and so forth.

 

 

They pretty much just figured it out as they went.

 

Not sure what that means? So education isn't needed?

 

 

I do not buy into the fact that we cannot have a healthy physical relationship with our spouses without being sexually educated...in principle.

 

"...in principle." Well, that can very well be said with anything, when you qualify it with "in principle."

 

 

But when we are raised on movies and television, we develop some pretty messed up ideologies that can cause serious problems in the future.

 

Oh, the problems were around long before movies and television, this is a gross over simplification. But I agree, its not helped. However, I will tell you I have seen repeatedly in my practice and association families/couples, good, faithful members who do not indulged in the media and would for all intense and purposes have a very healthy relationship. Have very unhealthy and poor sexually lives. This is very common.

 

 

Those problems, while real to us, are in many ways not real, but only perception. Those problems, while real to us, are in many ways not real, but only perception.

 

Perception IS reality. Period.

 

 

My personal take is that we could address these issues from two perspectives. 1. Sexually educate to accommodate the cultural perception of a healthy sexual life.

 

I don't know what this means....

 

 

2. Address the messed up psyche imposed upon us by Hollywood, calling it out to be the lie that it is. I tend toward #2 as the healthier of the options.

 

Telling someone or a group of people, generally is not the "healthy" approach. Its what most members and to a degree the "church" did between 1963- about 1990 or so. You can go back to many of the leaderships writings in the late 60's and 70's dealing with the sexual revolution and all topics related to it. I by no means criticize the leaderships attempt to educate and compare the upsurge of promiscuity. However, it was a very less effective approach. As a result, when we focus on how others are doing it wrong we inadvertently dilute and confuse the message that its bad.

 

As was pointed out in another related post. Although, the "church" never taught sex is bad its members by focusing on preventing the promiscuity inadvertently communicated a message that sex is bad, should only be done for procreation and most importantly ignored the idea that intimacy is a beautiful and wonderful experience. Focusing on the bad does not teach the good. It only gives more attention to the bad. I assure you, I think it would surprise you. The majority of unhealthy ideas about sex come from messages communicated in the family and at church. NOT Hollywood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In saying the following I do not mean to discount pain and frustration related to these issues, however I think there is a contemporary cultural issue at play that causes a lot of the pain and frustration needlessly. In other words, for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials. They pretty much just figured it out as they went. I do not buy into the fact that we cannot have a healthy physical relationship with our spouses without being sexually educated...in principle. But when we are raised on movies and television, we develop some pretty messed up ideologies that can cause serious problems in the future. Those problems, while real to us, are in many ways not real, but only perception.  My personal take is that we could address these issues from two perspectives. 1. Sexually educate to accommodate the cultural perception of a healthy sexual life. 2. Address the messed up psyche imposed upon us by Hollywood, calling it out to be the lie that it is. I tend toward #2 as the healthier of the options.

 

May I also add, that your comments fail to consider a large portion of people who have experienced abuse, especially sexual abuse as children. Abuse changes the sexual experience in ways, unless you have worked with abuse victims, in ways you could begin to understand. I have never heard of, studied or worked with clients who in these cases just "figured it out". In fact, in these situations, its often the husband I end up having to work with in depth because he has this idea that if he just tries hard enough, has enough faith they will just figure it out. That then create a lot of other problems. Additionally, Women who biologically have issues with orgasms or generally feeling little or no pleasure during intimacy which is very common. Over 40% of women have NEVER orgasm! Also men although less frequently, who have issues biologically too.

 

Its comments like yours that over simplify the issue and unintentionally communicate the wrong messaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely true, but only a part of the problem.

 

 

Sure, people lived without Dr. for many years, their life expectancy was also much lower. Sure people lived without sexual education for many years, but there was also a sexual repression, shaming and a plethora of misconceptions. Beliefs that some sexual activity resulted in insanity, and so forth.

 

 

Not sure what that means? So education isn't needed?

