Sexuality within marriage

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

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 Sex should not be rationed or withdrawn due to hurt feelings because to do so is rejection.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.

You're correct.  A lot of people believe that sex is simply a physical act.  If it is, then it is a sad state of affairs.  Even married couples, if they're just having sex as a physical act, they're not doing it right (literally).  A psychiatrist a few years ago published a study that showed that there really is no such thing as "casual sex."

Every time a couple has sex, there is something that happens with the brain that insists that there is a bond between the couple.  Emotionally, spiritually, & psychologically, there is a bond that sex makes.  When people have casual sex they are trying to deny this exists.  That is a lie.  This is one reason why sexual purity and honesty are so linked in the gospel and in older traditions.  If you deny there is this link, you are lying.  If you know it, but keep breaking such bonds, that is dishonest.  It's like breaking a covenant.

My parents are in their 80s now.  And they still indulge themselves in this wonderful gift the Lord has given them.  While they have diminished capacities (mental and physical) to do other things that are more specifically emotional, they still have this that they can bond through.

[Sunday21]

@Carborendum. So true! I feel sorry for people who have sex before really knowing the other person. They can end up married to someone who is unsuitable as a life partner. Think of the people that you know who had unmarried sex in high school. How did they're lives go? 

Anyway, you clearly have a very happy marriage. A good marriage is worth waiting for through the lonely times when everyone else is off russelling the bushes! A good marriage is worth the sacrifice of waiting!

[Mike]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

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.

I am sorry that I caused you to think I construed your remark as trying to start a fight or even impute the belief to me. I didn't perceive such at all from you.    Likewise, I apologize that my response came across as defensive. In reality, I think we agree on many points that I've read you make. I have a hard time coming up in my own mind with an explanation for what the original writer (or the Inspirer) wanted me to take away from the account of the rib. (Along the same line I wonder about Adam's saying that Eve was Woman because she was taken out of Man. What we might call a play on words (man - wo-man) works in English, but in some other languages it doesn't seem to work at all.) 

P.S. I also agree with you regarding speculation in general. I've been trying to improve myself when writing with reference to scripture.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Mike

[Vort]

48 minutes ago, Mike said:

What we might call a play on words (man - wo-man) works in English, but in some other languages it doesn't seem to work at all.

My understanding -- likely incomplete or incorrect -- is that the ancient Hebrew word for "man" is is, and the word for "woman" is issa, which coincidentally (?) is also the grammatical way of saying "from man". So Adam was saying, "She shall be called 'from-man', because she was taken from man." (I have also heard the notion that what the Bible calls a "rib" actually referred to the baculum, or penis bone, present in many placental mammals but missing in humans. No idea if this explanation holds water.)

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

My understanding -- likely incomplete or incorrect -- is that the ancient Hebrew word for "man" is is, and the word for "woman" is issa, which coincidentally (?) is also the grammatical way of saying "from man". So Adam was saying, "She shall be called 'from-man', because she was taken from man." (I have also heard the notion that what the Bible calls a "rib" actually referred to the baculum, or penis bone, present in many placental mammals but missing in humans. No idea if this explanation holds water.)

Well, no.  Not baculum. Tsela.

Quote

Why did God use Adam’s rib? A closer examination of the Hebrew also reveals another surprising element of the story. The Hebrew word translated “rib” in Genesis 2 is tsela. The only other instance of the English word rib in the Bible occurs in Daniel 7:5, but the Hebrew word used there is different. In other passages where tsela or its variants are used, the word is translated “side.” For example, in Exodus 25, 27, and 35, the words tselo (variant) and tselot (plural) are used to refer to the “sides” of the Ark of the Covenant or the “sides” of the altar. In 2 Samuel 16:13, David encounters a cursing Shimei moving along the side (tsela) of a hill. In these contexts, translating the word tsela as “rib” would not fit.

This raises the possibility that Eve could have been fashioned of more than just Adam’s rib. In the Genesis 2passage, tsela could actually be translated as Adam’s “side,” rather than Adam’s “rib.” If the appropriate translation is that God removed Adam’s side, how much of his side did God remove? It is possible that Eve was constructed literally from half of Adam. This would bring added meaning to Adam’s declaration that Eve was “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

Whether God created Eve from Adam’s rib or from his whole side, He accomplished the act in such a way that showed the woman was to complement and complete man in the integral union of marriage. Woman was created to be “beside” man, not beneath or above him. In salvation, man is no more “worthy” and woman is no less a citizen of God’s kingdom. “There is neither . . . male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). They stand side-by-side as fellow “heirs . . . of the gracious gift of life” (1 Peter 3:7).

