Sexuality within marriage

[workingonit]

I had someone challenge me to ponder on the meaning of sexuality within the LDS marriage.  In the temple we make a covenant of obedience and then me make a covenant of the law of chastity.  Wouldn't the law of chastity been covered under the law of obedience?  To me it means that we are supposed to be sexual beings, but what does that mean? 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, workingonit said:

Wouldn't the law of chastity been covered under the law of obedience?

Sure. And both of these are covered under the initial baptismal covenant.

I see the sequence of covenants we make as being additive, revealing to us the deeper, more important aspects of covenants that we have already made by having us make them more specifically.

[Snigmorder]

29 minutes ago, workingonit said:

the meaning of sexuality within the LDS marriage.

"... they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

"... they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; ..."

"... Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; ..."

- D&C 132:19-20,63

[Mike]

57 minutes ago, workingonit said:

 ... ponder on the meaning of sexuality within the LDS marriage.  In the temple we make a covenant of obedience and then me make a covenant of the law of chastity.  Wouldn't the law of chastity been covered under the law of obedience?  To me it means that we are supposed to be sexual beings, but what does that mean? 

I don't understand where you want this to go. Forgive me if you think I'm obtuse, but what are you really asking? Perhaps you should tell us what was behind the challenge given to you--what was the challenger seeking from you?

Edited July 13, 2017 by Mike

[Fether]

45 minutes ago, Mike said:

I don't understand where you want this to go. Forgive me if you think I'm obtuse, but what are you really asking? Perhaps you should tell us what was behind the challenge given to you--what was the challenger seeking from you?

I didn't see the OP more than honest curiosity. I had a friend challenge me to ask my wife about the women's side of the initiatory. Another to challenge me to pay more attention to the wording in the sealing... no ulterior  or motives in either of the instances.

[MrShorty]

On covenants: I have often reflected that most of our covenants fit somewhere under the overarching covenant of obedience to whatever God commands. Is the "repetition" of some of these other covenants, like chastity, an addition to the overarching covenant of obedience, or are they more "points of extra emphasis"? I don't think I really know, but I will throw that out there.

15 hours ago, workingonit said:

To me it means that we are supposed to be sexual beings, but what does that mean? 

Good question. To borrow something from Tevye, "I'll tell you. I don't know." A few of my ponderings:

I recently had an brief exchange with a gay man on the internet (It was a very brief exchange, so I hope I don't misrepresent anything he said or implied). This man, in his efforts to try to draw more in line with the Church's teachings, had recently cut off sexual relations with his partner (someone he had considered marrying at one point) and they had adopted a celibate relationship. He indicated that this move had drawn him closer to God and improved the relationship. I was struck by his comments, perhaps out of jealousy, because, after years in a sexless marriage, I wish that somehow I could truly embrace celibacy and be able to see that as a positive in my own marriage. At the same time, I cannot help but wonder if God really wants me to embrace celibacy or if he wants me to continue to pursue my wife sexually and deal with the attendant frustrations but holding out a hope of future sexual reconciliation.

We often say that "God created us as sexual beings", but what does this mean? It is clear from the accounts in Genesis that God created us as male and female and gave the command to multiply and replenish the earth (presumably meaning sex in some form) prior to the fall. But the effects of the fall permeate so much of our existence, that I often wonder what parts of being sexual are God created and what parts of being sexual are affected by the fall. (parenthetical: I read something just the other day describing St. Augustine's idea that sex before the fall was "pure" without "passion". Before the fall sex was as mundane as taking a walk or eating -- devoid of passion. The fall imbued sex with passion and lust and other bad things. I know that St. Augustine is not any kind of authority in the LDS church, but his ideas show one way that someone has thought about sex before and after the fall).

Thinking about sex in terms of creation and I usually observe to myself that part of being sexual beings is simply part of this creation overall. I recall from my biology classes that, with very rare exceptions, essentially all living things (from the simplest single cell organisms to the most complex) reproduce sexually. Some -- like most higher animals -- exclusively reproduce sexually, but almost all have a sexual mode of reproduction. In a biology class, this discussion carried some interesting implications, and I sometimes wonder if, in this context, there is some meaning to the fact that (very nearly) all God's creatures are sexual beings, so why should man be any different?

