Temple marriage for the sole purpose of having sex?


chasingthewind
 Share

Recommended Posts

@chasingthewind I believe @SpiritDragon already answered your previous question. In regards to your second comment, about rape, that is a seperate issue. It's a grave and terrible sin because rape is a forcible sexual assault. It's irrelevant whether or not you are married to the person, it's an assault upon that person physically and mentally and is a horrific crime.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chasingthewind said:

Who cares whether the wife is fine with it or not?    

Just so you know, a marriage is between three entities.  Both spouses and the Lord.  Who cares if the wife is fine with it?  That would be the wife, the husband, and the Lord.   Three different parties should care if the wife is fine with it or not.  

Quote

Would you feel comfortable telling God on judgment day the reason you entered into marriage was because "sex is too good to go without"?  I sure as heck wouldn't. 

If I was in such a position, and it was true, of course I'd feel comfortable telling that to God.

chasingthewind - I just need to come out and ask you directly.  You do know that sex done right is one of the greatest good things we humans can experience on earth, right?  And you know that lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of frequent, mutually beneficial, spiritually connecting sexual intimacy in a marriage is a great blessing for two people with similar drives and inclinations, don't you?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
23 hours ago, chasingthewind said:

lol!  I didn't really intend for this topic to be about the judgment of any particular person (i.e., my friend's brother).  Rather, the OP was intended to start a discussion about the immorality of marrying only for sex and how such an action stacks up compared to other acts of sexual immorality.  

That was how I took it...more as a general question that about any specific person.  

If someone did do that, I think it would be very unfortunate.  When one gets married in the temple, they make serious covenants to the Lord and their spouse that the Lord will hold them accountable for.  Sex isn't enough to see one through the ups and downs of marriage and life in general.  One needs a serious commitment  and yes you are right, God knows our hearts.  

I think if someone were selfish enough to marry only for sex, that person is likely not thinking about what God will think, or his wife...he is only thinking of himself...which would be very unfortunate indeed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anything about the temple or sealed marriages, but are there guidelines set in the church outlining why people should be married?  I say this because I've never seen anything written to my recollection that tells me I can't marry for lust, children, or anything else.  I've seen people get married, or stay married, for a variety of reasons, not all of which I understood.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I knew a guy, married in the temple.  His wife died early, he was in his early '60's.  He remarried a year later to someone who wasn't LDS.  He was an open book on a lot of topics, and when we asked him about his pick, he just said "sex is too good to go without".   "Time only" worked for him for wife #2, while he waited to rejoin his first wife.  He told us it was just fine with her too.

I guess that's the main point - if chasingthewind's friends brothers wife is fine with friends brothers reason for marrying her, then who is anyone else to poo-poo the arrangement?

Did wife #2 know that their marriage was only about sex?   I mean hypothetically speaking.  If she knows and she's okay with it, then to each their own.  I don't think it is a good foundation for marriage, but their choice.   BUT if she didn't know....I would be heart-broken if I discovered after the wedding that my husband ONLY married me for sex...not for love.  Ick, ick, ick.

14 hours ago, chasingthewind said:

Who cares whether the wife is fine with it or not?  What matters is whether God is fine with it.  

Would you feel comfortable telling God on judgment day the reason you entered into marriage was because "sex is too good to go without"?  I sure as heck wouldn't. 

As I just told Neuro, to me it matters a lot whether the wife knew and was okay with it.  If she is, then I don't think it is a good foundation, but other than that, it's not that big of a deal to me.  Heavenly Father understands how intense sexual desire can be, He gave us those desires. At least the hypothetical person we are discussing waited until marriage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I don't know anything about the temple or sealed marriages, but are there guidelines set in the church outlining why people should be married?  I say this because I've never seen anything written to my recollection that tells me I can't marry for lust, children, or anything else.  I've seen people get married, or stay married, for a variety of reasons, not all of which I understood.  

The guideline is simply to promise faithfulness and love to one's spouse.  That's it.

