Sexuality within marriage

[Snigmorder]

We know that women definitely give birth to spirits in eternity, this is scripturally established and expressly declared by revelation in Doctrine and Covenants section 132:19, 63. 

Whether this involves sexual intercourse or a "virgin birth" like Mary, I can't say for absolute certain. But it is my strong opinion that the begetting of spirits is nothing less then complete sexual intercourse between man and wife.

The world does not get to define what sex is and is not. It has not the power to make sex dirty or to make it evil. This earth is a probation, and when the kingdom comes, the vain and ignorant philosophies of men will be removed from out of their place and burned.

Ultimately the begetting of children is for the exalted only. It is for the perfected only. It is for the gods only. There is nothing more consecrated, sacred, or glorious in all the wide expances of eternity, than this.

[Mike]

16 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

We know that women definitely give birth to spirits in eternity, this is scripturally established and expressly declared by revelation in Doctrine and Covenants section 132:19, 63. 

I don't see an express declaration in these verses that women give birth to spirits. 

Quote

Whether this involves sexual intercourse or a "virgin birth" like Mary, I can't say for absolute certain. But it is my strong opinion that the begetting of spirits is nothing less then complete sexual intercourse between man and wife.

No, you can't say for absolute certain and of course I can't either. I respect your opinion, but I don't see a reason yet to hold to it, myself. 

Quote

The world does not get to define what sex is and is not. It has not the power to make sex dirty or to make it evil. This earth is a probation, and when the kingdom comes, the vain and ignorant philosophies of men will be removed from out of their place and burned.

Well, I can only define sex by what I experience with the body God placed me in, i.e. with my mortal and physical faculties, and so in that sense I would say the world does get to define what sex is and isn't--in the world that is. No doubt when the kingdom comes much will become clear to me. As far as I see, these two realities don't cause me to feel obliged to change my position on the first two quotes above. (But I'm looking forward to discussing these specific points further with you because I'm confident we can do so without aggravating one another.)

 

Edited July 15, 2017 by Mike

[Snigmorder]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

I don't see an express declaration in these verses that women give birth to spirits

"for 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;" -  D&C 132:63

Women bear the souls of men in eternity, I don't know what else that could be except for a literal pregnancy. Whatever a pregnancy means for them, a woman's body is required.

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

Well, I can only define sex by what I experience with the body God placed me in, and so in that sense I would say the world does get to define what sex is and isn't

Sexual intercourse existed long before this earth and it will continue to exist along after it. The flash-in-the-pan lifeforms that dwell here could never, world without end, change what sex it is or define what it is. It is only what God says it is. The body is not the dirty and "naughty" toy the world esteems it to be.

[Mike]

6 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

"for 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;" -  D&C 132:63

Verse 63 appears to me to be talking about women in this life who commit adultery, and that bearing the souls of men refers to *in this life*  to fulfill the promise for exaltation in the eternal worlds. 

Quote

Sexual intercourse existed long before this earth and it will continue to exist along after it. The flash-in-the-pan lifeforms that dwell here could never, world without end, change what sex it is or define what it is. It is only what God says it is. The body is not the dirty and "naughty" toy the world esteems it to be.

In terms of how I define sex and experience it in this world the question or fact that sexual intercourse existed before this earth (I don't doubt that it did) isn't relevant. When I have a view of eternity before and after this life I'm sure the scope of my understanding will change. But as far as defining sex while I'm *here* I can only do as I said before. 

[Snigmorder]

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

Verse 63 appears to me to be talking about women in this life who commit adultery, and that bearing the souls of men refers to *in this life*  to fulfill the promise for exaltation in the eternal worlds. 

I'm gonna have to look up some commentary on 63 seeing as how the passage can be read both ways. And I wonder, when the passage says "souls" is it talking about a body or a spirit? Because in scripture like the book of Mormon soul and spirit are synonymous.

[Mike]

4 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I'm gonna have to look up some commentary on 63 seeing as how the passage can be read both ways. And I wonder, when the passage says "souls" is it talking about a body or a spirit? Because in scripture like the book of Mormon soul and spirit are synonymous.

Yes, I understand that:

Quote

In scripture, the term soul is used as a synonym for spirit to describe a person in four different phases of his or her eternal existence. Soul is used to describe a person in premortal life—before birth (see Abraham 3:23). During earth life, the soul is joined with a physical body (see Abraham 5:7). At death, the soul leaves the body and goes to the spirit world to await resurrection (see Alma 40:11–14). In the Resurrection, the body and soul are inseparably connected, which is called "the redemption of the soul" (see Alma 40:23; D&C 88:15–16).   

