- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
…for more than making babies and includes enjoyment and pleasure.
Ray,..can you provide some quotes that directly reflect this pleasure one?
Rob4Hope wrote:Old-Timer wrote:…for more than making babies and includes enjoyment and pleasure.
Ray,..can you provide some quotes that directly reflect this pleasure one?
I was struggling to remember where I read this recently but then I remembered that I actually came across something the other day while looking up the official policy on birth control:
Handbook 2; 21.4.4 Birth Control wrote:Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation,
but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife. Emphasis added.
Of course the best advice is to not break out a 200+ page “rulebook” whenever there’s a question.
nibbler wrote:Handbook 2; 21.4.4 Birth Control wrote:Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation,
but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.
Of course the best advice is to not break out a 200+ page “rulebook” whenever there’s a question.I don’t see this as license for sexuality between husband and wife for pleasure.
Now NIbbler (and others), I was damaged in this area when I was raised–sex was a tolerated evil, and was always wrong except for having babies. So, my initial impulse is the LDS faith has a problem with pleasure,…so I want to push back just a little on this idea and see how it goes. I will say at this point, just so you know, that I think the LDS faith is wrong about this–I think pleasure, just for that aspect alone, is justification for husband and wife to engage. Period.
This statement above says it is an expression of love, which allows for strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds,..but strengthening sexual bonds is, at least to me, conspicuously absent.
I’m going to post something written by a guy named Romel Mackleprang which I think is still relevant. Now, in the defense of the age of this small quote (like 30+ years old at least), we don’t correct prior leaders, and so I want to hear clear and recent statements that “pleasure” is part of sex. At this point, as far as the LDS perspective is concerned, I am not convinced, and so I still agree with the original thread message, which is that even basic arousal itself is often considered wrong — or shameful.
I say the LDS church has a problem with sexuality in marriage for anything other than “expressions of love” which include strengthening their bonds. But two married people having sex for pleasure?…nadda. Prove me wrong.
Here is the quote:
Quote:“For example, in The Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball devotes fifteen pages to the pitfalls of sexual impurity, adds a line briefly condoning a “normal and controlled sex life,” but offers no elaboration on what constitutes controlled sex (1969, 74, emphasis added). Joseph F. Smith had earlier stated, “Sexual union is lawful in wedlock, and if participated in with right intent is honourable and sanctifying” (1939, 309), a notion that President Kimball echoes when he writes that “pure sex life in marriage is approved” (1975, 155). But while he sanctions sexual expression as appropriate, in the same section of the book, he states that “the doctrine that the devil is so eager to establish that sex relations are justified on the grounds that it is a pleasurable experience in itself and beyond moral consideration” is unacceptable (p. 154, emphasis added.) While few Latter-day Saints would argue that marital sex should not be without some moral consideration, many are confused as to whether sex for the “pleasurable experience in itself” is appropriate. Church leaders say little or nothing regarding the physical and emotional pleasure, satisfaction, and bonding that are possible in a healthy sexual relationship. In fact, many messages, whether explicit or not, seem to indicate that “pleasurable” sex for its own sake is inappropriate. The section on “Sex Desires” in Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine contains no information at all and directs the reader to “see Sex Immorality,” the obvious implication being that sexual desires are sinful and “immoral” (1976, 709).”
I guess different people read the statement in the handbook differently. Sexual relations are for procreation, but also… If sex isn’t for procreation then it stands to reason that people might have sex for pleasure, at least that’s how I read things. I suppose to get some exercise is another alternative. I look at the handbook as using highly correlated, ultra-vetted language. It’s not like they are going to come right out and say that sex is for procreation and to have orgasms in an official handbook about church policies. In other words, “expressing love” is lawyer-speak for “pleasure,” at least for me.
I think leaders/parents shy away from talking about sex as something that is pleasurable because they want to downplay the pleasures of sex when they are trying to convince unmarried people/youth that they shouldn’t be having sex. I also think that the way that some people go about it also creates all kinds of sexual dysfunction. Sex is evil, sex is evil, sex is evil. Phew, you got married. Ok, you’re good now… just as soon as you finish deprogramming yourself from all the stuff we said to scare you into not having sex as a youth. Good luck!
nibbler wrote:I guess different people read the statement in the handbook differently. Sexual relations are for procreation, but also… If sex isn’t for procreation then it stands to reason that people might have sex for pleasure, at least that’s how I read things. I suppose to get some exercise is another alternative.I look at the handbook as using highly correlated, ultra-vetted language. It’s not like they are going to come right out and say that sex is for procreation and to have orgasms in an official handbook about church policies. In other words, “expressing love” is lawyer-speak for “pleasure,” at least for me.
