Mormon Sexuality?

[eddified]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

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)

This post, in context with all of your other posts on the matter, make it sound as if people don't really need help from others on the internet. And you'd probably be right if you said that.

"Have a problem with depression? All you need is to apply what the church teaches. No need to find a forum to help you deal with the trial. No need to discuss it with your ward members. You should be able to handle it on your own, with help from family. The church teaches everything you need."

Now, I know you're not saying this, but this is the general feeling I get. The church has said some things about depression, but not as much as some would like. It's also a hard trial to discuss with family members & friends, they may not understand. This may cause the depressed person to go to the internet searching for answers. Isn't it better if there is wholesome, gospel-based information they can get on such topics for people who feel the need to seek help outside their family members?

It sounds kind of like you're saying it wouldn't actually be better to have such faith-based info online, since not having such resources makes people work harder to get answers.

I'm just saying, it's better to have a place where people can get gospel-based, well-thought out answers about difficult subjects (not just sex) online, than not to have such resources available. It sounds almost as if you would disagree. 

[eddified]

OK, sorry, after thinking about it more, it sounds like you're just saying something along the lines of, "online resources are fine, just don't seek for the church to change its curriculum". I think I understand where you are coming from now, if this is all you are meaning to say.

Edited May 17, 2017 by eddified

[estradling75]

40 minutes ago, eddified said:

OK, sorry, after thinking about it more, it sounds like you're just saying something along the lines of, "online resources are fine, just don't seek for the church to change its curriculum". I think I understand where you are coming from now, if this is all you are meaning to say.

Exactly the church will or will not change as the Leaders of the church are inspired to do so.  Trying to force, compel, shame, berate the church into doing what you (in the general sense of the work not directly to eddified) has all kinds of issues.

As part of the tool kit the Lord through his church directs us to study and seek (coupled with prayer) as we work through whatever issue it might be.  This study and seeking can take us all kinds of resources (books, talks, various kinds of experts and experienced people, and yes even the internet) and we use the spirit filter to the right ones.

For those that declare we need more resources on a subject then... by all means be "engaged in a good cause" and all that and create one.  They need to put their effort where their mouth is... Because chances are by so doing their will learn its not so easy as they might think., which shows why there are not more of them

Edited May 17, 2017 by estradling75

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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").

The problem is, I think, that the reticence to openly discuss sex is not because it is "sacred" like the temple. It is because outside the bonds of marriage it is impure, unholy, filthy, abominable, etc., etc. Discussing it, therefore, outside the bonds of marriage, tends towards the same.

The fact is that sex is "dirty" even after marriage if it is outside the marriage bounds. And the discussing of it can so easily step into that inappropriate realm.

Anyhow, do we really want our teenage sons and daughters being being told explicit and detailed dos and don'ts by some third party stranger in church? What, exactly, is it that you and others think would be appropriate here? The fact is that some stranger talking about how we explicitly should not drink alcohol and should eat our vegetables is hardly in the same line as someone talking about what, where, and how to touch someone of the opposite sex.

Okay...fine, you said "not the mechanics". So...what do you want? A lesson by a stranger to our youth about how awesome sex is? "It's amazing kids. You can't believe it! Just you wait!" -- and so-forth?

Really?

Let me deal with this with my own kids, thank you very much. When they start teaching lessons like that in young women's/men's my kids will stop attending those classes right derned quick.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Anyhow, do we really want our teenage sons and daughters being being told explicit and detailed dos and don'ts by some third party stranger in church? What, exactly, is it that you and others think would be appropriate here? The fact is that some stranger talking about how we explicitly should not drink alcohol and should eat our vegetables is hardly in the same line as someone talking about what, where, and how to touch someone of the opposite sex.

Okay...fine, you said "not the mechanics". So...what do you want? A lesson by a stranger to our youth about how awesome sex is? "It's amazing kids. You can't believe it! Just you wait!" -- and so-forth?

Really?

Let me deal with this with my own kids, thank you very much. When they start teaching lessons like that in young women's/men's my kids will stop attending those classes right derned quick.

That (bolded) was a very good re-wording of the intent of my original question.  A simple statement similar to the green above (with sarcasm removed) is actually a pretty good answer.

Quote

Sexual activity within the bonds of marriage can be a truly blessed experience.  But such is to be kept within the bonds of marraige.