-- https://www.lds.org/topics/soul?lang=eng 

You seem to want D&C 132:63 to be interpreted in a manner that makes the isolated phrase, "bearing the souls of men", be meant as evidence of women who have progressed from their mortal existence on Earth to become Godesses and are (at some future point in *their* eternal progression with their husband) creating spirits in what will be a pre-mortal existence to those newly created spirits. Am I right that this is what you want? And from there you want to couple that phrase with the word "seeds" in verse 19 of Section 132 to ultimately conclude that the creation of those spirits is accomplished through sexual intercourse and culminated in said women giving birth to these spirits in a manner (identical?, similar?) to the manner in which they gave birth to mortal babies. Am I accurately describing your point of view?

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Mike

[Snigmorder]

@Mike 

Correct, that is my point of view.

"But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him

#1. to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment,

#2. and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world,

#3. and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;

for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." D&C 132:63

 

"it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and 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." D&C 132:19

 

"Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection." – Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Page 301

[Mike]

8 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

@Mike 

Correct, that is my point of view.

"But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him

#1. to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment,

#2. and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world,

#3. and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;

for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." D&C 132:63

 

"it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and 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." D&C 132:19

 

"Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection." – Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Page 301

There doesn't seem to be any difference in your position and mine about the doctrine of eternal marriage as it is revealed in the verses of Section 132 generally nor in verses verses 19 and 63 specifically. There doesn't seem to be any difference concerning our understanding of the command and its meaning to multiply and replenish the earth, to fulfill the promise, for exaltation in the eternal worlds, and the work of my Father. And we seem to agree on the durability of the sealing power and the covenant "out of the world" and the reality of what the sealing power accomplishes. 

We diverge where you embolden the words and phrases above in order to get from what they say to the foregone conclusion that sexual intercourse, (and apparently gestation and delivery) are components of their fulfillment. I don't see how you think the meaning and useage of the words and phrases individually or collectively possibly combine with the purpose of the context of Section 132 to produce your conclusion. In other words nothing about [for they are given to him, to, and to, and for, to their exaltation and glory in all things, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever, that is they will not have any children after the resurrection] says sexual intercourse.

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Mike

[Backroads]

On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 9:16 PM, changed said:

 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?

Just yesterday I saw another discussion of people who work in old folks' homes and them comparing some of the behaviors to a frat house.

Old people have sex.

[Snigmorder]

On 7/16/2017 at 5:48 AM, Mike said:

There doesn't seem to be any difference in your position and mine about the doctrine of eternal marriage as it is revealed in the verses of Section 132 generally nor in verses verses 19 and 63 specifically. There doesn't seem to be any difference concerning our understanding of the command and its meaning to multiply and replenish the earth, to fulfill the promise, for exaltation in the eternal worlds, and the work of my Father. And we seem to agree on the durability of the sealing power and the covenant "out of the world" and the reality of what the sealing power accomplishes. 

We diverge where you embolden the words and phrases above in order to get from what they say to the foregone conclusion that sexual intercourse, (and apparently gestation and delivery) are components of their fulfillment. I don't see how you think the meaning and useage of the words and phrases individually or collectively possibly combine with the purpose of the context of Section 132 to produce your conclusion. In other words nothing about [for they are given to him, to, and to, and for, to their exaltation and glory in all things, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever, that is they will not have any children after the resurrection] says sexual intercourse.

 

My position is that, at the very least, based on 63, there is a "pregnancy" involving the woman.  Or in other words, the woman's body is required for the generation of the spirit.  I assume that this pregnancy is reached by sexual means. But I don't rule out other possibilities, such as conception by the Spirit such as with Mary. 

Also, in your first reply to me, it seems you edited in happy things (or I just didn't see them). If I had seen them I wouldn't have taken such a blunt and cold tone with the whole thing.

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Mike]

2 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

My position is that, at the very least, based on 63, there is a "pregnancy" involving the woman.  Or in other words, the woman's body is required for the generation of the spirit.) I assume that this pregnancy is reached by sexual means. But I don't rule out other possibilities, such as conception by the Spirit such as with Mary. 

Also, in your first reply to me, it seems you edited in happy things (or I just didn't see them). If I had seen them I wouldn't have taken such a blunt and cold tone with the whole thing.

 

I sincerely wish I could perceive how you arrive at the pregnancy interpretation because I just don't see it. 

I don't understand what happy things you say I edited in, but in any event I haven't at any time taken your posts with me as being blunt or cold in tone. On the contrary I've enjoyed talking with you.