I am currently reading Laura Brotherson's "Knowing Her Intimately." The first "T" she talks about is "Transform" which is all about embracing a (stereotypical low libido) woman's sexuality and sexual wiring. It was an interesting chapter, but how much of it is rooted in "truth" and how much of it is the hope of a sex therapist who wants to encourage couple's sexually? I don't want this to be about homosexuality, but I find the contrast between embracing this kind of heterosexuality while opposing embracing this kind of homosexuality (see 3 paragraphs up) very interesting.

Along with some of the contrasts with homosexuality, what does it mean to embrace sexuality when a good percentage of us are not married and may never marry? I recall something Jennifer Findlaysen-Fife said. I cannot recall exactly, but she talked about the difference between sexually inexperienced and sexually repressed (or something like that, I can't remember exactly). The basic idea was that one can embrace one's sexuality while being sexually inexperienced and ignorant.

When the Obergefell decision came out, the Church published a response, and in that response they said, "Homosexual behavior...is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality...." I have often reflected on what we believe the purposes of human sexuality are, and am not sure I truly understand them. The two main purposes that I see are "procreation" and "strenghtening (heterosexual) marriage bonds." Recently I see some rumblings of a third purpose "self-control" which usually means abstinence. In find myself reflecting on these when I reflect on these kinds of questions.

There's more I could say, but this is long enough. That might be more discussion fodder than you really wanted, I don't know. As this is kind of my axe to grind, I thought I would grind away at it.

Edited July 14, 2017 by MrShorty

[Mike]

45 minutes ago, Fether said:

I didn't see the OP more than honest curiosity. I had a friend challenge me to ask my wife about the women's side of the initiatory. Another to challenge me to pay more attention to the wording in the sealing... no ulterior  or motives in either of the instances.

That's fair. I didn't understand whether the challenger was LDS or not, and I think context is useful. I wasn't questioning the OP motives but I'm still non-plussed. I'd like to contribute to the thread but the phrase "sexual beings" in an LDS marriage context tends to lead my thoughts in a direction that may or may not be useful; and I don't want to go where the OP doesn't really expect to go.

I'm also somewhat cautious having recently read "New rules for sexual discussion" Started by pam, October 2, 2013

Edited July 13, 2017 by Mike

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, changed said:

I have never heard that God created us as sexual beings ...

I usually hear it from Laura Brotherson type commentators. I don't know if it has ever been said by Church leadership in some official capacity. As I tried to note above, it tends to derive from the creation accounts that all seem indicate that our physical creation, including reproductive systems, was completed by God, declared to be "good", and was fully completed before the fall. Personally, I am not sure how else to interpret these parts of the creation account. Do you have a different view on this part of the creation accounts?

[Rob Osborn]

We will always share intimate feelings and sexual pleasures with our spouse into eternity without end. Part of the endowment ceremony deals with the covenant we make with our spouse about sexual relations. That aspect reaches the depths of eternity without end.

Adam and Eve were born from the Gods by blood and water. It was all natural sexual procreation from the Gods. Otherwise, why do only married couples continue their seed into eternity? If Adam and Eve were fashioned just like the Gods, then we can be assured that the same organs we have the Gods also have and are used for the same purposes.

[Fether]

7 hours ago, changed said:

From Genesis - Eve's curse was to bring forth children in pain, if you look at the original Hebrew, the curse for eve was the process of pregnancy.  See Gen 3:16

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2032&t=KJV

Before the curse, seems like there was some other way to have kids.

Are you LDS? Honest question

2 Nephi 2:23 states that if they had not transgressed, they would have had no children

[Fether]

42 minutes ago, changed said:

Yes, I am LDS.  I agree, without the fall they would have had no begotten children.  The first little bit of Genesis is quite interesting - what the temple ceremony is based on in any event.  

This is the curse we now live under - it describes the imperfect way we are now doing everything. 

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Honest question - do you believe all parts of the above curse will be lifted beyond the veil?  Have you contemplated what the full implications are of lifting the curse?

 

 

My personal understanding of the more perfect way of having children comes from scripture - we "were not created or made", it is "the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba, Father".  We become children, not through sex and pregnancy, but through covenants - "7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters." - Mosiah 5:7

Adoption - https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/adoption?lang=eng

Read all the scriptures in the above link - we "become" children of Heavenly parents through making and keeping covenants.  

