Spouse Swapping

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I know. That’s why I try to be cautious in my statements. However I think it’s possible to obey even if one has doubts. 

Its true that President Kimball preached against it but it’s also true that Brigham Young preached the Adam God theory. 

I concur that obedience is usually the safest interim course while trying to resolve moderate doubt; but the key is that we’re actually trying to resolve those doubts rather than deliberately stoking them with inaccurate or misleadingly analogies that are calculated to make the Lord’s standards seem arbitrary or capricious. 

Adam-God was a theology, not a practice.  The Church did not have its correlation committee approve numerous materials over a fifty-year span promoting Adam-God and bending over backwards to ensure that its youth understood and committed to the concept.  And elements of Adam-God have been explicitly repudiated by the Church.

And, you know what?  Young also preached in favor of compassion and hard work and honoring the Sabbath and strong family ties; and against cruelty and dishonesty and exploitation and violence and drunkenness and backbiting and adultery.  If I’m going to discard anything he (or any other LDS prophet) has taught, it’s going to be for a much better reason than my own randiness.

[BJ64]

14 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Sure.  And instead of giving a factual answer that “yes, we are specifically told to avoid this behavior”, you do a pseudo tap dance to suggest it’s OK.  

To set a he record straight, I started by saying that I don’t M nor do I encourage anyone else to M. I then said that I have reasons to think it is a based on cultural ideas from way back (a little like race issues) but that I won’t stake my salvation on my opinion. Therefore it is better to obey than to question the truthfulness of a “commandment”. 

However I do have in writing the words of a General Authority Seventy saying that M is an activity that if continued over time could lead to things that are sinful. That’s not a big endorsement of it actually being a sin in an of itself. President Kimball was against it in part because it leads to homosexuality. 

[BJ64]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I concur that obedience is usually the safest interim course while trying to resolve moderate doubt; but the key is that we’re actually trying to resolve those doubts rather than deliberately stoking them with inaccurate or misleadingly analogies that are calculated to make the Lord’s standards seem arbitrary or capricious. 

Adam-God was a theology, not a practice.  The Church did not have its correlation committee approve numerous materials over a fifty-year span promoting Adam-God and bending over backwards to ensure that its youth understood and committed to the concept.  And elements of Adam-God have been explicitly repudiated by the Church.

And, you know what?  Young also preached in favor of compassion and hard work and honoring the Sabbath and strong family ties; and against cruelty and dishonesty and exploitation and violence and drunkenness and backbiting and adultery.  If I’m going to discard anything he (or any other LDS prophet) has taught, it’s going to be for a much better reason than my own randiness.

Adam God was also taught in the temple while Brigham Young was alive. 

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I think it is interesting that the church (God) recognizes civil marriage. Personally I believe that marriage is a religious institution and not a secular one. I can see how someone might doubt the necessity of having a secular government official pronounce you man and wife. How was government given that authority? 

If you were shipwrecked on a deserted island with a woman could you declare yourself the legal authority of the island and pronounce yourself married, not worry about getting married or stay single for the rest of your life?

On the civil marriage issue:  I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that God recognizes the authority of government in any real sense of the word.  Rather, God honors the sincere attempt by two people to make a lifelong commitment to each other through proper channels, even though in technicalities the union is not solemnized either by Him or His word (see D&C 132).  In His justice He still expects the couple to keep that commitment, and holds them accountable for adultery or other sins (as applicable) if they fail to do so.  In His mercy He declines to hold them accountable for fornication even though, in the strictest sense, that is what the relationship is.

The only thing about the desert island scenario that gives me pause, is that it would just seem so potentially self-serving.  It seems to me that ultimately the difference between sin and not-sin would revolve around the parties’ motives, intentions, and subsequent follow-through (or not) to whatever commitment they made to each other.  The Church's current insistence on a civil-government-recognized marriage for its members is not a doctrinal necessity (as a generation of polygamous forbears remind us); it is a temporal policy implemented (IMHO) for reasons of “respectability” and to ensure that it is the civil, not religious, authorities that have to deal with any child custody/property disputes arising from a marital dissolution.  Given current trends in government marriage and the prospect of punitive action against institutions that refuse to toe the line, I wouldn’t be surprised to see us eventually abandon that emphasis. 

[person0]

20 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

If you were shipwrecked on a deserted island with a woman could you declare yourself the legal authority of the island and pronounce yourself married, not worry about getting married or stay single for the rest of your life?

I actually started a thread about this question almost a year ago.  I think one of the best responses was the idea that so long as the couple determined that they would commit to obey that law and treat one another as married and remain married even if they were to be one day discovered, then it could likely be considered a valid legal marriage in the eyes of the Lord, so as not to be considered fornication.  However, when is this ever actually going to happen?

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

To set a he record straight, I started by saying that I don’t M nor do I encourage anyone else to M. I then said that I have reasons to think it is a based on cultural ideas from way back (a little like race issues) but that I won’t stake my salvation on my opinion. Therefore it is better to obey than to question the truthfulness of a “commandment”. 

However I do have in writing the words of a General Authority Seventy saying that M is an activity that if continued over time could lead to things that are sinful. That’s not a big endorsement of it actually being a sin in an of itself. President Kimball was against it in part because it leads to homosexuality. 

The record was straight.  You start with a short statement, then provide a mountain of justification against it.  Again, you play with words.  

He asked if it was specifically spelled out or just understood.  The answer is yes, it is specifically spelled out AND understood.  Period.  

[Lost Boy]

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This is one of those “truths” that, deliberately or not, serves to perpetuate a false impression.  The Church is clearly against it.  I believe it has been pointed out to you that the Ensign has warned against the practice.  So does For the Strength of Youth.  And if memory serves, you have indicated awareness of Packer’s To the Young Men Only.  Whether we call it “sin” or “wrong” or merely “inadviseable” is really just a matter of degrees.