 

[Snigmorder]

13 minutes ago, Mike said:

I sincerely wish I could perceive how you arrive at the pregnancy interpretation because I just don't see it. 

I don't understand what happy things you say I edited in, but in any event I haven't at any time taken your posts with me as being blunt or cold in tone. On the contrary I've enjoyed talking with you.

 

Thank you, likewise.

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, changed said:

Thanks so much Mike - It's nice to know that someone else sees at least the possibility of another scenario than a harem of pregnant women constituting what heaven is all about.  

Our birth into mortality did not constitute a fully informed decision - we had never had a body before, did not understand what we were getting ourselves into.  First experiences happen in imperfect ignorance, they are a necessary piece of the path but cannot be perfectly created... only through transgression are we brought into this world.

I have often pondered the symbolism behind all of the barren women in the scriptures, who and what they represent... Considering who Abraham and Isaac represent, I think much can be gained by considering Sarah and who she represents, Sarah's trial.. compared to Jesus the only begotten being born to the virgin handmaid.  Neither Abraham nor Sarah made the ultimate sacrifice in the end - they were both let off the hook in the last minute, but through the law of Sarah and the parallels with her family and our Heavenly family there are a lot of questions that can be answered, especially for women.  

I do not think women will live under Eve's curse beyond the veil... there is more than just pregnancy within eve's curse too, which is a little frightening to some men... 

The story I tell my two daughters... is a variation of sleeping beauty.  Everyone knows part of the sleeping beauty story, but there are a few more details to it.  So Aurora was raised not knowing who she was, not knowing who her parents were, she was raised as a commoner, as a peasant to what point?  For perhaps a similar point that Jesus was not born and did not live in a castle... The real sleeping beauty story does not end with a simple "happily ever after"... it ends with Aurora becoming the countries most beloved queen of all time because Aurora understands her people - she considers herself a commoner, she opens up the castle to everyone, takes care of everyone, holds no pride within her heart, wears no fancy cloths - queen Aurora's noble spirit was created through her humble upbringing, because she was raised not knowing who she really was.... at least that is the story I tell my daughters.

the greatest among you....

Thanks again Mike!!  

 

 

There is more missing in scripture than there is given concerning the intimate relationship between a man and a woman necessary for creation of life.  Initially the scriptures inform us that G-d created man.  It is interesting that the name “Adam” means “mankind”.  I personally have difficulty with the notion that all of humanity (including us in our day) were created utilizing entirely different methods than were Adam and Eve.  There is nothing to even hint that Adam was created differently.  If he and Eve were a different creation it would negate the notion that we are all created in the “image of G-d”.    This means that a woman or female gender as well as a man or male gender are both needed for creation of human life in the likeness of G-ds.

There is some speculation that the process of changing gender roles in marriage is related to the evil that resulted in G-d directly altering the affairs of man to bring about the annihilation of perpetrators and all those that support them to any degree.  One reason given in the Book of Enoch for the flood was because of the society of man was “changing the order of marriage”.  It is prophesied that as the flood ended such evil by a ritual cleansing of the earth by water anciently so shall there be a ritual cleansing by fire in the “Last Days”.   It is also speculated by some that the secret oath of perversion involving “secret combinations” includes both murder and a violation of intimacy between a man and a woman as commanded by G-d.

As we consider the symbolic reference of Mary being a virgin there are some ancient notions that are seldom referenced.  Most specifically is that the title of virgin was given to women that are dedicated to G-d and serve at the temple performing Priesthood like functions specifically for women.

There is a lot left to speculation about the eternal nature of gender that is defined as the image of G-d.  Scientifically there is no other purpose of gender other than the creation of life.  I do not know of anything in scripture that indicates a purpose of gender other than creation of life.  But for all kinds of reasons there are many in our society that are dead set on changing purpose of gender – and the reason claimed as necessary absolutely makes no sense to me.  If anyone has a reason with even a hint of intelligent logic for gender other than for propagating a species – I would sure like to hear it.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

6 hours ago, changed said:

I do not think women will live under Eve's curse beyond the veil... there is more than just pregnancy within eve's curse too, which is a little frightening to some men... 

So you would settle for another kingdom.  ok.  We know where you stand.

[Snigmorder]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

 

See Fether's post above, I think everyone has already agreed that the purpose of gender & intimacy is not just to have children.  

I disagree. There's no such thing as sex for fun in a marriage with 30 wives, which is what "intimacy without children" necessarily means. 

And I refuse to believe that plural marriage is a downgrade or worse condition than monogamy considering many people are sealed in such marriages. Following God's Commandments should not ultimately lead to unhappiness.

Therefore, "sex because you want it" is probably not a godly attribute.