In heaven, women are virgins - 

Mathew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, 

no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. 

 

Our perfect Savior was not created with sex -  a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son

 

So first off, the 10 virgins thing is referring to a parable about being ready for the 2nd coming and not about the sexual nature of celestial beings. Sex is not a dirty thing saved for mortals, but it is, in the words of  or Jeffery R Holand, a sacrament.

I also find it interesting that Christ lead every aspect of creation EXCEPT the part where Adam's body was made... which Heavenly Father had to come down and do. I don't plan on making any speculations on how Adam, Eve or Christ were conceived.

Mosiah 5:7 is referí g to children of CHRIST. We become his children through baptism (covenants). But we are literally sons and daughters of God, adopted into te lineage of Abraham so we can qualify for the blessings promised to his seed.

And I believe Heavenly Father's description of the pains of birth were not a "new way" to create life, but rather the introduction and a warning that it will not be pleasant. I believe it is the only way bodies are made.

Look at the "144000" as being like the quorum or the 70... there are multiple. And the "defiled with women" is obviously referring to willful breaking of the law of chastity and NOT talking about men and women taken in marriage

Edited July 14, 2017 by Fether

[Fether]

41 minutes ago, changed said:

Adam and Eve were not "begotten" - they had no belly buttons.  

Do you not believe that Jesus was the "only" begotten child?  the only one?  and consider that a handmaid was required for this - Jesus was not begotten by Heavenly Mother - apparently She does not beget children.

Eve in her perfect form did not beget children either.  Eve had to transgress - it's part of the curse, the way we currently have children.

That is a lot of speculation.

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, changed said:

Adam and Eve were not "begotten" - they had no belly buttons.  

Do you not believe that Jesus was the "only" begotten child?  the only one?  and consider that a handmaid was required for this - Jesus was not begotten by Heavenly Mother - apparently She does not beget children.

Eve in her perfect form did not beget children either.  Eve had to transgress - it's part of the curse, the way we currently have children.

Well, I would have to disagree. Why is it you dont think they had belly buttons?

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, changed said:

Adam and Eve were not "begotten" - they had no belly buttons. 

I can't believe you seriously went there.  Really?

53 minutes ago, changed said:

Eve had to transgress - it's part of the curse, the way we currently have children.

The curse was not to "have pain" at childbirth.  It was to INCREASE the pain at childbirth.  That would mean they still could have had children before.  They just didn't have nearly the pain.

And I'm not convinced that was a literal curse.  I believe it is highly figurative.  Compare to John 16:21.

That pain is after the archetype of the Atonement of Christ as well as the sorrow of the repentant soul.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Jesus was not begotten by Heavenly Mother - apparently She does not beget children.

You seem to still be stuck on this "sex is a fallen principle" thing.  I'm not going to argue that point with you anymore since that would be pointless to continue.  

My question today is: what if you're wrong?  Imagine if you're resurrected before the judgment bar and you're told: One thing thou lackest.  You're expected to have sex with your husband to have eternal increase through the begetting of spirit children.  

Would you say, "OK, I'm willing" or would you say, "uhmmm.  No thanks.  I'll just stay in the lower levels or possibly the Terrestrial Kingdom, thanks."

Just curious just how evil you think sex actually is.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Guest

[workingonit]

Thank you guys for the discussion.  I apologize I don't have anything to really add.  To add the context for Mike, we were discussing the relationship of marriage and we debated whether the pleasure side of the sexual relationship was important within the celestial relationship, or if it was just a nice side effect.  What I'm really aiming for is are our desires and passion from our Father in Heaven or are they evil...even within a marriage?

 

ETA: I think a lot of my questions have already been discussed above, so thank you. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by workingonit

[Snigmorder]

2 minutes ago, workingonit said:

Thank you guys for the discussion.  I apologize I don't have anything to really add.  To add the context for Mike, we were discussing the relationship of marriage and we debated whether the pleasure side of the sexual relationship was important within the celestial relationship, or if it was just a nice side effect.  What I'm really aiming for is are our desires and passion from our Father in Heaven or are they evil...even within a marriage.

