Mormon Sexuality?

[estradling75]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Context. Context.  I was specifically responding to TFP's post.  I wasn't saying non-faith based circles do treat it with proper respect.  They have no reason to.  I was saying that faith based circles don't treat it with proper respect when we have a reason to.

Until the world and society became laser focused on sexual pleasure... and lack thereof a became valid reason in their eyes to break covenants... the was no reason too.  Sexual pleasure if you got it was a bonus on top of a good marriage, not a requirement. (Yes that sucks to our modern sensibilities but it is a modern sensibly not one world shared just a few decades ago) 

Its only in the last couple of decades that sexual dysfunction has become an issue worthy of divorce

 

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Did you mean to say that bolded word?  I can't quite tell since "accept" wouldn't work either.  I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi here.  I really don't know what you're trying to say.

Expect... I meant expect.  Sorry

[Guest]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

yet for some reason you expect a conservative religion to be on the cutting edge of social change on the matter of sex.

Who said that?  There is apparently a disconnect between what I meant vs what you received.  If that was a fault of my posting, I apologize.  But I'm not certain where that came from.

33 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Until the world and society became laser focused on sexual pleasure... and lack thereof a became valid reason in their eyes to break covenants... the was no reason too.  Sexual pleasure if you got it was a bonus on top of a good marriage, not a requirement. (Yes that sucks to our modern sensibilities but it is a modern sensibly not one world shared just a few decades ago) 

Its only in the last couple of decades that sexual dysfunction has become an issue worthy of divorce

That is a very good point.  I'm not sure if it completely nullifies my point.  But I'll think about it.

[NightSG]

58 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Sexual pleasure if you got it was a bonus on top of a good marriage, not a requirement.

Maybe it's just me, but frankly, if you and your partner are willing to focus on making the act as enjoyable as possible, I can't see how, short of serious physical or psychological issues, it can really be that bad.  If one isn't willing to do that, then it's a much deeper problem that just happens to manifest there.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Who said that?  There is apparently a disconnect between what I meant vs what you received.  If that was a fault of my posting, I apologize.  But I'm not certain where that came from.

I inferred it from all the people in this thread who are saying the church should already be "doing something" about this problem.  ( I used "you" in the general sense... Not in the direct to Carborendum sense)  By so doing that is exactly what they asking of the church.

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Maybe it's just me, but frankly, if you and your partner are willing to focus on making the act as enjoyable as possible, I can't see how, short of serious physical or psychological issues, it can really be that bad.  If one isn't willing to do that, then it's a much deeper problem that just happens to manifest there.

All true...  But it doesn't change the fact, that it was only very recently that making the act as enjoyable as possible has become an issue.  Before just recently if someone didn't enjoy sex... that was just part of being married.

Now lets say the church comes out and says every married couple should have a "AWESOME SEX life."  That triggers at least as many problems if not more then it solves.  First being the natural idea of how do we be "awesome". If the church says we should do it shouldn't it teach how?  Do we want the church teaching the Kama Sutra in Sunday school?  Next is that everyone sex drives are different what is awesome for one is not necessary awesome for the other.. Thus the church teachings becomes a wedge driving the couple apart rather then bring them together.

Now other people have pointed out that the church is talking about it more, but people aren't happy with the speed or the amount.  The church is taking a measured and planned approach to make sure they say solidly grounded in true principles while addressing the issue.  But this wisdom is lost on the people who demand that the church solve their problem for them.  Which is flat out contrary to the way the church handles things 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Until the world and society became laser focused on sexual pleasure... and lack thereof a became valid reason in their eyes to break covenants... the was no reason too.  Sexual pleasure if you got it was a bonus on top of a good marriage, not a requirement. (Yes that sucks to our modern sensibilities but it is a modern sensibly not one world shared just a few decades ago) 

Its only in the last couple of decades that sexual dysfunction has become an issue worthy of divorce

OK.  I've thought about it.

