- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I also feel that a couple really needs to be sexually compatible with each other. It is probably better to find that out before marriage rather than after.
Sure waiting until marriage to have sex is honorable. It sure would be unfortunate to find out that my wife and I aren’t sexually compatible at all.
You know, when I was in my early twenties and even as a teenager, I would’ve reacted violently to this statement. But having married someone who was incapable of physical intimacy for over a decade, and how it really altered my personality and life the way I guess I let it affect me, I see the wisdom in what greenapples has to say here. As counter-intuitive it is to LDS thought.
I’m not sure what the answer is, although at one time I thought a medical test or something might be in order for both couples to make sure they are at least capable of intercourse. That way chastity is preserved, while protecting the couples from a lifetime of celebacy and hardship, as it did to myself.
Sure, the law allows anulments — but can you get a temple marriage anulled? I’ve never heard it and doubt it exists. And if it did, it would not exist without major hassle.
Quote:Can you get a temple marriage anulled?
Yes, but it’s not easy – and, frankly, I’m not sure if it would be granted with a request from only one spouse on the grounds that the other spouse can’t have sex. I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t be, but I’m not sure it would be – and, intellectually, I can understand why leaders would shy away from it.
Think of the implications about allowing sexual incompatibility to be grounds for temple divorce:
I wouldn’t want anyone asking for details about exactly why my wife and I were sexually incompatible, but I also wouldn’t want to be granting temple divorces simply because, for example, a man wanted anal sex or bondage but his wife didn’t want it. At the very least, I would want them to get counseling and a civil divorce first – and then I wouldn’t oppose a temple annulment.
This one is tricky for me, and I’m not sure there is an easy, clear answer. I think any solution is going to be messy with unwanted affects – just like about everything else in life.
SilentDawning wrote:GREENAPPLES wrote:I also feel that a couple really needs to be sexually compatible with each other. It is probably better to find that out before marriage rather than after.
Sure waiting until marriage to have sex is honorable. It sure would be unfortunate to find out that my wife and I aren’t sexually compatible at all.
You know, when I was in my early twenties and even as a teenager, I would’ve reacted violently to this statement. But having married someone who was incapable of physical intimacy for over a decade, and how it really altered my personality and life the way I guess I let it affect me, I see the wisdom in what greenapples has to say here. As counter-intuitive it is to LDS thought.
I’m not sure what the answer is, although at one time I thought a medical test or something might be in order for both couples to make sure they are at least capable of intercourse. That way chastity is preserved, while protecting the couples from a lifetime of celebacy and hardship, as it did to myself.
Sure, the law allows anulments — but can you get a temple marriage anulled? I’ve never heard it and doubt it exists. And if it did, it would not exist without major hassle.
To be honest probably in my teens and early 20’s my thought process on such things was much different on this matter as well. I find it very much inspiring that you were able to find away to make your relationship work those many years.Old-Timer wrote:SilentDawning wrote:Can you get a temple marriage anulled?
Yes, but it’s not easy – and, frankly, I’m not sure if it would be granted with a request from only one spouse on the grounds that the other spouse can’t have sex. I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t be, but I’m not sure it would be – and, intellectually, I can understand why leaders would shy away from it.
Think of the implications about allowing sexual incompatibility to be grounds for temple divorce:
I wouldn’t want anyone asking for details about exactly why my wife and I were sexually incompatible, but I also wouldn’t want to be granting temple divorces simply because, for example, a man wanted anal sex or bondage but his wife didn’t want it. At the very least, I would want them to get counseling and a civil divorce first – and then I wouldn’t oppose a temple annulment.
This one is tricky for me, and I’m not sure there is an easy, clear answer. I think any solution is going to be messy with unwanted affects – just like about everything else in life.