"Properly understood, then, the scriptures counsel us to be virtuous not because romantic love is bad, but precisely because romantic love is so good. It is not only good; it is pure, precious, even sacred and holy. For that reason, one of Satan’s cheapest and dirtiest tricks is to make profane that which is sacred. Building on a metaphor from President Harold B. Lee, it is as though Satan holds up to the world a degraded image of sexual love suggested by imagining the drunken, boisterous laughter of filthy men in a brothel, located on some crowded, dusty highway of life, where the flower of fair womanhood is jeered at, dirtied, brutalized, and ultimately crushed with unclean hands. Meanwhile, far, far away from the madding crowd, high up in the cool protected valleys of tall mountains, grows the priceless flower of virtue—untarnished, pure, and unsullied. It waits as a noble prize for those valiant few who are willing to climb to its heights by paying the price of patience, obedience, and a lifetime of devotion—an endless, unselfish loyalty to spouse and children."

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-c-hafen_gospel-romantic-love/

[Traveler]

 

I am upset that with all the words in the English language we do not have anywhere to a near adequate term for the intimate relationship of a man and a woman in marriage.  The term “sex” is cheap, vulgar, ambiguous and more prone to misunderstanding than understanding.   Our modern perverted society focuses entirely on the physical pleasures of intimacy and ignores completely the divine spiritual nature of completing (making whole or holy) the union of a man and a woman – which is also the only way to naturally propagate our species.  The guidelines concerning the divine covenant of marriage are extremely ambiguous – so much so, that I am of the impression that most of us (myself and especially myself included) have no idea what we are talking about.

I am bewildered that Satan understands the powers of intimacy so well as to make this perhaps the single most powerful temptation to turn mankind away from seeking G-dhood – and with such obvious tenant of divinity; convince anyone that intimacy is unG-dly or that there is little if any spiritual side to this that has no relationship to the physical pleasure.  I also do not believe for a nanosecond that non-Celestial individuals will never make any effort to counterfeit divine marriage and intimate relationships.  Such an end being sought after by the even the most evil of mortals in this current estate.

I think most of us will regret our mistakes of love and none more than the mistakes concerning the sacredness of the divine marriage covenant.

 

The Traveler

[Mike]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I am upset that with all the words in the English language we do not have anywhere to a near adequate term for the intimate relationship of a man and a woman in marriage.  The term “sex” is cheap, vulgar, ambiguous and more prone to misunderstanding than understanding.   Our modern perverted society focuses entirely on the physical pleasures of intimacy and ignores completely the divine spiritual nature of completing (making whole or holy) the union of a man and a woman – which is also the only way to naturally propagate our species.  The guidelines concerning the divine covenant of marriage are extremely ambiguous – so much so, that I am of the impression that most of us (myself and especially myself included) have no idea what we are talking about.

I am bewildered that Satan understands the powers of intimacy so well as to make this perhaps the single most powerful temptation to turn mankind away from seeking G-dhood – and with such obvious tenant of divinity; convince anyone that intimacy is unG-dly or that there is little if any spiritual side to this that has no relationship to the physical pleasure.  I also do not believe for a nanosecond that non-Celestial individuals will never make any effort to counterfeit divine marriage and intimate relationships.  Such an end being sought after by the even the most evil of mortals in this current estate.

I think most of us will regret our mistakes of love and none more than the mistakes concerning the sacredness of the divine marriage covenant.

 

The Traveler

I'm thinking that intimacy itself is a fine word to those who have experienced the joy that comes of it. It may be that many men and women seldom experience intimacy--instead  experiencing only sexual gratification. I think that Satan has not experienced either of the two, but he understands how to achieve his objectives. (Perhaps he has never tasted cold water., but he understands how to utilize others' thirst in his strategy.)

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Do you think that Jesus was not the "only" begotten?  

We discussed this on another thread but my opinion is that Jesus is the only begotten into mortality. Taking it in a different direction-To think that of all the countless earths God has peopled and he only has one physically created child through procreation is completely unbelievable.

[Fether]

8 hours ago, changed said:

Do you think that Jesus was not the "only" begotten?  

 

Do you think that Jesus was not the "only" begotten?  