1) I never said it was worthy of divorce.  And I'm not finding anyone else who said it was either.
2) A married life without sexual fulfillment is like a human life with a diet consisting of bread, water, and a multi-vitamin a day.  It will survive and it will perform the function.  But there is something that we're missing out on that, I believe, God MEANT for us to enjoy.
3) I think the world has been focused on sexual pleasure for a very long time.  That really has little to do with the primary point (see #2 above).
4) If parents are failing, and the world is giving only the carnal aspects, who is there to encourage the divine aspects of it?

I've never said that the Church needs to be THE PRIMARY SOURCE of such information.  But will it be truly divine information if the Church is not at least a part of the library of information available?  This in no way means that the Church needs to publish a "how-to" book on reaching heightened arousal.  But I don't think it would hurt if there were 

A) Some fairly common axioms repeated that indicates that being sexually fulfilled in marriage is not only possible for both parties, but is actually beneficial.
B) We as a people could find the appropriate balance between talking openly without cheapening it.  <--- This is the real problem.

We believe sex to be a very sacred thing.  How can we talk about it openly?  The temple ceremony is a very sacred thing.  And there are some parts of it we only hint at.  We don't speak of it openly.  Yet, we still teach it.  We still talk about it.  We discuss it.  We're not embarassed by it.

Can we achieve the same thing in our culture (not necessarily during Church meetings) that allows us to talk about it without being embarrassed by it?

Edited May 16, 2017 by Guest

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) I never said it was worthy of divorce.  And I'm not finding anyone else who said it was either.

The world says it loud and clear

 

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

2) A married life without sexual fulfillment is like a diet consisting of bread, water, and a multi-vitamin a day.  It will survive and it will perform the function.  But there is something that we're missing out on that, I believe, God MEANT for us to enjoy.

 

While I totally agree... this is a modern sensibility as in the last few decades.

 

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

3) I think the world has been focused on sexual pleasure for a very long time.  That really has little to do with the primary point (see #2 above).
 

The world has always been worldly.. However the influence of the world on those trying to be Saints and raise Saints has spiked quite a bit.

 

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

4) If parents are failing, and the world is giving only the carnal aspects, who is there to encourage the divine aspects of it?

 

The church has always taught, about the importance of kindness, sacrifice, and of loving each other and other Christ-like traits.  The church teaches and encourages the divine aspects of all the aspects of our lives and it always has.   Just now people want the church to tell them it explicitly applies to their sex lives.  Why they can't accept that ALL parts of our lives means ALL parts I do not know.

 

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've never said that the Church needs to be THE PRIMARY SOURCE of such information.  But will it be truly divine information if the Church is not at least a part of the library of information available?

As pointed out above the church already teaches the divine aspects that people should be learning and applying in all aspects of their lives.  This there already there for anyone who wishes to see it.

 

 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The world says it loud and clear

Which has nothing to do with the discussion here.

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

this is a modern sensibility as in the last few decades.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion here.

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The world has always been worldly.. However the influence of the world on those trying to be Saints and raise Saints has spiked quite a bit.

This makes is sound like you do not approve of the notion that more people (specifically conservative religious people) need to be more open about discussing sexuality with others.

First, is that inference correct?  Second, I am, of course, talking about it in appropriate situations with people you trust, etc...

Third, the worldliness is exactly where I think the Church could do some good against.

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The church has always taught, about the importance of kindness, sacrifice, and of loving each other and other Christ-like traits.  The church teaches and encourages the divine aspects of all the aspects of our lives and it always has.   Just now people want the church to tell them it explicitly applies to their sex lives.  Why they can't accept that ALL parts of our lives means ALL parts I do not know.

I'm getting the feeling that we're on different pages here.  I'll need some time to properly word the differences here.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Which has nothing to do with the discussion here.

 

Has everything to do with it...  Sad reality is that the Saints are exposed to and integrate (to some degree) the selfish tendencies of the world... And most of the sexual problems can be boiled down to someone saying I am not getting what I think I deserve.