If you marry because you want to have sex, there is no law against it as long as you promise to be faithful and love your spouse.   Heck, if you only want sex and you think payment for that sex with faithfulness and love is cheaper than hiring a hooker... that doesn't necessarily break the law of chastity.  What breaks it is when you renege on your promise to love and be faithful - which means you stop your desire to hire a hooker and you don't treat your wife as one.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 0:09 PM, chasingthewind said:

Just recently a female friend of mine told me that one of her brothers got married for the sole purpose of having sex.  What are your thoughts on this?  Personally, I think when someone behaves in such a manner they are showing that they don't really believe in God.  If they really believed in God, they'd believe He knows all of their thoughts, intentions, desires, and motivations.  They'd believe God is the judge of their heart (not just the judge of their actions) and they couldn't get away with denigrating God's holy temple into a place to fulfill their lustful desires.  So this person doesn't really believe in God at all.  They're an atheist at heart all while giving the outward appearance of being a 'faithful member'.  Honestly, if all you're interested in is sex then you'd be better off going to a strip club, finding a prostitute, watching pornography, etc.  Keep filthiness where it belongs instead of bringing it into God's temple.  

 

I just wonder if this boy was being immature, and maybe trying to sound macho. Another possibility is that he did think about sex being the main draw--but in a shallow, fleeting kind of way. Thus, engaging in a bunch of if/then statements that conclude with such a person being an atheist may be on target, but seems just as likely to miss the mark. There are not too many people that would enter into a secular marriage for the sex. For someone to do so in a Christian--and especially in an LDS--marriage is beyond bizarre. There are much easier ways, so I'm inclined to believe the young man was half-joking, half immature, and wholly foolish (to admit such thoughts, whether a ruse, or just fleeting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2017 at 6:03 PM, chasingthewind said:

*EDIT* I need to make a correction to my previous post: "It may be 'false' that marrying for sex is just as bad as extramarital sex but it is still 'unrighteous'.  Would you agree?

Nope. Marrying a woman because you want to have sex with her used to be called "honorable". Nowadays, guys who want a girl just sleep with her. No, marriage is not unrighteous, even if you're marrying because you want her physical goods. There are certainly better reasons to marry, and marrying for sex often results in a suboptimal outcome. But unrighteous? Absolutely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 4:52 PM, Grunt said:

Do you believe LDS have a higher or lower divorce rate than gen pop?

My belief (and it's just that, not hard fact) is that LDS membership in general has about the same divorce rate as the gen. population.

In addition, without any current information that I have seen recently on current trends, my thoughts on divorce among LDS married for time and all eternity in the temple, in regards to divorce is that it is a statistic that is rising alarmingly in recent years, both due to filings and actions from men and women.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the OP question, I think there are actually two questions inherent in the post, and they've been combined.

The first was if it was immoral to be married just for certain actions.  If the plan is just to be married and then divorce after the deed, without any real commitment or plan to keep that commitment, then yes, I would probably agree that this was an immoral act.

HOWEVER...if it was done with full intention of making commitments that one would keep, that I would say, due to the added necessity of making rather permanent contracts that one intends to keep...it is not immoral.

The reason some young Christians (emphasize...some...that's not all, not a majority, just...some) may utilize this excuse can actually seem rather valid.  In their minds, in todays' society, you can have and be close friends to a member of the opposite gender.  Therefore, if you can be friends, hang out, do all sorts of activities with them, in their minds, what then separates being married and not being married in a relationship approved by the Lord.  The obvious answer some come up with, is the ability to be intimate.  All other actions, they reason, they can do with the other person without breaking the commandments, at least from what I gather.  The idea is also tossed in with regards to having children...because to have children, one must needs be intimate.

This is SOMETHING THAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN as why some young people say is the only reason to get married.  It is so that they can be together and be intimate...because all other things in today's society are already acceptable and still remain faithful Christians.

This is a SEPARATE question that was tossed in secondly...which is in regards to the Temple.  The Temple idea is inherent in the TOPIC of the post, but not necessarily the story. There was nothing in the OP's story about this relative being married in the temple, and so I assume that in this context, this may not be the case.  If it is, it is possible that this young man unfortunately sees marriage relationships similarly to how other young Christians may see it occasionally.

 In the LDS church, the idea of a temple marriage, or eternal marriage in many ways is a LOT different than that of a marriage of till death do we part.  In this, we are planning the eternities out with a partner that will be with us...well...for a LOT longer than just this life.  This is something to fulfill a commandment of the Lord, it is something that is there to build the family unit, and there are things that we CANNOT DO in normal life without being married in the temple that goes far beyond that of a simple idea of being intimate. 

Unfortunately, I still run into the same idea occasionally from young LDS individuals here and there that sees it as how I described it above, that the only reason to be married is due to being able to be intimate...without realizing the full range of what a temple marriage really is in the LDS faith.  It is one reason to suggest a temple and marriage class to those who are thinking of getting married.