I think there are several things going on.
1) Is that we are really bad at talking directly about sex. We tend to use euphemisms.
2) We also tend to be very tight lipped about our sex lives. How often is considered normal? What forms of foreplay/ mutual pleasuring are acceptable? It can be really difficult to know what type of sexual expression can be normal and healthy within a Mormon marriage. This is no problem if you and your spouse are on the same page. This can be a major problem if one spouse feels that certain sexual activities are impure or against church teaching – all the while not knowing that other couples in good standing with high profile callings may be enjoying just that type of intimate activity without feeling guilty in the least. (for me in my marriage there are some things that my wife may not care for that I might otherwise engage in. I honor her preferences. DW and I know that our intimate practices are based on our own desires, mutual consent, and respect. The church does not enter into it and I am happy about that.)
3) We in the church usually shy away from directly contradicting past leadership. We prefer to quietly stop teaching the controversial idea in question. So if SWK said that oral is not ok or if Pres. Benson said that the pursuit of the orgasm was a worldly thing – we slowly distance ourselves from those concepts by not repeating them in the modern age.
4) In saying that sex is “also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.” I believe the church is implying that sex should ideally be uplifting and positive for both parties. I would agree with the church that sex should not be demeaning, dehumanizing, about power or dominance, nor withheld for manipulation or punishment.
Roy wrote:So if SWK said that oral is not ok (he did) if Pres. Benson said that the pursuit of the orgasm was a worldly thing (did he?)
This is just a curiosity this time around. I know the SWK thing is true. Is there anything behind the Benson thing?
Sorry, I was getting lazy in my hypothetical example. It was SWK again who said something of that sort.
Quote:We hope that our parents and leaders will not tolerate pornography. It is really garbage, but today is peddled as normal and satisfactory food. Many writers seem to take delight in polluting the atmosphere with it. Seemingly, it cannot be stopped by legislation. There is a link between pornography and the low, sexual drives and perversions.
We live in a culture which venerates the orgasm, streaking, trading wives, and similar crazes. How low can humans plunge! We pray with our Lord that we may be kept from being in the world. It is sad that decent people are thrown into a filthy area of mental and spiritual pollution. We call upon all of our people to do all in their power to offset this ugly revolution. To be fair he seems to have been referencing the free love movement.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng In that same talk he also asked members not to use face cards – the only time that I am aware that this advice has ever officially been given.
I loved Pres. Kimball, but he was a bit extreme in multiple ways. His view of sex was influenced heavily by the counter-cultural free love movement of the time when he was an apostle and President – and he wasn’t completely wrong about some of the extremes within that movement that still have lingering effects in ways. I disagree with the extent to which he took it, but I understand the extreme to which he was reacting.
I always thought the church stance was ” anything that a married couple finds mutually satisfactory is acceptable.” I grew up with the feeling that the church really had no interest in getting involved in the intimate lives of couples. I have no quotes .. That was just the prevailing church culture attitude I was raised with.
It was stunning to me to come across members who viewed intimacy as having a long list of “Do Not” rules.
amateurparent wrote:I always thought the church stance was ” anything that a married couple finds mutually satisfactory is acceptable.” I grew up with the feeling that the church really had no interest in getting involved in the intimate lives of couples.
I have no quotes .. That was just the prevailing church culture attitude I was raised with.
It was stunning to me to come across members who viewed intimacy as having a long list of “Do Not” rules.
From the little I know with those I have talked with, it seems that outside the “LDS belt” there was a more rounded culture. I grew up right smack in the middle of SLC, and the culture here was that sex was the unspoken “nasty” thing….that culture permeated everywhere I knew. SWK sent a letter out condemning certain sexual practices happening in marriage, and for a while, leaders apparently even asked specific questions of members before they signed their recommend.