 

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Which has nothing to do with the discussion here.

 

Has everything to do with it...   The main question in this thread is "Why isn't the Church fixing this problem?"   And the idea that it is problem that did not exist until just recently is highly relevant in having Church leaders with first hand experience dealing with it .

 

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This makes is sound like you do not approve of the notion that more people (specifically conservative religious people) need to be more open about discussing sexuality with others.

First, is that inference correct?  Second, I am, of course, talking about it in appropriate situations with people you trust, etc...

Third, the worldliness is exactly where I think the Church could do some good against.

 

Have you not read anything I have written in this thread?  I flat out approved and endorsed Fether's plan to discuss to whatever detail he felt needful with his kids and used him as a positive example, of it being done right.

I have been very vocal against those that would use the Church as a whipping boy for the failure of parents.   Or for there own personal failure to live a Christ-like life as the church teaches, because for whatever reason they did not apply it to some of the most important relationships they have.

 

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm getting the feeling that we're on different pages here.  I'll need some time to properly word the differences here.

Its really simple...  Every problem that a married couple might experience (sexual or otherwise) can and should be handled based on the principles the church already teaches.  Things like.  Faithfulness, love, long suffering, kindness, etc.  Including when necessary study, and seeking wisdom from those with expertise (bishops, doctors, therapists, etc).

Based on existing principles married couples should be able to find their own very personal and customized answers to their problems.  But they need to work for it through study and seeking, just like we have to work for anything worthwhile.  

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

2) A married life without sexual fulfillment is like a human life with a diet consisting of bread, water, and a multi-vitamin a day. 

I consider this wrong, problematic, and the core of your and other's consternation in the matter.

[The Folk Prophet]

42 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Its really simple...  Every problem that a married couple might experience (sexual or otherwise) can and should be handled based on the principles the church already teaches.  Things like.  Faithfulness, love, long suffering, kindness, etc.  Including when necessary study, and seeking wisdom from those with expertise (bishops, doctors, therapists, etc).

Based on existing principles married couples should be able to find their own very personal and customized answers to their problems.  But they need to work for it through study and seeking, just like we have to work for anything worthwhile.  

THIS!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Has everything to do with it...   The main question in this thread is "Why isn't the Church fixing this problem?"  

No.  I'm the one who started this thread.  And I NEVER said it was the Church's responsibility.  I said it would help if the Church was part of the solution.  Never did I say they needed to.

While I do see a couple people making that assertion, I don't agree with them.  And I'm the one you're responding to.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No.  I'm the one who started this thread.  And I NEVER said it was the Church's responsibility.  I said it would help if the Church was part of the solution.  Never did I say they needed to.

While I do see a couple people making that assertion, I don't agree with them.  And I'm the one you're responding to.

And I have made my statements based on the thread in its entirety...You might might not agree with what has been said, but you agree it has been said...  Making my point entirely relevant as I asserted.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Its really simple...  Every problem that a married couple might experience (sexual or otherwise) can and should be handled based on the principles the church already teaches.  Things like.  Faithfulness, love, long suffering, kindness, etc.  Including when necessary study, and seeking wisdom from those with expertise (bishops, doctors, therapists, etc).

Based on existing principles married couples should be able to find their own very personal and customized answers to their problems.  But they need to work for it through study and seeking, just like we have to work for anything worthwhile.  

Yes, this is exactly what I got out of your previous post.  And I still disagree that it necessarily solves the problems that have been discussed here.

Whether it's the husband or wife who is less motivated, simply "offering sex to be kind and understanding even though you don't like it" is not my idea of "being one".  And simply agreeing to a sexless marriage because the other can't get motivated about it is not the way marriage was ever supposed to be. Not talking about physically unable or traumatized through abuse, etc. Nor am I talking about getting divorced over it.

The reality you're not addressing with your "love conquers all" message here is that there are many who have the mindset that "sex is just for procreation" or "sex in marriage is still dirty, but a necessary evil."  This mindset is not conquered by simply "understanding" or "being kind" or showing "charity".