 

In another thread everyone was saying how Adam and Eve had to transgress to have children - "were it not for our transgression we would have never had seed"... in their perfect form - before the curse - there was no pregnancy.  

Pregnancy was part of the curse.  The curse is not figurative - pregnancy is real, and it really does hurt quite a lot...

 

I do not think sex is evil.  I think it is a stepping stone.  When we are young and immature, sex is what brings us together, and is possible the thing that holds some marriages together in the early stages.  Here is a question for you though - what is the point of growing old?  The point of the God-designed aging process?  It seems to be a slow and gentle removal of relationships based purely on looks/lust/sex - the older wiser couples, the ones with grey hair, adult diapers, kind smiles, and caring eyes - by the end of this life every longer lasting marriage turns into something that is not based on looks and lust anymore.  

I do not know how old you are Carborendum, but what will your marriage be based on in the end?  Will you be close to your spouse when you are too old to have sex?  When your bodies are not young anymore?

So sorry if I have been less than delicate.  

spirit and element, spirit and flesh, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy.... there is a physical piece to it, not just ideas or intelligence or spirit - but physical reality.  There is some kind of balance to be found.  

Honestly, the only thing that I have found insightful about any of your comments was the statement about Christ being the only begotten and how that may rule out Adam and Eve from that list. But I refuse to make a statement on the conception of Christ, Adam, and Eve. HOWEVER... I don't agree with you in your belief that Christ was conceived by some form other than sex purely on the basis that you believe sex is some lower form of creation.

Some quotes to consider. And these are from prophets and apostles... you know... the people that speak with God and for him.

"romantic love . . . is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it. Indeed, the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is unobtainable in the absence of it" - Boyd K. Packer

"Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage." -For the Strength of Youth

"Human intimacy is reserved for a married ocuple because it is the ultimate sumbol of total union, a totality and a union ordained and defined by God." -Jeffery R. Holland

"A Saint who is one in deed and in truth, does not look for an immaterial heaven, but he expects a heaven with lands, houses, cities, vegetation, rivers, and animals; with thrones, temples, palaces, kings, princes, priests, and angels; with food, raiment, musical instruments, etc., all of which are material. Indeed, the Saints’ heaven is a redeemed, glorified, celestial, material creation, inhabited by glorified material beings, male and female, organized into families, embracing all the relationships of husbands and wives, parents and children, where sorrow, crying, pain, and death will be no more. Or to speak still more definitely, this earth, when glorified, is the Saints’ eternal heaven. On it they expect to live, with body, parts, and holy passions; on it they expect to move and have their being; to eat, drink, converse, worship, sing, play on musical instruments, engage in joyful, innocent, social amusements, visit neighboring towns and neighboring worlds; indeed, matter and its qualities and properties are the only beings or things with which they expect to associate (Masterful Discourses and Writings of Orson Pratt [1946] p. 60; Millennial Star, 28:721-23)."

Read this talk to https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/09/they-twain-shall-be-one-thoughts-on-intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng

But if you don't want to read it. Here are some highlights.

"Why does something so beautiful sometimes become a source of so many problems? Part of the difficulty stems from mistaken ideas. Some people still believe that sexual intimacy is a necessary evil by which we have children. These people get an inaccurate view from parents who were too embarrassed to discuss such matters with their children or who were so concerned that their children live the law of chastity that they taught only the negative consequences of the improper use of intimacy."

"In reality, however, sexuality is a beautiful power given to mankind from God. President Kimball has observed: “The Bible celebrates sex and its proper use, presenting it as God-created, God-ordained, God-blessed. It makes plain that God himself implanted the physical magnetism between the sexes for two reasons: for the propagation of the human race, and for the expression of that kind of love between man and wife that makes for true oneness. His commandment to the first man and woman to be ‘one flesh’ was as important as his command to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’” "

Intimacy in marriage is a sacred beautiful thing that God provided for us. It is not, never was, and never will be an evil thing. You will find NO statements from leaders suggesting that it otherwise is. The best you can do is take quotes out of context to push an ideology that you have. But you will be wrong and unhappy.

Your comment toward Carborendum was VERY inappropriate in challenging the basis of his marriage being solely centered on sex. Our bodies grow old... THAT is a curse that comes along with the fall of Adam, not intimacy... After the resurrection, we will have a perfect resurrected body (Alma 40:23). The Celestial Kingdom is not a place full of old people with long beards walking slowly around. It will be a lively, vibrant place full of joy and happiness. There will be no more sickness or frailties but we will all be perfected.