And if the purpose of sex and gender is not expressly for the creation of children, and the very purpose of eternal life and happiness being the family unit, the gods might as well be asexual Platonists that regenerate like bacteria.

[Mike]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I personally have difficulty with the notion that all of humanity (including us in our day) were created utilizing entirely different methods than were Adam and Eve.  There is nothing to even hint that Adam was created differently. 

I need to be sure I understand your position here. The actions that created (brought into existence) my (and your) physical body were those of sexual reproduction. The actions that brought about Adam's physical body into existence are not delineated as far as a I recall beyond being organized. Eve's physical body was brought into existence via a process beginning with the removal of one of  Adam's ribs.  What am I overlooking?

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Eve's physical body was brought into existence via a process beginning with the removal of one of  Adam's ribs.

I disbelieve this.

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I disbelieve this.

If you and I say we disbelieve this no doubt there will be some even on this forum who will counter that we disbelieve the scriptures and even our own faith's presentation. My point is that the rib account is the only one I'm aware of, and so I use it to illustrate the difficulty of suggesting that the bodies of all humanity were created utilizing the same methods as were the bodies of Adam and Eve. You and I are free to speculate about the methods, of course, pending acquaintance with revealed doctrine on the subject. And we are all free to disagree and to  present alternate speculations. Am I incorrect?

[Mike]

3 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I disagree. There's no such thing as sex for fun in a marriage with 30 wives, which is what "intimacy without children" necessarily means. 

And I refuse to believe that plural marriage is a downgrade or worse condition than monogamy considering many people are sealed in such marriages. Following God's Commandments should not ultimately lead to unhappiness.

Therefore, "sex because you want it" is probably not a godly attribute.

And if the purpose of sex and gender is not expressly for the creation of children, and the very purpose of eternal life and happiness being the family unit, the gods might as well be asexual Platonists that regenerate like bacteria.

Ought I to feel any degree of guilt for my and my (1) wife's ungodliness at having sex for fun at our relatively young age of 62? Or am misinterpreting and talking outside of the boundaries that your remarks address?

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Mike

[Guest]

3 hours ago, changed said:

Carboredum, you do not believe in the redemption from Eden's curse?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.  Until then, I'm reading what you post and inferring whatever makes sense to me.

[Snigmorder]

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

Ought I to feel any degree of guilt for my and my (1) wife's ungodliness at having sex for fun at our relatively young age of 62? Or am misinterpreting and talking outside of the boundaries that your remarks address?

 

You ought not feel any guilt. My argument is that (and this is all conjecture) sex for fun seems impractical in a marriage of (random number) 30 wives.  

And since keeping God's Commandments should not result in a decrease in ultimate happiness. It seems to me that sex for fun isn't necessarily part of the program of happiness. 

A desire for such things, at some point, might be jettisoned. And this is all in the context of what Changed said: "I think everyone has already agreed that the purpose of gender & intimacy is not just to have children."

[Mike]

20 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

You ought not feel any guilt. ... 

Whew!   (wife  )

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

You and I are free to speculate about the methods, of course, pending acquaintance with revealed doctrine on the subject. And we are all free to disagree and to  present alternate speculations. Am I incorrect?

Sure, we're free to speculate. I think that speculation is, in general, not a great idea, but we're free to do it. You're also correct that at least some will say I am denying scripture. Be that as it may, I just wanted to point out that I disbelieve that Eve's body was literally created out of Adam's rib. I wasn't trying to impute that belief to you or start a fight or anything.

[Snigmorder]

33 minutes ago, Mike said:

Whew!   (wife  )

You were 'this close'

[Sunday21]

14 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I disagree. There's no such thing as sex for fun in a marriage with 30 wives, which is what "intimacy without children" necessarily means. 

And I refuse to believe that plural marriage is a downgrade or worse condition than monogamy considering many people are sealed in such marriages. Following God's Commandments should not ultimately lead to unhappiness.

Therefore, "sex because you want it" is probably not a godly attribute.

And if the purpose of sex and gender is not expressly for the creation of children, and the very purpose of eternal life and happiness being the family unit, the gods might as well be asexual Platonists that regenerate like bacteria.

I disagree. I think married sex is useful to comfort and bond with your partner. It is a way of showing kindness and caring. Sex can give your partner love. Learning what makes them happy allows you to give your partner a special gift. Sex should not be rationed or withdrawn due to hurt feelings because to do so is rejection. It is cruel to withdraw sex from your partner even if you are angry with them. Sex is comfort and a way of expressing love. Your home should be a gentle place and a safe harbour from the troubles of the world.