The necessary study and seeking expertise from bishops, etc. is more along the lines of what I'm talking about.  But wouldn't it be more efficient if there were classes or lessons about the topic instead of burdening bishops with this task in every case?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I consider this wrong, problematic, and the core of your and other's consternation in the matter.

While I could admit to a bit of hyperbole, the problem with considering this problematic is that the alternative is to believe that willful celibacy in marriage can be as or more fulfilling than a sexually intimate and active marriage (all other things being equal).  I don't buy that.

And I've personally seen many marriages of very good, charitable couples who have a sexless marriage (or at least a LOW sex marriage) who just don't seem to have the same (can't think of the word) as those who are very good, charitable couples who are enjoying this gift of God.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Guest

[estradling75]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Yes, this is exactly what I got out of your previous post.  And I still disagree that it necessarily solves the problems that have been discussed here.

Whether it's the husband or wife who is less motivated, simply "offering sex to be kind and understanding even though you don't like it" is not my idea of "being one".  And simply agreeing to a sexless marriage because the other can't get motivated about it is not the way marriage was ever supposed to be. Not talking about physically unable or traumatized through abuse, etc. Nor am I talking about getting divorced over it.

The reality you're not addressing with your "love conquers all" message here is that there are many who have the mindset that "sex is just for procreation" or "sex in marriage is still dirty, but a necessary evil."  This mindset is not conquered by simply "understanding" or "being kind" or showing "charity".

The necessary study and seeking expertise from bishops, etc. is more along the lines of what I'm talking about.  But wouldn't it be more efficient if there were classes or lessons about the topic instead of burdening bishops with this task in every case?

 

Sigh...  It gives the people the tools to solve the problem themselves.  It does not wave a magic fairy wand and make it go away, because nothing ever works that way.  The church can and has talked for centuries on what we need to do on various topics... and all those problem still exist even when the church addresses it repeatedly and bluntly. Because people don't pick up the tools and use them.  Or use them only selectively. 

Why do we think the topic of sex will be in any way different? 

What facts can you offer to support the idea that blunt and frequent talks about sex will "fix" or otherwise solve the problem?  When blunt and frequent talks about prayer doesn't not fix the problem of people not praying.  When blunt and frequent talks about scripture study does not fix the problem of people not studying the scriptures.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

While I could admit to a bit of hyperbole, the problem with considering this problematic is that the alternative is to believe that willful celibacy in marriage can be as or more fulfilling than a sexually intimate and active marriage (all other things being equal).  I don't buy that.

And I've personally seen many marriages of very good, charitable couples who have a sexless marriage (or at least a LOW sex marriage) who just don't seem to have the same (can't think of the word) as those who are very good, charitable couples who are enjoying this gift of God.

Still problematic. Because the alternative alternative is to believe that un-willful celibacy in marriage cannot be as fulfilling. I don't buy that. Your personal interpretation of (how would you know) low-sex marriages can't-think-of-the-word aside.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not "pro" sexless marriage or anything of the sort. I just don't consider the "pleasure" side of it anything more that what it is. Pleasure. Lots of things bring pleasure. Very few of them are imperative to what actually matters in life. Those things wherein we are able to take pleasure as granted by God within the bounds of His commandments -- awesome. Those things wherein we are not -- oh well.

Ultimately, problematic in that the idea places, imo, way too high a priority on sexual fulfillment. I will grant that the selfish, perverse side of me tends toward such things. The honest side of me is forced to admit that the selfish perverse side is wrong.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Sigh...  It gives the people the tools to solve the problem themselves.  It does not wave a magic fairy wand and make it go away, because nothing ever works that way. 

