- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote: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.
What Ray said. Never said it or implied it.
Did I miss the biology of sexual relations in this thread? The act of making love, or whatever you want to call it, releases chemicals that strengthen the bonds between the participants. They are also pleasurable. How can you separate pleasure and bonding from the act?
Thoreau wrote:How can you separate pleasure and bonding from the act?
That was my question exactly!
There are people, including leaders, who have a problem with pleasure for pleasures sake, even between married people. The focus has pushed so far toward bonding that it excludes pleasure as being a legitimate motive in itself.
Laura Brotherson was onto something when she coined the phrase: “Good Girl Syndrome”. LOL,…not that I am in the dating scene in SLC, many of the ladies have a phrase they coin for the men who have the same problem…they are called: “Peter Priesthood” (the men that are so focused on reading scriptures, saying prayers, and “religiosity” that holding a girls hand makes them shudder). Would be funny if it wasn’t true.
Any chance we can keep this thread going? The LDS message about LOC, to me at least, comes across like this:
THOU SHALT HAVE NO SEXUAL RELATIONS!!!!!!except with your spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully married (if they don’t refuse you and are of the opposite sex)Rob4Hope wrote:Any chance we can keep this thread going?
The LDS message about LOC, to me at least, comes across like this:
THOU SHALT HAVE NO SEXUAL RELATIONS!!!!!!except with your spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully married (if they don’t refuse you and are of the opposite sex)I don’t think it’s quite that way at all, although I do believe there are many who interpret it that way.
Many people have shared that experience or have been affected by someone that has shared that experience. Many people have had a very different experience. I don’t mind seeing the thread continue but where do we go from here?
There is a certain element of “marriage roulette,” being in the position of not really knowing whether we are sexually compatible with someone else until we cross the point of no return. Sure, some things that leaders have said might even be the equivalent of putting an extra bullet or two into the chamber.
I also hear about how it’s ok for LDS couples to take a no–holds–barred, wild wild west approach once they are married. Of course I only hear that sort of thing at the local level. It’s not all that surprising, at the local level people can tailor counsel to the person that is receiving it whereas at the global level the message has to broadly apply to all. Of course sometimes if the counsel isn’t coming from GAs it only makes it harder for it to ever be given at the local level.
I’ve heard several lessons where the teacher attempts to clarify how sex isn’t inherently bad, that it’s something that’s meant to be enjoyed after marriage. Of course by the time a person hears this lesson the damage may have already been done.
I think there are no ALL CAPS in the message itself, except outside of marriage, certainly not to the exclusion of marital sexual relationships. Old-Timer wrote:I think there are no ALL CAPS in the message itself, except outside of marriage, certainly not to the exclusion of marital sexual relationships.
Its all in the emphasis. If you look close (and I don’t know who saw this or not),…the rest of it is there….just very tiny…….
nibbler wrote:I’ve heard several lessons where the teacher attempts to clarify how sex isn’t inherently bad, that it’s something that’s meant to be enjoyed after marriage. Of course by the time a person hears this lesson the damage may have already been done.
The damage done and just a few statements in a lesson won’t reverse the damage.LookingHard wrote:nibbler wrote:I’ve heard several lessons where the teacher attempts to clarify how sex isn’t inherently bad, that it’s something that’s meant to be enjoyed after marriage. Of course by the time a person hears this lesson the damage may have already been done.
The damage done and just a few statements in a lesson won’t reverse the damage.BULLS-EYE!Quote:If you look close (and I don’t know who saw this or not),…the rest of it is there….just very tiny…….
I saw that – and I think the size difference is way out of whack, as an overall summary.
The LDS Church does NOT teach no sex in the way that the size difference implies. If we are talking about how it teaches about sex to children, youth and single adults, I think it is closer – but I think the rest is not as tiny as the graphic suggests. If we are talking about teaching to married adults, it is radically different, imo.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:If you look close (and I don’t know who saw this or not),…the rest of it is there….just very tiny…….
I saw that – and I think the size difference is way out of whack, as an overall summary.
The LDS Church does NOT teach no sex in the way that the size difference implies. If we are talking about how it teaches about sex to children, youth and single adults, I think it is closer – but I think the rest is not as tiny as the graphic suggests. If we are talking about teaching to married adults, it is radically different, imo.
Agreed. We all sometimes need to vent. But as we have been mentioning, teaching “children, youth, and single adults” is when many (most?) people form their view on what sex (and many other things) and sometimes these are very hard to change after that. I think that is what is missed by some. They teach with the goal of keeping folks from having sex before marriage – NOT for preparing folks to have a fulfilling sex life once married. A young person can often be scared into not having sex before they are married, but that often backfires after the wedding ceremony.LookingHard wrote:nibbler wrote:I’ve heard several lessons where the teacher attempts to clarify how sex isn’t inherently bad, that it’s something that’s meant to be enjoyed after marriage. Of course by the time a person hears this lesson the damage may have already been done.
The damage done and just a few statements in a lesson won’t reverse the damage.Yep.
I cut people some slack. None of us are omniscient, there are so many unknowns. The lesson giver never knows what state every member of the class finds themselves in. The same words that heal one can rip the scab off of the wound of another. Plus you’re right, healing of this nature almost requires a concerted, dedicated effort.
I’m just glad I’ve never been in the position to be quoted as any voice of authority. I’ve said some dumb stuff over the years… and promise to continue doing so.
I do take some small measure of comfort in that most of the more harmful views on human sexuality are coming from statements made 40+ years ago.
Just curious about something. Where are you all hailing from? In right in the middle of SLC. The other thing is that tactics have and were used to save youth from sexual sin before their marriage–this was mentioned above. But, what messages–and I am talking like 10 years ago–were given to couples who were past youth and getting married? IN my knowledge, nothing came from GAs…nothing. The message was universally taught in the context of protecting youth, and not transitioning or teaching that sexuality was good and approved in marriage for things other than children.
I’ve heard references to the second handbook of instructions,…but that wasn’t available to many people–and it if was, it certainly wasn’t known. So, I maintain my position.
Sorry. We all have different opinions. I also think that things differ in SLC culturally than outside in many ways. There has also been a slow but very welcome emphasis shift recently.
However, going back to the original thread–this article about Pornography claims (and I agree with it to an extent) that arousal itself is shamed as unholy.
And, to tie this off,…you are all saying that message of sexuality being good and wholesome in marriage, for things other than strict procreation, have been clearly communicated consistently, and in balance with messages that tend to cause shame or concern, even anxiety, in youth before marriage in the quest to protect them?
There are multiple questions in that question. 
Wholesome in marriage? Yes.
“Balanced” when compared to direct statements to youth? No – and, in reality, that would be almost impossible, given how many there are addressed to the youth.
:silent: Nobody is saying, I think, that there is a healthy balance. I certainly am not.
Finally, I was raised in the heart of Zion. (rural, central Utah) I have lived in almost every region of the United States in the last 30 years – from highly liberal to highly conservative.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.