reaction to sexless marriage and the sacrament

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 2015-04-12 at 11:37 AM, MrShorty said:

As always, I recognize that lds.net is very strict about sexual discussions, so if the admins feel that this needs to be closed or deleted, I will understand. I also hope that this discussion can be kept "generic" enough to not need to be closed.

 

http://ldsmarriagebed.blogspot.com/2010/12/sexless-marriage-and-sacrament.html

This is an essay written by an LDS marriage coach, and I am interested in a conservative LDS reaction to this. As I read the article, he uses the idea of marriage "covenant" and Elder Holland's old "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" talk to make sexless marriages out to be inappropriate or maybe even sinful -- to suggest that each spouse has some level of obligation to be sexually available to the other.

 

If the mods and admins will allow, I would be interested in this community's reaction to this article? What do you understand his overall message to be? What parts do you agree with? What parts do you disagree with?

I would fully agree that each spouse has an obligation to make themselves sexually available to their spouse as best they can.  That doesn't mean they have to say yes every time, there are legitimate reasons for declining (illness, various medical conditions, something that makes it impossible to enjoy it like pain or being far too tired) but when somebody declines there needs to be a legitimate reason.  If there are obstacles, they are obligated to do what they can to remove or overcome them.

When you go to the temple, you covenant to GIVE YOURSELF and/or RECEIVE the other as spouses.  God commands husbands and wives to cleave to each other.  Constant refusal that doesn't have a legitimate reason behind it is selfishness and inconsiderate.  It is not giving yourself, it is not receiving your spouse, it is not cleaving to them.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 2015-04-13 at 11:08 AM, Guest said:

I don't get it.

So, a person who cannot engage in sexual activity in one form or another (such as caused by physical or psychological handicap) can't get married?

It isn't about the number of times that sex happens, it is about what is in your heart.  A wife who refuses her husband because of selfishness and disregard for his feelings and his needs is sinning.  A woman who for medical reasons is unable to have sex but would if she could is not sinning.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I will bring this back from the dead to note Sister Nelson's 3rd point from the devotional Sunday evening. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng

I recognize that I am assuming that she is using "intimacy" and "sex" almost interchangeably here (and I think the context of her talk makes it a good assumption). She says that [sex] is ordained, commanded, and commended. As with her book (Purity and Passion) she focuses exclusively on sexual misbehavior, and makes no mention at all about sexless marriages (she is talking to YSA's after all), but she does use the word "commanded".

I caught that in her talk as well.  Was glad to hear it.

[NightSG]

On 4/12/2015 at 5:13 PM, char713 said:

There is nothing in there at all about it needing to become a habit or something to be regimented or kept track of.

Why not?  Sure makes it sound pretty much on par with heartfelt prayer, as something to be partaken of at every opportunity.

Just be glad there's not an equivalent hymn to "Did You Think to Pray?"

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, NightSG said:

Why not?  Sure makes it sound pretty much on par with heartfelt prayer, as something to be partaken of at every opportunity.

Just be glad there's not an equivalent hymn to "Did You Think to Pray?"

Ere you left your room this morning....

I'm going to have a hard time singing that one with a straight face now.

Then you have Alma 33

in the wilderness...in my field...when I did turn to my house...when I did turn unto my closet...in the midst of thy congregations

(I think we can leave that last one out)

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Latter-Day Marriage

[MrShorty]

9 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

1 Corinthians 7:5 "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

I find it interesting that this verse has not gained the same kind of traction in this kind of context among LDS as it has within broader Christianity. I don't know if it just because we don't like to talk about it, or because the JST replaced "Defraud" with "Depart [from]" (maybe making it seem more about separation and divorce than about sexual union), or what. It occasionally gets talked about, but not to the same extent that I see it used in non-LDS Christian contexts. I could see some value in having more discussion about what Paul is talking about here.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I find it interesting that this verse has not gained the same kind of traction in this kind of context among LDS as it has within broader Christianity. I don't know if it just because we don't like to talk about it, or because the JST replaced "Defraud" with "Depart [from]" (maybe making it seem more about separation and divorce than about sexual union), or what. It occasionally gets talked about, but not to the same extent that I see it used in non-LDS Christian contexts. I could see some value in having more discussion about what Paul is talking about here.

The church really take a hands off approach to talking about issues of sexual refusal/frequency.  It's one of those things that is very nuanced, easy to have anything you say taken too far one direction or the other, and they don't want any spouse to feel pressured or judged so they say next to nothing and leave it up to the couple.  Also, historically those verses have been used in way to repress and abuse women.

I do agree though that it would be nice for them to walk through that minefield and add some latter-day doctrinal weight to those verses.