E,

You're now going into the realm of condescending.  I'm done talking with you on this thread.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Still problematic. Because the alternative alternative is to believe that un-willful celibacy in marriage cannot be as fulfilling. I don't buy that. Your personal interpretation of (how would you know) low-sex marriages can't-think-of-the-word aside.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not "pro" sexless marriage or anything of the sort. I just don't consider the "pleasure" side of it anything more that what it is. Pleasure. Lots of things bring pleasure. Very few of them are imperative to what actually matters in life. Those things wherein we are able to take pleasure as granted by God within the bounds of His commandments -- awesome. Those things wherein we are not -- oh well.

Ultimately, problematic in that the idea places, imo, way too high a priority on sexual fulfillment. I will grant that the selfish, perverse side of me tends toward such things. The honest side of me is forced to admit that the selfish perverse side is wrong.

You know, I'm not sure why people just talk to me about everything.  But they do.  I talk about everything rather freely, so others talk to me freely (that might be it).  I'm not sure.  It's not an interpretation.  It's what they tell me.

The "can't think of the word" is: Color.

There are many human needs.  No, I'm not talking about Laslow's Hierarchy.  But similar.  And, yes, marriages can be very fulfilling in many areas without sex.  But there is a reason why marriage and sex go hand-in-hand.  God has made it that way for a reason.  There is a portion of fulfillment or an "area" of fulfillment that is best satisfied by (I'll change the term) "Making Love."  There is a HUGE difference between simply having sex and making love.  I'm talking about making love being very important to a marriage.

Back to the original topic.  My original post was not about the necessity of sex in marriage.  It was about being more open to conversation about it.  While I recognize that it is a sacred topic, I compared it to talking about the temple.  We can talk about it while still being respectful and recognizing that it is a wonderful experience.  I fear that we, as a culture (not just the church or the Church) are thinking of it in the wrong way.  Too many people get the impression that it is "dirty" even after marriage.

Here's why:  With the word of wisdom, we make it a point to point out the do's in addition to the don'ts.  Where is that for the law of chastity?  I'm not talking about the mechanics of sex.  I'm talking about the wonders and joys of faithful love-making within marriage?  We never hear that.  At least, I never did as a kid.  So, it isn't the Church's job to make sure it happens.  But I still think it would be great if they did.  (see Okazaki on "the banquet table").

Edited May 17, 2017 by Guest

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

E,

You're now going into the realm of condescending.  I'm done talking with you on this thread.

 

If you don't want to address the points made that is and instead attack the messenger that is fine.  No one forces you to continue.

Bottom line those that are itching for the "church to do something" seem to be showing a lack of Faith that Christ is in control and guiding his church as he sees fit.

For those that don't necessary want "the church to do something" but think that members as part of their being an "engaged in a good cause" should be having more open discussions about sex... Here is a bit of history for you.  Back before MormonHub became MormonHub it was LDS.net.  LDS.net (and earlier versions) had an "Adult" Section.  And by Adult I mean it was not publicly view-able, and to gain access you had to PM Pam and state you were 18 or older and that you knew and understood and accepted that the content was of a more sensitive nature.  It was not a free for all, it was still ruled by the rules and the sensibility of the moderators.  Like the rest of the forum sometime people pushed the limits and had to be shut down by the mods... and other times people complained that the mods did not act.

But all in all I though we had a fairly good balance.  We didn't (still don't) claim any kind of authority, but rather we were (and are) experience members sharing our experience.

Sadly one of those who thought it was too much turned out to be the person who calls the shots at the MGF.  During one of their checks they learned about this section and instructed it be removed.  Those who had the boss's ear and saw the value of it, fought for it.  They lost.  The section was removed from LDS.net.  We can't really have those discussions here any more.  Not because such discussions have no value, but because we were explicitly told no by our host and we honor that. 

[eddified]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Sadly one of those who thought it was too much turned out to be the person who calls the shots at the MGF.  During one of their checks they learned about this section and instructed it be removed.  Those who had the boss's ear and saw the value of it, fought for it.  They lost.  The section was removed from LDS.net.  We can't really have those discussions here any more.  Not because such discussions have no value, but because we were explicitly told no by our host and we honor that. 