It has to do with the symbology of man and woman being co-partners in a marriage.  Not from the head to rule over man.  Not from the foot to be his footstool.  But from the side to rule equally yoked.  And I believe this to be completely symbolic.  I don't believe God took any literal flesh or bone from Adam to create Eve.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, Mike said:

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?

 

Every living organism has a unique genetic code programmed into each and every living cell of that organism.  All humans start out as a fertilized single cell creature we call a zygote.   Religious theologians have learned by sad experience that pronouncing scripture as “literal” truth to be highly problematic.  Today no one, at least that I know, actually believes that the earth is flat or the center of the universe which is basically comprised of what we currently understand as our solar system.

There is a suggestion that Eve is an exact clone of Adam that was generated by nothing more than the genetic material removed with Adam’s rib.  I understand everybody can believe whatever they want and that such beliefs do not have to conform to any empirical truths – or for that matter any logical construct or reason.  We know from science of our day that the female gender has a different genetic code than the male.  We also know that sometimes the genetic material gets mixed up creating undefinable gender.  But we make a lot of assumptions based in our best understanding and the scripture seem to concur; that Adam was a genetic male and Eve a genetic female in the same manner that G-ds are genetically males and females.  Obviously from what we know from modern science – there is a great deal of information lacking from the creation account of Adam and Eve.

The point is – do the scriptures speak to the literal understanding and knowledge of the ancients?  Or do scripture have a timeless element to them that make them as applicable today as they were anciently – which would mean that such things are by design symbolic and intended to transcend the literal interpretations of any specific place and time.

Paul claims that all things testify of G-d.  I understand that to mean that the more “truth” we understand of how thing are created and come about – the better we will understand G-d, his methods and his works implying that his methods are timeless and do not change.  The teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are somewhat unique in the religious world in that we believe G-d governs by principles and laws rather than by supernatural magic uniquely applicable to whatever pleasures there are in a particular place and time.   I understand all this to mean that such divine laws and principles are isometric and are as applicable today as they were at the place and time that Adam and Eve were given life.

In summary – it appears that divine human life can only be created from G-ds of male and female gender that together and only together are able to create such life.  Thus, we can understand that such life is not possible without both the male and female gender.  That life by any other means is not divine (in the image of G-d).

 

The Traveler

Edited July 18, 2017 by Traveler

[Snigmorder]

3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

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.

I don't disagree with you. But what happens when the man has 10 wives? Or any random number of wives? 

[Vort]

Just now, Snigmorder said:

I don't disagree with you. But what happens when the man has 10 wives? Or any random number of wives? 

What happens when a man has ten children? He doesn't love each child as much? Doesn't want to spend time with each one? What happens when a man has ten siblings? He doesn't want to build an intimate individual relationship with each? I do not believe that plural marriage implies lack of emotional intimacy. I do believe that building a successful marriage when it is one of several is too hard for most of us, at least at this time. Most men struggle to fulfill their husbandly duties to just one wife.

[Snigmorder]

Just now, Vort said:

What happens when a man has ten children? He doesn't love each child as much? Doesn't want to spend time with each one? What happens when a man has ten siblings? He doesn't want to build an intimate individual relationship with each? I do not believe that plural marriage implies lack of emotional intimacy. I do believe that building a successful marriage when it is one of several is too hard for most of us, at least at this time. Most men struggle to fulfill their husbandly duties to just one wife.

The husband can spend time with his wives. But if they each desire frequent physical intimacy beyond childbearing, it suddenly becomes a massive physical task for the man.

[Traveler]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

What happens when a man has ten children? He doesn't love each child as much? Doesn't want to spend time with each one? What happens when a man has ten siblings? He doesn't want to build an intimate individual relationship with each? I do not believe that plural marriage implies lack of emotional intimacy. I do believe that building a successful marriage when it is one of several is too hard for most of us, at least at this time. Most men struggle to fulfill their husbandly duties to just one wife.

 

According to Abraham chapter 3 if there are two or more "things" one will be greater than the other or others.

 

The Traveler

 

[Mike]

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In summary – it appears that divine human life can only be created from G-ds of male and female gender that together and only together are able to create such life.  Thus, we can understand that such life is not possible without both the male and female gender.  That life by any other means is not divine (in the image of G-d).