 

 

"...in principle." Well, that can very well be said with anything, when you qualify it with "in principle."

 

 

Oh, the problems were around long before movies and television, this is a gross over simplification. But I agree, its not helped. However, I will tell you I have seen repeatedly in my practice and association families/couples, good, faithful members who do not indulged in the media and would for all intense and purposes have a very healthy relationship. Have very unhealthy and poor sexually lives. This is very common.

 

 

Perception IS reality. Period.

 

 

I don't know what this means....

 

 

Telling someone or a group of people, generally is not the "healthy" approach. Its what most members and to a degree the "church" did between 1963- about 1990 or so. You can go back to many of the leaderships writings in the late 60's and 70's dealing with the sexual revolution and all topics related to it. I by no means criticize the leaderships attempt to educate and compare the upsurge of promiscuity. However, it was a very less effective approach. As a result, when we focus on how others are doing it wrong we inadvertently dilute and confuse the message that its bad.

 

As was pointed out in another related post. Although, the "church" never taught sex is bad its members by focusing on preventing the promiscuity inadvertently communicated a message that sex is bad, should only be done for procreation and most importantly ignored the idea that intimacy is a beautiful and wonderful experience. Focusing on the bad does not teach the good. It only gives more attention to the bad. I assure you, I think it would surprise you. The majority of unhealthy ideas about sex come from messages communicated in the family and at church. NOT Hollywood.

 

Hi CrossfitDan,

 

I think you misunderstand me a bit. I thought a bit of clarification is in order.

 

When I speak of the influence of Hollywood I am not necessarily meaning "just" movies and TV and the direct learning one might get from watching shows. It is a broad cultural change that is epitomized and perpetuated in the media, but certainly influences society at large. To presume cultural attitudes about sex are only learned directly by watching TV would be a gross over simplification, as you put it. This is not my contention. I also do not mean to specifically blame the media, other than in the mass ability to influence culture at large. But the general cultural attitudes about sex and sexual relationships are certainly influenced by a broad spectrum of variables. I used the term "Hollywood" as a simple, generic reference to this cultural phenomenon. In many ways, the internet is now more influential, and in the next 20 years or so the cultural shift we will see will almost certainly be driven and perpetuated therefrom.

 

Generally we agree. Let me address a few of your comments:

 

Only part of the problem. - agreed

 

Plethora of misconceptions - agreed

 

Education is needed. But the right education. (Which is actually my point). Figuring it out on your own is still well within the definition of education.

 

"In principle" does not qualify anything beyond how it is already qualified. It's a meaningless addition to the sentence that relates more to my wordy writing style than anything. Everything we're discussing is "principle" so everything is "in principle". And it being said of anything would do nothing to legitimize what is being said. "In principle one could eat whatever they want and stay healthy." How does the addition of "in principle" matter? Not sure what you're getting at with this.

 

Perception is reality?  Hmm. Got to think about that. My initial thoughts tend to reject it -- or rather to accept it as only partial truth. Strikes me as too close to moral relativity. Hmm. Thinking.... I don't know if I agree with the "Period" adamancy. Too black and white. There are grays here, methinks.

 

As to the 1. Sexually educate to accommodate the cultural perception of a healthy sexual life. I cannot really address this more without being explicit in ways that would severely breach the forums rules. So perhaps we should just let it be.

 