And this is a problem, as I see it. There is nowhere that I know of that we can discuss those matters with faithful LDS in a respectable way. And that really bugs me. Or I should say "bugged me" (past tense) because I've come to a point where I think I no longer really need such a forum, and that by relying on the Holy Ghost, and with sincere prayer and fasting, and through discussions with my spouse, I can get what I need without such a forum. 

HOWEVER, I recognize that other people have different needs, and I believe that the ability to ask a question, and receive and answer, on such a forum, may very well be the answer to someone else's prayers. So I do think it would be better if there was a good place people can go for LDS-perspectives in these matters when their parents have failed them in the sex ed department. I'd much rather have a place where faithful LDS can get answers about sex, than leave it a void and have them find non-LDS, non-Christian answers elsewhere on the internet. 

<sigh>

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, eddified said:

And this is a problem, as I see it. There is nowhere that I know of that we can discuss those matters with faithful LDS in a respectable way. And that really bugs me. Or I should say "bugged me" (past tense) because I've come to a point where I think I no longer really need such a forum, and that by relying on the Holy Ghost, and with sincere prayer and fasting, and through discussions with my spouse, I can get what I need without such a forum. 

HOWEVER, I recognize that other people have different needs, and I believe that the ability to ask a question, and receive and answer, on such a forum, may very well be the answer to someone else's prayers. So I do think it would be better if there was a good place people can go for LDS-perspectives in these matters when their parents have failed them in the sex ed department. I'd much rather have a place where faithful LDS can get answers about sex, than leave it a void and have them find non-LDS, non-Christian answers elsewhere on the internet. 

<sigh>

If you want it that badly... create it... Nothing is stopping you (or anyone else) from doing exactly that.  That is how the MGF got their start.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 minutes ago, eddified said:

And this is a problem, as I see it. There is nowhere that I know of that we can discuss those matters with faithful LDS ...

I'd much rather have a place where faithful LDS can get answers about sex, than leave it a void and have them find non-LDS, non-Christian answers elsewhere on the internet. 

The answer I have found is friendships.  Not all my friends are comfortable having frank discussions about sex, but a few are. We have been able to have helpful discussions. My husband and I strive to make sure our kids feel comfortable talking to us. Little by little we can change church culture by changing ourselves, our families and our friends.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Here's why:  With the word of wisdom, we make it a point to point out the do's in addition to the don'ts.  Where is that for the law of chastity?  I'm not talking about the mechanics of sex.  I'm talking about the wonders and joys of faithful love-making within marriage?  We never hear that.  At least, I never did as a kid.  So, it isn't the Church's job to make sure it happens.  But I still think it would be great if they did.  (see Okazaki on "the banquet table").

I like this and agree that it is important. My two oldest sons had a teacher who did that, and I loved it. My husband and I reinforced that teaching. When my kids teach the youth or their own kids, they will do the same.  I believe this is how we change the culture.

[eddified]

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

If you want it that badly... create it... Nothing is stopping you (or anyone else) from doing exactly that.  That is how the MGF got their start.

 

I like your enthusiasm, but I'm not in a position to do this right now. I have a lot going on. And as I explained earlier, I don't feel that I really need such a forum any more.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, eddified said:

I like your enthusiasm, but I'm not in a position to do this right now. I have a lot going on. And as I explained earlier, I don't feel that I really need such a forum any more.

Isn't that a big point though.  You had the tool box the church provided.  You used it and dug down and figured out how to apply to an aspect of your life you really felt you needed help with.  And you learned that you can do it and that God is with you and willing to help.  Because you had to struggle you are in a better position now to handle future struggles.

Had there been a forum that simply said here is your answer.  You would have had the answer and felt happy about it, but you would not have grown (or at least not nearly as much).

We need to avoid the mindset that a person struggling to figure stuff out is an inherently bad thing.  (it can go bad depending on how they respond to the struggle but it is not inherently bad)