I would agree with other sentiments in this thread that say lust, and lust alone, is a terrible reason to get married.  Even if it may be moral (if one is getting married for that, but also intends to KEEP THE COVENANTS they make in the marriage, which means, no divorce), it is a very bad thing to solely base a marriage on.  Hopefully, the individual getting married has gotten to learn more about their prospective spouse and gets along with them, along with many other things that will make their marriage successful, and has a little more wisdom in their decisions making process.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2017 at 6:38 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Just so you know, a marriage is between three entities.  Both spouses and the Lord.  Who cares if the wife is fine with it?  That would be the wife, the husband, and the Lord.   Three different parties should care if the wife is fine with it or not.  

If I was in such a position, and it was true, of course I'd feel comfortable telling that to God.

chasingthewind - I just need to come out and ask you directly.  You do know that sex done right is one of the greatest good things we humans can experience on earth, right?  And you know that lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of frequent, mutually beneficial, spiritually connecting sexual intimacy in a marriage is a great blessing for two people with similar drives and inclinations, don't you?

I fully agree that 'sex done right' is a great good.  But I do not believe the scenario you just described of a man getting married after the death of his wife because "sex is too good to go without" is 'sex done right'. 

Yes, I know a marriage is between three entities (both spouses and the Lord).  I am not disputing that. The point I am making is that what is right/wrong is up to one entity - God.  God alone determines what is moral/immoral  and since He has forbidden lustful desires in Matt. 5:28 then a marriage built on lustful desires is immoral.  

I guess I phrased my question poorly in my last comment.  I should have said, "Who cares whether the wife thinks it's morally acceptable to marry just for sex?  What matters is whether God thinks marrying just for sex morally acceptable." 

Edited by chasingthewind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Did wife #2 know that their marriage was only about sex?   I mean hypothetically speaking.  If she knows and she's okay with it, then to each their own.  I don't think it is a good foundation for marriage, but their choice.   BUT if she didn't know....I would be heart-broken if I discovered after the wedding that my husband ONLY married me for sex...not for love.  Ick, ick, ick.

As I just told Neuro, to me it matters a lot whether the wife knew and was okay with it.  If she is, then I don't think it is a good foundation, but other than that, it's not that big of a deal to me.  Heavenly Father understands how intense sexual desire can be, He gave us those desires. At least the hypothetical person we are discussing waited until marriage.  

Why does it matter if the first wife is okay with it?  Her opinion has no bearing on what is morally right and wrong.  God alone determines what is right and wrong.

Yes, Heavenly Father gave us those desires but those desires are weaknesses that we're supposed to overcome.  It's similar to how homosexual desires were meant to be overcome.  

Edited by chasingthewind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

What does Matt. 5:28 mean to you? 

It means that lusting after a woman is committing adultery in the heart.

Lust is illicit sexual desire. But sexually desiring one's own wife cannot be illicit. Thus, by definition, one cannot "lust" for one's own wife. Thus Paul teaches that it is better to marry than to burn with lust. The feeling doesn't go away when you marry; on the contrary, it often greatly strengthens. But it's not lust, because she's your wife.

chasingthewind, somewhere along the line you got the idea into your head that sexual desire is wicked per se. You are wrong. Please disabuse your mind of that idea. It is false.

16 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

Yes, Heavenly Father gave us those desires but those desires are weaknesses that we're supposed to overcome.  It's similar to how homosexual desires were meant to be overcome.

Nonsense. You do not understand what you're talking about. You should read the scriptures more carefully (setting aside your perverse sexual preconceptions) and study the teachings of the modern prophets.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
56 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

Why does it matter if the first wife is okay with it?  Her opinion has no bearing on what is morally right and wrong.  God alone determines what is right and wrong.

Yes, Heavenly Father gave us those desires but those desires are weaknesses that we're supposed to overcome.  It's similar to how homosexual desires were meant to be overcome.  

I don't know what else i can say that I haven't already said.  I simply don't see this the same way that you do.  As I said, I don't think that is a good foundation for a happy marriage, but I also don't see it as a sin, as long as the wife knows and agrees to it.  How is this different than arranged marriages?  Is it not worse to marry someone you never met?  I don't believe God condemns those marriages, and even though I can't understand it, some of them are very happy (at least that is my understanding.)  Many cultures have and do practice arranged marriages.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the complications of the OP is that we don't know enough about the scenario that gives rise to it (whether hypothetical or not).  As others have asked--did the marriage end in divorce after a wild weekend?  Or is the friend's brother sticking it out?  If the latter, then there probably is (and always was) more to the relationship than just sex; regardless of what this groom may have said to his sister (also:  ick).