 

 

With all due respect . . . you do seem to be dancing awfully close to that line.  

Actually, For the Strength of Youth does not mention it specifically.    Which to me is strange as it makes things vague.

[person0]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

Actually, For the Strength of Youth does not mention it specifically.    Which to me is strange as it makes things vague.

The original pamphlet did.  They removed the word 'masturbation' from the new pamphlet in the same context that home teaching has now become ministering.  They encourage us to not do anything at all that would arouse those emotions.

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

The original pamphlet did.  They removed the word 'masturbation' from the new pamphlet in the same context that home teaching has now become ministering.  They encourage us to not do anything at all that would arouse those emotions.

I didn't realize it had been changed.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, person0 said:

However, when is this ever actually going to happen?

Why as soon as Harlequin decide to publish it or Lifetime decide to produce it - of course!

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Adam God was also taught in the temple while Brigham Young was alive. 

And apparently so effectively that apostles and missionaries who had received their endowment argued amongst themselves about what that actually meant; and at least one general authority as of 1882 hadn’t heard of the doctrine at all.  (Also, if you actually read Nuttall’s journal, it’s not clear whether Young is reciting to him the lecture or merely expounding on the eternities in a comfortable parlor after a good meal.  The primary nexus between Nuttall’s account and the temple ceremony is that we know the conversation happened during the same week that all of that was being written down.)

You’ll probably find plenty of Mormons who masturbate (many of whose consciences have been lulled into complacency by rhetoric very like what you’ve been disseminating here); but there is no genuine doubt what the Church’s position is.  

Edited May 21, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[person0]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I didn't realize it had been changed.

Yup, here it is:

Edited May 21, 2018 by person0

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

Yup, here it is:

I don't think that worked.

[BJ64]

47 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Actually, For the Strength of Youth does not mention it specifically.    Which to me is strange as it makes things vague.

I also think this is not a clear cut issue. If it was it would say right out that it is a sin. President Kimball said it is a sin and others have quoted him but none since him have said anything about it specifically. When you consider how much is said about porn I would think that if it was a big concern there would be frequent repetitive mention of it. Another thing which indicates to me the that it is not clear cut is that a lot of bishops say they don’t ask about it nor are they required to. 

I think there will never be a statement supporting the practice but I think it is a teaching that is slowly fading away. Note the disappearance of To Young Men Only and The Miracle of Forgiveness.   

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't think that worked.

It says:

Quote

The Lord forbids certain behaviors including all sexual relations before marriage... masturbation...

Specified in the list.

Yup, BJ is right. It doesn't say it's a sin. It says the Lord forbids it.  Yeah, big difference.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Guest

[BJ64]

54 minutes ago, person0 said:

The original pamphlet did.  They removed the word 'masturbation' from the new pamphlet in the same context that home teaching has now become ministering.  They encourage us to not do anything at all that would arouse those emotions.

Taken literally, a husband would not be allowed to be aroused by the thought of his wife

[BJ64]

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And apparently so effectively that apostles and missionaries who had received their endowment argued amongst themselves about what that actually meant; and at least one general authority as of 1882 hadn’t heard of the doctrine at all.  (Also, if you actually read Nuttall’s journal, it’s not clear whether Young is reciting to him the lecture or merely expounding on the eternities in a comfortable parlor after a good meal.  The primary nexus between Nuttall’s account and the temple ceremony is that we know the conversation happened during the same week that all of that was being written down.)

You’ll probably find plenty of Mormons who masturbate (many of whose consciences have been lulled into complacency by rhetoric very like what you’ve been disseminating here); but there is no genuine doubt what the Church’s position is.  

There is genuine doubt or there wouldn’t be bishops who don’t ask about it. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

Taken literally, a husband would not be allowed to be aroused by the thought of his wife

Yup, you're not trying to argue for M at all.  You're just making arguments against calling it a sin, that's all.

[BJ64]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It says:

Specified in the list.

Yup, BJ is right. It doesn't say it's a sin. It says the Lord forbids it.  Yeah, big difference.

What are you quoting, a superseded pamphlet?

[BJ64]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yup, you're not trying to argue for M at all.  You're just making arguments against calling it a sin, that's all.

Do you think it is a sin to arouse those emotions in your own body by thinking about your wife or are you exempt?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

Do you think it is a sin to arouse those emotions in your own body by thinking about your wife or are you exempt?

Do you think of your wife as an object?  If so, then I feel sorry for your wife.

[BJ64]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do you think of your wife as an object?  If so, then I feel sorry for your wife.

It seems it is you who is now avoiding answering questions. 

I will say that when my wife walks into the room my passions are aroused. She is happy for that and so am I. 

[person0]

13 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

. . . when my wife walks into the room my passions are aroused.

You really should consider trying to focus on other things when you are in the temple.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It seems it is you who is now avoiding answering questions. 

I've answered, it's still your turn.  I would be impolite to go out of turn.

23 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I will say that when my wife walks into the room my passions are aroused. She is happy for that and so am I. 

That's not what you asked.  Verbal gymnastics again.  I'd really appreciate if if you stopped.  English isn't my first language after all.

[BJ64]

44 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Do you think it is a sin to arouse those emotions in your own body by thinking about your wife or are you exempt?

 

41 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do you think of your wife as an object?  If so, then I feel sorry for your wife.

 

30 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It seems it is you who is now avoiding answering questions. 

I will say that when my wife walks into the room my passions are aroused. She is happy for that and so am I. 

I’ll answer the question for you. 

“Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.”

I can arouse those emotions in my own body by thinking of my wife because I am married. I can also do all of the other things mentioned with my wife because I am married. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by BJ64