This is much more positive and accurate than:

Quote

Every time you have sex with someone it's like getting nails placed into a board.  You can remove the nails.  But the holes are still there.

Yes, I can see how that is very negative in every way regarding sex.

BTW, I got a very similar "male sided" version of the same message.  I seriously got the impression that I was going to rape any girl I dated with simply because of what I learned in church.  That is how the law of chastity was portrayed.  I'd really rather avoid that for my kids.  And no matter what I say at home, are they still going to get that at church?

Edited May 18, 2017 by Guest

[MrShorty]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Anyhow, do we really want our teenage sons and daughters being being told explicit and detailed dos and don'ts by some third party stranger in church? What, exactly, is it that you and others think would be appropriate here?

A lesson by a stranger to our youth about how awesome sex is? "It's amazing kids. You can't believe it! Just you wait!" -- and so-forth?

Really?

I will agree with Carb, this is a big part of the original question for this thread, and I don't see why this answer is a bad or wrong answer. To go further than Carb's response, I would point out that the original article and associated comments were addressing married adults. Forget the teens and YSA's for a moment -- why would we (as a Church community) be so uncomfortable with an article addressing married couples about married sexuality? Why would we be so hesitant to bear such a "sex is awesome" testimony to married adults?

 

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I will agree with Carb, this is a big part of the original question for this thread, and I don't see why this answer is a bad or wrong answer. To go further than Carb's response, I would point out that the original article and associated comments were addressing married adults. Forget the teens and YSA's for a moment -- why would we (as a Church community) be so uncomfortable with an article addressing married couples about married sexuality? Why would we be so hesitant to bear such a "sex is awesome" testimony to married adults?

 

Once I heard Elder Oaks tell a story... He had given a talk on the commandment thou shall not kill.  Later he was approached by a man who had killed people during a war... and he felt that Elder Oaks talk meant he was condemned to hell.  Did the man misunderstand and take the talk out of context of the gospel?... absolutely. 

Now let have a married couple that for medical reasons can't have sex... the hear a talk by a GA that says in essence "Married Sex is awesome" and important. (which people in this thread want)  How are they going to respond to that?.  Is the person with the medical condition going to feel like a horrible sinner? Is the spouse without the condition going to take that to mean they should have sex anyways?  Are they going to feel like that have a second class marriage or sham marriage because they can't have sex?  All these questions are because the talk was misunderstood and taken out of context of the gospel.  But to deny that it would happen would be to delusional.

And that does not take into account those that would wrest the scripture and talks to justify their "unrighteous dominion"  We see this happen all the time because following the instructions in section 121 is hard and it would be much easier to print out the "Married Sex is awesome" and important speech, and use it as a blunt instrument to pound their spouse into submission.

Now you might say all those issues I bring up by this change can be address by having people use the tools and teachings the church has already given them.  This is true.  But so can the issue that people who want this change.

Like many gospel topic the issue of sex is more like a pendulum.  You might be able to address some areas by giving it a hard push... but it will cause issue other related areas.  To find the happy and balanced middle ground on this (or any gospel topics) require the individual to make use of all the tools the church gives them.  Until then all you do is spread the damage around.

 

[NightSG]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Now let have a married couple that for medical reasons can't have sex... the hear a talk by a GA that says in essence "Married Sex is awesome" and important. (which people in this thread want)  How are they going to respond to that?

Probably about the same as the ones who were unable to go on a mission feel about all the harping on how much better RMs are.  Haven't seen any sign of that being toned down.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Every time you have sex with someone it's like getting nails placed into a board.  You can remove the nails.  But the holes are still there.

This is no message of the church and never has been.

[estradling75]

38 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Probably about the same as the ones who were unable to go on a mission feel about all the harping on how much better RMs are.  Haven't seen any sign of that being toned down.

And what happens if the church stops telling young men to go on missions???  Young men stop going and the missionary work is greatly hindered.  All at the price of a the feelings of a few people who made a choice to disobey the commandments.  As for those that can't go (vs those that will not) the church has been very clear that they are honorably excused from serving (even if individual members refuses to accept that message)...  That is a price I think any faithful member should be ok with paying.   

The comparison fails due to the magnitude of the benefit of the missionary program versus simply shifting around who is the one hurting .