IIRC, Boyd Packer acknowledged sexual attraction as "a" factor in inducing men to marry and stay married; and recognized that as appropriate so long as it is held in proper bounds.  Certainly it is only one factor, among many; but again--we can almost never know how all those factors balance out in any particular individual's mind.

Certainly, as a general rule a marriage founded on sex is founded in very shaky ground indeed.  There seems to be consensus that such a decision would be inordinately stupid.  But I often wonder whether there's really such a bright line between "inordinately stupid" and "sinful"--I think either constitutes acting against God's will--and the OP does seem to be making rather a fetish of the notion that her friend's brother's behavior must fall into the latter category rather than the former.

Once we know that doing something is a bad idea and contrary to God's plan; why do we need to get bogged down in semantical arguments as to whether the thing should be labeled a "sin"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

It means that lusting after a woman is committing adultery in the heart.

Lust is illicit sexual desire. But sexually desiring one's own wife cannot be illicit. Thus, by definition, one cannot "lust" for one's own wife. Thus Paul teaches that it is better to marry than to burn with lust. The feeling doesn't go away when you marry; on the contrary, it often greatly strengthens. But it's not lust, because she's your wife.

That's good and all but the person you’re marrying isn’t your wife yet.  And lusting after someone who isn't your spouse is a sin, no?

Quote

Nonsense. You do not understand what you're talking about. You should read the scriptures more carefully (setting aside your perverse sexual preconceptions) and study the teachings of the modern prophets.

Moroni 7:6-10 makes it clear that God will judge the intentions behind our actions and if we have evil intentions then our ‘good’ works profit us nothing.  So it seems pretty obvious to me that God will condemn couples who get married just for sex since lustful desires are evil per Matt. 5:28.  Can you show me scriptures or the teachings of modern prophets that contradict this line of reasoning? 

Your condescending remarks make me sad, btw. :( 

2 hours ago, Vort said:

What does 1 Corinthians 7:9 mean to you?

In 1 Cor. 7:9, Paul says it is “better to get married than to burn [with lust]”.  Okay? 

There are some sins you’d be “better off” committing than others since the severity of different sins comes on a spectrum.  For example, you’d be “better off” stealing someone’s property than blaspheming the Holy Ghost.  But does that mean stealing isn’t a sin?  No, they’re both sins and God can’t look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.  

There are sins that will put you in the terrestrial kingdom.  There are sins that will put you in the telestial kingdom.  And there are sins that will put you in Hell.  The sins that put you in the terrestrial kingdom are ‘better’ than the ones that put you in Hell.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chasingthewind said:

What does Matt. 5:28 mean to you? 

Matthew 5:28 is in relation to adultery. It does not seem to apply to a single man or woman with natural sexual desires.

12 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

In 1 Cor. 7:9, Paul says it is “better to get married than to burn [with lust]”.  Okay? 

IMO, your friend's brother is doing the right thing based on this scripture.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

So it seems pretty obvious to me that God will condemn couples who get married just for sex since lustful desires are evil per Matt. 5:28.

Then you are clearly someone who should be ignored.

15 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

Your condescending remarks make me sad, btw. :(

Says the person condemning those who marry for reasons he judges inadequate. The irony is palpable.

14 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

In 1 Cor. 7:9, Paul says it is “better to get married than to burn [with lust]”.  Okay? 

There are some sins you’d be “better off” committing than others since the severity of different sins comes on a spectrum.  For example, you’d be “better off” stealing someone’s property than blaspheming the Holy Ghost.  But does that mean stealing isn’t a sin?  No, they’re both sins and God can’t look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.  

There are sins that will put you in the terrestrial kingdom.  There are sins that will put you in the telestial kingdom.  And there are sins that will put you in Hell.  The sins that put you in the terrestrial kingdom are ‘better’ than the ones that put you in Hell. 

This may be the most bizarre, perverse scriptural gloss I have ever heard: An apostle encouraging sin to avoid a greater sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Then you are clearly someone who should be ignored.

Says the person condemning those who marry for reasons he judges inadequate. The irony is palpable.

This may be the most bizarre, perverse scriptural gloss I have ever heard: An apostle encouraging sin to avoid a greater sin.

If I am clearly a person who should be ignored, then why did you respond to my post?  Why didn't you ignore me?  lol!  Instead of trying to (unsuccessfully) ignore me, why can't you simply show me scriptures or teachings of modern prophets that contradict my reasoning? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share