The only reason I am addressing this topic at all is for the following reason: Sex, even topically, is sacred. The church does not teach proper sexual behavior because it is sacred. It is left to husband and wife because it is sacred and between them. That this approach may inadvertently cause people to misunderstand may be true. It is certainly true that people misunderstand the temple when we do not speak of it. That is a problem we accept and we still do not discuss sacred things that we should not.  For a husband and wife to explore sexual education beyond the privacy of their bedrooms runs the risk of placing the holy into unholy circumstances. Please understand me. I am not advising against seeking help when needed, or suggesting that no matter the issues that a couple should simply "deal with it". What I am suggesting is that when an LDS therapist is consulting with an LDS couple as to sexual dysfunction that they teach them how to think rightly about something that is sacred, and to keep it sacred. Teach them to get their minds right about it, and not to impose upon them what is and isn't right and wrong. That is God and His church's place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I also add, that your comments fail to consider a large portion of people who have experienced abuse, especially sexual abuse as children. Abuse changes the sexual experience in ways, unless you have worked with abuse victims, in ways you could begin to understand. I have never heard of, studied or worked with clients who in these cases just "figured it out". In fact, in these situations, its often the husband I end up having to work with in depth because he has this idea that if he just tries hard enough, has enough faith they will just figure it out. That then create a lot of other problems. Additionally, Women who biologically have issues with orgasms or generally feeling little or no pleasure during intimacy which is very common. Over 40% of women have NEVER orgasm! Also men although less frequently, who have issues biologically too.

 

The abuse issue is a valid and reasonable point.

 

As to the other, first, of course I know this.  I am reasonably educated, and I am a married man.  But how would a woman even know this was an issue if society and culture and "hollywood" hadn't taught her that it was an issue? These issues, in large regards, stem from the world telling people that they must be miserable then, because how could one ever but happy without that... I cannot speak in more detail on this without stepping over the line of propriety.

 

But in principle (there's the phrase again) it is true of many things. How could we ever be happy without a house, a car, money, healthy children, a wholesome sex life, etc., etc... The truth is that happiness and contentment simply do not come from these things. Too many concepts are based in selfishness instead of selflessness. And that is the base of my contention. Follow selflessness first and the rest falls in line.

 

Its comments like yours that over simplify the issue and unintentionally communicate the wrong messaged.

 

Nonsense. My comments are meaningless. I don't give therapy to anyone, and when I do speak my opinion on a public forum there are those like you to correct me.

 

My ideas are not simplified, however. They are grounded in moral standards that are simple, yes, but carry great depth. And they are centered on an eternal perspective, not an "I can't have good sex so I'm miserable" temporal view. I am not discounting peoples difficulties. I have my own. I am suggesting, firmly, that the solution to these problems can better be found in the principles of the gospel than in principles the world would espouse as healthy and valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....

The only reason I am addressing this topic at all is for the following reason: Sex, even topically, is sacred. The church does not teach proper sexual behavior because it is sacred. It is left to husband and wife because it is sacred and between them.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your usage of the word "sacred". But the church doesn't teach "proper sexuality" because its between the couple and Father. It may be different for different couples. Not because its sacred, we teach and talk of sacred things reverently and respectfully in the church frequently. Therefore I agree with your last sentence above.

 

That this approach may inadvertently cause people to misunderstand may be true. It is certainly true that people misunderstand the temple when we do not speak of it. That is a problem we accept and we still do not discuss sacred things that we should not.  For a husband and wife to explore sexual education beyond the privacy of their bedrooms runs the risk of placing the holy into unholy circumstances.

 

This is what I am concerned with. Its common in the church to treat something so "sacred" its secret. With your analogy, there is much more we can say about the temple then we ever do. For this fear of saying something wrong or not treating it sacredly. NO sex discussion should not stay in the bedroom. No if what you are referring to is issue and details specific to the relationship, absolutely. They should stay between husband, wife and qualified therapist. However, in general its important to have a reverent, but open dialog with your children and others about intimacy. Again, I am not suggesting sharing details about your couples relation but intimacy in general. 

 

 

Please understand me. I am not advising against seeking help when needed, or suggesting that no matter the issues that a couple should simply "deal with it". What I am suggesting is that when an LDS therapist is consulting with an LDS couple as to sexual dysfunction that they teach them how to think rightly about something that is sacred, and to keep it sacred. Teach them to get their minds right about it, and not to impose upon them what is and isn't right and wrong. That is God and His church's place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The abuse issue is a valid and reasonable point.