When I got married, I was counseled by a SP who got right into the bedroom and clearly he was influenced by some of the culture of that time. It is sad but true.
I think what happened is the church responded to the sexual revolution, and sent out inoculations as it were, but what happened to the sheltered communities that weren’t affected as much by that revolution?…they got dosed so hard and steep that is had the unintended affect of ceasing to be a medicine, but became a poison.
amateurparent wrote:I always thought the church stance was ” anything that a married couple finds mutually satisfactory is acceptable.” I grew up with the feeling that the church really had no interest in getting involved in the intimate lives of couples.
I have no quotes .. That was just the prevailing church culture attitude I was raised with.
It was stunning to me to come across members who viewed intimacy as having a long list of “Do Not” rules.
I don’t think you’ll find that quote spoken or written anywhere. I think it’s been inferred since the second bedroom letter telling bishops and SPs not to enquire about the intimate details of people lives. The business about oral sex being “an unholy and impure practice” was never rescinded but finessed by telling authorities to not ask about it. The whole business underscored for me the importance of thinking for myself and not needing affirmation from the bishop about what was ok or not ok.
GBSmith wrote:The whole business underscored for me the importance of thinking for myself and not needing affirmation from the bishop about what was ok or not ok.
As usual…I think GBSmith is wise and well spoken. I also think it is important to think for myself on these issues, and think the bishop can be inspired to provide advice when we need to hear it, but I simply don’t need to hear some things and have no need to ask.Quote:D&C 8:10 Remember that without faith you can do nothing; therefore ask in faith. Trifle not with these things; do not ask for that which you ought not.
It may be helpful to ask and seek advice when we are stuck, and need help. Many people do get stuck, and it is nice when others can provide words of wisdom and council out of love. Books are really helpful to some, support groups and church programs to overcome addiction can be useful.But not everyone needs those things. Not everyone suffers equally. Not everyone overcomes their demons the same way. Not everyone has the same weaknesses.
During election season, when hyperbole starts…I realize candidates are trying to get elected, trying to get their party some power, and trying to get some issues advanced by making claims for or against issues or other candidates. I know it is done to sway opinion and drive behavior at polls.
I just become numb to the rhetoric when it is about issues I just don’t have problems with. I understand it means a great deal to some people, just not me.
That’s how I feel about this subject.
I talk to my boys about it regularly. I want them to have perspective. I want them to choose wisely and grow up with standards. I want them to know why we experience guilt and what that tells us. I want them to first and foremost know that they are great kids, divine potential, and mortal and will make mistakes.
I let them know that mistakes don’t define who they are. What they do after making mistakes helps build their character.
They are taught to respect woman always. Sex within marriage is special. Sex can be powerful and at young ages they need to learn about it. Curiosity, attraction, desire are natural but not all natural things go unbridled. They can learn what is right and control their passions. They also have my permission to explore so they are not naive and innocent into their college years.
As Roy said about the article…the emphasis for me is to allow the communication to be open about it. It is part of life.
I do not ask for things I don’t need to ask for because I have a brain. I do not portray things with exaggerated claims to try to scare kids to stay away from harm or I lose their trust. My kids need a balanced and wise teaching about potential harms and evils, and healthy expressions and exploration.
GBSmith wrote:The business about oral sex being “an unholy and impure practice” was never rescinded but finessed by telling authorities to not ask about it.
This is not unique to this bedroom practice: the church struggles to rescind anything. Even the “disavow” comment on another thread is being debated as to what it really means.
OK — now, extend this to a new arena. A few people (Ray, GB Smith) seemed to agree that an unmarried person who releases sexual tension through erotica or pornography is not committing a sin. Yet, they imply a married person might be committing a sin. What about the married person who marries someone, and finds their marriage partner becomes disabled due to an accident or some other unfortunate event which prevents sexual relationships and release of tension? Or the person who marries someone who becomes an “unwilling sexual partner” and refuses sex — yet the unfortunate spouse wants to stay married for reasons that go beyond sexual fulfillment? What alternatives does the person in a situation like this have that is moral? Or must they simply live in unfulfilled torment their whole life?
Quote:Yet, they imply a married person might be committing a sin.
I have never said or tried to imply that, and I never will. Period.
I just needed to make that crystal clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.