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

It tends to be fairly common nowadays to try and treat problems by addressing the thing with which the problem manifests rather than the problem itself. For example, people commit suicide because "something" (teased for being gay) and the response is that we must stop "something"! But that's not actually the cause. People who become suicidal have serious underlying mental and emotional issues. Everyone gets teased, mocked, bullied, etc., at some point in their lives. Most people handle it. Those that cannot have something else at a psychological level that is the real problem. Even if we could get rid of all teasing for anything through all the world (which is just never going to happen), it would not solve the problem.

The idea that if no one ever gave a crappy message like the nails in the board one to teach chastity that then all marriages would be better and anyone raped would stop feeling like they'd lost something is nonsense. That's not to say, of course, that we should encourage crappy messages. We shouldn't, obviously. But the reality is that the church DOES teach that sex within the bounds of marriage is wonderful. It's a message I've heard many times. That doesn't solve the problem where someone with so-called "good girl syndrome" (a stupid name) feels guilty about sex even after marriage and struggles with prudishness that is harmful. The person who so struggles is facing deeper psychological and emotional things than a message they did or did not hear in church. And the plain fact is that the church DOES provide the proper messages for people to deal with their underlying psychological and emotional issues.

Weighing that against the potential harm of a sex-positive message (being that sex drive in many is strong enough that such a message may encourage thoughts and actions that are not good, being in the wrong place and time), I simply find the ideas suggested invalid. They would not solve the actual problem and might cause actual harm.

[NightSG]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The idea that if no one ever gave a crappy message like the nails in the board one to teach chastity that then all marriages would be better and anyone raped would stop feeling like they'd lost something is nonsense.

The idea that preaching Christ's word will get everyone to accept it is also nonsense; even He didn't convert all those who met Him, but for some reason we persist in trying.  If fixing the presentation of that message strengthens even a tiny number of marriages, it's well worth sacrificing some pretty lame analogies on that altar.

[estradling75]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The idea that if no one ever gave a crappy message like the nails in the board one to teach chastity that then all marriages would be better and anyone raped would stop feeling like they'd lost something is nonsense. That's not to say, of course, that we should encourage crappy messages. We shouldn't, obviously. But the reality is that the church DOES teach that sex within the bounds of marriage is wonderful. It's a message I've heard many times. That doesn't solve the problem where someone with so-called "good girl syndrome" (a stupid name) feels guilty about sex even after marriage and struggles with prudishness that is harmful. The person who so struggles is facing deeper psychological and emotional things than a message they did or did not hear in church. And the plain fact is that the church DOES provide the proper messages for people to deal with their underlying psychological and emotional issues.

Case in Point Elizabeth Smart...   If all you read about her is the media sound bites you would think that the church is full of crappy messages about sex.  However if you listen to her talk and listen to her describe what helped her pull through was the correct doctrine about sex and chastity taught by her parents and by the church.  But no media wants to make sound bites of those comments

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, NightSG said:

The idea that preaching Christ's word will get everyone to accept it is also nonsense; even He didn't convert all those who met Him, but for some reason we persist in trying.  If fixing the presentation of that message strengthens even a tiny number of marriages, it's well worth sacrificing some pretty lame analogies on that altar.

You entirely miss the point. Moreover, the "message" from "the church" IS good. Just because some members are stupid doesn't negate that. I don't disagree that we should be making efforts to correct stupid members stupid approaches to things. What I disagree with (among other things) is that it's "the church" that is the problem.

[NightSG]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Just because some members are stupid doesn't negate that.

Wow, down to name calling now.  How you've failed to be called as a GA is a mystery.

[MrShorty]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

However if you listen to her talk and listen to her describe what helped her pull through was the correct doctrine about sex and chastity taught by her parents and by the church. 

Yes, those were important to pulling her through that ordeal. Perhaps it hits at the definition of "the church" but I recall that at least one of the settings where she sat through some of these false teachings was seminary. I suppose we can just chalk it up to "some seminary teachers are stupid and teach falsehoods" (which might not be too far from the truth), but it seems to illustrate to me that some of these falsehoods are taught and learned in church contexts -- even if they are not "The Truth" that The Church is trying to teach.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, NightSG said:

Wow, down to name calling now.  How you've failed to be called as a GA is a mystery.

Ah. A winning blow. Now that a presumed weakness of mine has been pointed out I may be completely ignored.