Are you drawing a distinction between human life and divine human life? Also, is this meant to address my earlier question to you (notwithstanding contributions made since by other forum members?  

Quote

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?

I still don't see how I can hold that the actions that brought about Adam's physical body are the same as those that brought about mine. (I'm hoping you'll bear with me here as I try to discuss it with you).

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

What happens when a man has ten children? He doesn't love each child as much? Doesn't want to spend time with each one? What happens when a man has ten siblings? He doesn't want to build an intimate individual relationship with each? I do not believe that plural marriage implies lack of emotional intimacy. I do believe that building a successful marriage when it is one of several is too hard for most of us, at least at this time. Most men struggle to fulfill their husbandly duties to just one wife.

I have long pondered what often seems to me like a huge discrepancy between what a man, a parent, a husband *wants* in terms of loving, spending time, building intimate relationships vs. what is he actually *manages to accomplish* given the obstacles in a mortal sphere. As you suggest, this is not to judge or cast blame--it's just reality.

[Mike]

19 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

The husband can spend time with his wives. But if they each desire frequent physical intimacy beyond childbearing, it suddenly becomes a massive physical task for the man.

And this is focusing only on the man. From the viewpoint of the children and women I think there are precious few who *feel* the intimacy. Again, I'm not blaming anyone but merely saying how I think it is. 

[mordorbund]

27 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

The husband can spend time with his wives. But if they each desire frequent physical intimacy beyond childbearing, it suddenly becomes a massive physical task for the man.

Challenge accepted!!!!

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

The husband can spend time with his wives. But if they each desire frequent physical intimacy beyond childbearing, it suddenly becomes a massive physical task for the man.

If.

[Snigmorder]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If.

Ah but who are we fooling?

[Guest]

Just now, Snigmorder said:

Ah but who are we fooling?

We?

[Snigmorder]

Just now, Carborendum said:

We?

Actually, just you, I assume they will.

[Guest]

Just now, Snigmorder said:

Actually, just you, I assume they will.

Assume.

[Guest]

@Snigmorder,

Come on!  You're making it too easy.

[Snigmorder]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Assume.

But wouldn't they? In a marriage with 30 wives, the husband suddenly becomes a DMV. 

[Guest]

Just now, Snigmorder said:

But wouldn't they? In a marriage with 30 wives, the husband suddenly becomes a DMV. 

Dry Male Vasectomy?

[Snigmorder]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Dry Male Vasectomy?

Yes

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Yes

Good work.  I like it.  Now it's my turn to use more than one word.

The fact is that you're using extreme examples and some statistically unlikely scenarios to make an overarching point.  That doesn't fly.

If you read about our pioneer history, the families that had 30 wives were very few.  In fact, I'm thinking of anyone other than Young and I can't think of any others. 

Hess, Moss, Kimball... Those are the big names. And they did NOT have 30 wives. -- Technically Kimball had many more wives, but most were only temporal care-taking arrangements.  He was, however, intimate with 17 of them.

The vast majority of those involved in plural marriage had two to six wives.  And that is very manageable. 

Quote

"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors His work and word."

Heber C. Kimball, JD vol 5. p22

Do you think that when this is not just a matter of hedonistic pleasure, but a matter of fulfilling a calling that the Lord might actually qualify him for the work?

Edited July 18, 2017 by Guest

[Snigmorder]

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Good work.  I like it.  Now it's my turn to use more than one word.

The fact is that you're using extreme examples and some statistically unlikely scenarios to make an overarching point.  That doesn't fly.

If you read about our pioneer history, the families that had 30 wives were very few.  In fact, I'm thinking of anyone other than Young and I can't think of any others. 

Hess, Moss, Kimball... Those are the big names. And they did NOT have 30 wives. -- Technically Kimball had many more wives, but most were only temporal care-taking arrangements.  He was, however, intimate with 17 of them.

The vast majority of those involved in plural marriage had two to six wives.  And that is very manageable. 

Do you think that when this is not just a matter of hedonistic pleasure, but a matter of fulfilling a calling that the Lord might actually qualify him for the work?

Remember the original context.

Changed said: "I think everyone has already agreed that the purpose of gender & intimacy is not just to have children"

I then argued that non procreative sex becomes less practical with more wives (my number was 30.) And therefore "sex for fun" may not be in the nature of divine happiness.

Or in other words hedonistic pleasure is NOT part of the divine nature.

In theory you could have 1,000 wives and one husband and everything would be just dandy if everyone had a fullness of the divine nature, like Christ.