Intimacy is not something just to keep us filthty human creatures together with a single mate. It is a essential part of who we are.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Fether

[Guest]

11 hours ago, changed said:

I do not think sex is evil.

So, you're not willing to even entertain the question.  OK.  I guess you truly have an open mind.  Thanks for clearing that up.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, changed said:

Do you believe that spiritual, emotional, and physical intimacy are all equally important? and if so, do you regularly provide your spouse (if married) spiritual and emotional fulfillment that is equally as pleasurable as their physical fulfillment?  

I've already answered this question for you specifically in a previous thread.  But apparently you didn't care to read it.  Neither did you care to read many other responses to the question.

If you answer my question, then I'll go ahead and repeat my answer to this question.

On 7/14/2017 at 9:29 AM, Carborendum said:

My question today is: what if you're wrong?  Imagine if you're resurrected before the judgment bar and you're told: One thing thou lackest.  You're expected to have sex with your husband to have eternal increase through the begetting of spirit children.  

Would you say, "OK, I'm willing" or would you say, "uhmmm.  No thanks.  I'll just stay in the lower levels or possibly the Terrestrial Kingdom, thanks."

[Mike]

13 hours ago, changed said:

 ... I do not think sex is evil.  I think it is a stepping stone.  When we are young and immature, sex is what brings us together, and is possible the thing that holds some marriages together in the early stages.  Here is a question for you though - what is the point of growing old?  The point of the God-designed aging process?  It seems to be a slow and gentle removal of relationships based purely on looks/lust/sex - the older wiser couples, the ones with grey hair, adult diapers, kind smiles, and caring eyes - by the end of this life every longer lasting marriage turns into something that is not based on looks and lust anymore.  

I do not know how old you are Carborendum, but what will your marriage be based on in the end?  Will you be close to your spouse when you are too old to have sex?  When your bodies are not young anymore?

So sorry if I have been less than delicate.  

spirit and element, spirit and flesh, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy.... there is a physical piece to it, not just ideas or intelligence or spirit - but physical reality.  There is some kind of balance to be found.  

I don't think your remarks are poorly articulated as I believe you said about yourself earlier. I think your viewpoint is reasonable. And frankly I don't know what to believe about (all the details of) sexuality after this life--I've heard some people express views all along the spectrum. For what I consider to be obvious reasons most of the views I've heard came from men.  My own feelings have run the gamut, too, from time to time. I hope my effort to make a positive remark here doesn't end up offending anybody. I'm intending not to. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by Mike

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, changed said:

Do you believe that spiritual, emotional, and physical intimacy are all equally important?

Do you believe that air, oxygen, and breathing material are all equally important?

I'm not actually trying to say that spiritual, emotional, and physical intimacy are identical. Rather, I'm saying they are all expressions of the same underlying phenomenon. Yes, I think they're equally important in a healthy marriage.

25 minutes ago, changed said:

Here is something I think we can all agree on - and that is marriage is a higher bond than the parent/child bond.  (At least it is supposed to be).  Why is marriage considered the higher bond? (because it is one of free will etc.)

No. It is because the parent/child bond does not exist without the spousal bond. A child being sealed to parents means, by definition, that the child is born within the parents' covenant. Thus the spousal sealing is primal, not because it's "more important" or "higher", but because it is foundational.

27 minutes ago, changed said:

Am I evil if I think baptism is a more beautiful way to have children than pregnancy?

Not evil, merely wrong. Like saying that you think that building an automobile "is a more beautiful way to have children than pregnancy". It's nonsensical.

Birth, like death, has multiple aspects. One is born physically and one dies physically. One is also born spiritually and one can die spiritually. The primary concern of the mother is to create and nurture physical life. The primary concern of the father (i.e. the Priesthood holder) is to create and nurture spiritual life. Clearly, each spouse has vital duties in both spheres, and each should support the other and pick up slack when necessary. But the primary responsibilities of each parent are evident for those with eyes to see, and are spelled out to a remarkable degree in the Family Proclamation for those who might not perceive it.