Logic.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

"some seminary teachers are stupid and teach falsehoods" (which might not be too far from the truth)

 

But that's name calling. 

[NightSG]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But that's name calling. 

"But little Johnny did it too!"

You going to try "I know you are but what am I" next?  Maybe you could just call all the people who disagree with you poopyheads.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Maybe you could just call all the people who disagree with you poopyheads.

1

If only that were what I was actually doing? I'm moderately shocked that you think that is what I have done. I was actually agreeing with those of you (you, literally, being one of them) that the "nail in a board" type messages are bad. Do you even realize that? How is it that you have come to conclude that I'm just name calling those I disagree with?

Question: Can you see past the "mean word" to the underlying point, or are you just using it as a way to try and knock me down a peg or two, by way of tactic, so you don't have to deal with the point(s) actually being made?

I get the sense that you saw the word "stupid" and all reason left your head entirely and now you're attacking me meaninglessly. Have you read the thread? Do you actually know what my point(s) are? Do you think I'm in support of the bad teaching methods? Do you have a reasonable logical argument to make here, or are you just determined to insult me? Do you realize that you are the one actually doing what you are accusing me of?

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

 I suppose we can just chalk it up to "some seminary teachers are stupid and teach falsehoods" (which might not be too far from the truth), but it seems to illustrate to me that some of these falsehoods are taught and learned in church contexts -- even if they are not "The Truth" that The Church is trying to teach.

Falsehoods being taught in a church context is a problem...  But unless you can find a way for the Prophet to sit in on every Sunday School Class, every Seminary Class, every time any church function is held...  Which would be awesome.. if there was any practical way to do it.

Providing teachers with approved material, having several different people teach the same subject, and teaching people to study and pray about what they learn and have questions... and teaching everyone to have the Spirit with them and listen to it..  Is really the only practical set of answers to the "Stupid People" in church problem and we already do those.

[Sunday21]

@estradling75. We had a lovely gospel principles teacher. What a warm personality! But she was not a details person so...my some of the things she taught! Let's see 1) if you think someone is less than perfect, you should personally tell them not to take the sacrament. She really taught this. Told the class that if a sister had just had a fight with her husband, we should jog the sister's arm and tell the sister not to take the sacrament 2) There is no spirit prison. You are sorted into kingdoms right after death. That's it.

Fortunately the class always corrected her when she said something like this and she has since moved. Some people are not detail people. Where I live, we always have formerly inactive people who can teach the gospel principles class even though they are students in the class.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

@estradling75. We had a lovely gospel principles teacher. What a warm personality! But she was not a details person so...my some of the things she taught! Let's see 1) if you think someone is less than perfect, you should personally tell them not to take the sacrament. She really taught this. Told the class that if a sister had just had a fight with her husband, we should jog the sister's arm and tell the sister not to take the sacrament 2) There is no spirit prison. You are sorted into kingdoms right after death. That's it.

Fortunately the class always corrected her when she said something like this and she has since moved. Some people are not detail people. Where I live, we always have formerly inactive people who can teach the gospel principles class even though they are students in the class.

Exactly my point... while I am sure @Sunday21 wouldn't call her gospel principles teacher a "Stupid Person" it shows that it does not take any malice to teach false doctrine... and it shows the importance of people actually studying and having the spirit with them so the can know when falsehoods are being taught.

 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is no message of the church and never has been.

While correct, that was precisely the lesson that Elizabeth Smart had to listen to in her young women's class AFTER her kidnapping and subsequent ordeal.

I understand that such a message was never placed in any Church manual.  That is why I don't blame the Church as an entity/organization for such a statement.  I blame the culture of people who have treated sex as a dirty nasty thing that we merely tolerate so that we can procreate (which isn't just LDS, but most of conservative Christianity) rather than a sacrament that we share within the bonds of marriage.  And, that due to its sacred nature, we don't just share with anyone.

If you take a look at Brotherson's title And They Were Not Ashamed, it really says it all.  It makes even more sense when you read her reasoning for the title.  And that really is my central point in starting this thread.

[The Folk Prophet]

47 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I blame the culture of people who have treated sex as a dirty nasty thing that we merely tolerate so that we can procreate

I just don't find this to be true. There are, of course, outliers and always will be. Blaming "the culture" is, in my opinion, wrong.