 

As to the other, first, of course I know this.  I am reasonably educated, and I am a married man.  But how would a woman even know this was an issue if society and culture and "hollywood" hadn't taught her that it was an issue? These issues, in large regards, stem from the world telling people that they must be miserable then, because how could one ever but happy without that... I cannot speak in more detail on this without stepping over the line of propriety.

 

But in principle (there's the phrase again) it is true of many things. How could we ever be happy without a house, a car, money, healthy children, a wholesome sex life, etc., etc... The truth is that happiness and contentment simply do not come from these things. Too many concepts are based in selfishness instead of selflessness. And that is the base of my contention. Follow selflessness first and the rest falls in line.

 

It is NOT selfish to desire wholeness in sexual experience, absolutely not. You know, I use to work with a bishop who use to say "in principle" all the time. In principle, if he had enough faith, if he was righteous enough, if he loved Father enough, IF HE WAS MORE SELFLESS! he could be happy, serve the word more, meet his members needs more, be happy with his wife. The type of language you use is one that I have to constantly break people of. Its self defeating, self betrayal and a type of spiritual manipulation. A question I often ask is, well then how selfless do you need to be to be happy? (I want to be clear, I am not accusing you of any of these things.)

 

We are talking about being whole, not craving more or being selfish! Big difference. "In principle" we could be happy without legs, arms, without hearing, without voice, without sight. Is it "selfish" to desire to be whole again? NO. Its silly to suggest having a car or house is like being sexually whole or rather, whole as a person. I have heard multiple times from husbands, its not a big deal, we can be happy. We have the gospel and have faith.

 

Believe me, Hollywood doesn't need to misguide or inform women to know they are not whole.

 

 

Nonsense. My comments are meaningless. I don't give therapy to anyone, and when I do speak my opinion on a public forum there are those like you to correct me.

 

My ideas are not simplified, however. They are grounded in moral standards that are simple, yes, but carry great depth. And they are centered on an eternal perspective, not an "I can't have good sex so I'm miserable" temporal view. I am not discounting peoples difficulties. I have my own. I am suggesting, firmly, that the solution to these problems can better be found in the principles of the gospel than in principles the world would espouse as healthy and valid.

 

"My comments are meaningless." Thats interesting. "and when I do speak my opinion on a public forum there are those like you to correct me." Yah, because, unfortunately, their are those who don't perceive your comments as meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is NOT selfish to desire wholeness in sexual experience, absolutely not. You know, I use to work with a bishop who use to say "in principle" all the time. In principle, if he had enough faith, if he was righteous enough, if he loved Father enough, IF HE WAS MORE SELFLESS! he could be happy, serve the word more, meet his members needs more, be happy with his wife. The type of language you use is one that I have to constantly break people of. Its self defeating, self betrayal and a type of spiritual manipulation. A question I often ask is, well then how selfless do you need to be to be happy? (I want to be clear, I am not accusing you of any of these things.)

 

We are talking about being whole, not craving more or being selfish! Big difference. "In principle" we could be happy without legs, arms, without hearing, without voice, without sight. Is it "selfish" to desire to be whole again? NO. Its silly to suggest having a car or house is like being sexually whole or rather, whole as a person. I have heard multiple times from husbands, its not a big deal, we can be happy. We have the gospel and have faith.

 

Believe me, Hollywood doesn't need to misguide or inform women to know they are not whole.

 

How selfless does someone have to be happy?

 

100%. Entirely. Absolutely, without equivocation, completely.

 

Incidentally, I did not say it was selfish to desire wholeness. Being miserable because of a lack of wholeness, on the other hand....

 

And the part of your old bishop's wording that was self-defeating was the "if only" part of it. There is no "if" about it. It is a choice. You either get up and work or you don't. Talking about things in terms of if only will always be defeating. Beyond that, if you are taking exception to the ideas of selflessness, service, working harder, loving more, having more faith, and being more righteous, or even against the idea of preaching these things, I'm afraid we're just not going to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share