Your Example was quite the jump from where I was coming from Ray. Maybe I should have been a little more specific in my original post on this matter. There are women who really don’t like sex. There are women who are A sexual but get married because they feel it is the right thing to do. There are women who physically can’t have sex. There are women who are highly allergic to natural fluids from a man. There are women who feel that sex should only be used for baring children and once the agreed limit is complete she goes into refrigerator mode for the rest of her life. I am well aware that there is more to a relationship than sex. With that said a good healthy relationship should also involve some intimacy. 50% of marriages will fail. It’s not always because of money. Men aren’t always the only ones who are unfaithful. If there was good communication about what is desired with intimacy there wouldn’t have been a desire to cheat because the needs could have been met and fulfilled.Once again I shall say that this is coming from a guy who is single. I have also seen plenty of divorces take place within my own family. Some of these were caused by their spouse not being faithful.When it comes to temple Cancellations they do have to go through the process of getting a civil divorce before the temple cancellation can occur.
I guess that’s all I really have to say about that.GREEN[/color] “> [/color] [/size] See, the fact that this temple anulment isn’t likely a shoe-in for the guy who lives with a woman who is incapable of sex shows me again just how much of a double-edged sword temple marriage is. When I talk about sexual compatibility, I mean at a very basic level — just like the law seems to define it — capability for normal sexual relations of the kind used to bear children — not anything beyond that such as anal activities, for example. The concept of making them get counseling (which we did with seven psychological and medical doctors) makes sense. But to say “get a civil first” and then worry about the temple sealing later bothers me as well. There is a stigma with being divorced and a lot of angst while you sit there and wonder if the people in the home office fo the church are going to show some compassion.
I would l ike to think there is compassion for extreme cases. Such as where there is medical documentation that that person has a psychosomatic disorder which creates muscular contractions that make the basic act of sex physically impossible. Particularly when one documented cause is “strict religious upbringing”. This was the likely case with my wife, said a couple therapists, as she swears up and down she had never been raped. To be able to say you had a temple anulment would help remove that stigma and recognize that there was no wrongdoing would be stellar and fair. And, with a temple divorce, the church keeps bringing it up when the man wants to get married again later on. I’ve heard stories. An anulment could be made that removes these restrictions recognizing that at times, there are extreme circumstances. Add to that the huge risks that incapability adds to the man’s ability to stay chaste, and the threats to his own personal salvation — I think there is a case for it.
Sure it requires judgment on the part of priesthood leaders, but don’t we claim over and over and over again that our leaders are inspired, and have the gift of discernment? Or is that only to make us more willing to accept callings so the church can grow? Or is this only for those situations where it’s convenient for them to be portrayed that way?
Anyway, you know that I see temple marriage in a much less rosy light than I did when I sat in the sealing room. I think it can be a great thing when a person is lucky enough to marry someone compatible, or if the person has TRUE revelation the marriage is something God affirms personally.
In my view, it is there to cement the growth of the church. JS, BY and subsequent leaders realized that one key to internal growth in the church is stable families. So, the faster they can get you married (young) having children immediately, and committing to a high stakes relationship on which your salvation depends, the better it is for this internal growth. The one-year penalty is another unfeeling case in point that puts the church’s priorities higher than the personal happiness and even spiritual well-being/salvation of the individual.
I realize that I am making strong statements here, but my life experiences have drawn me to these conclusions. Marriage is a big deal in the LDS church, and after finally deciding what I really think, I think the long-term, spiritual/salvation related implications are there to serve the temporal interests of the church more than perhaps I realized years ago.
Let’s try to steer clear of describing too much detail about sexuality. This conversation is productive, but getting too close to the line in some instances above. Thanks. Reference: Rules of Etiquette
I opened the door with my comment, but I agree with Brian – especially since I don’t think there is anyone here who doesn’t understand that there are multiple reasons why sexual activity isn’t possible in all cases. I’ll just say that the examples used are NOT cases of “incompatibility”. They are reasons why some people can’t have sex. Those are two very different things – and if not being able to have sex is the only reason someone wants a divorce, the divorce is all about sex and nothing more. It’s no different
from a practical standpointas someone asking for a divorce from a spouse who became paralyzed in a car wreck on the way back from the temple sealing and couldn’t have sex as a result. In both cases, there was no intent by either person to not have sex at the time of marriage; unknown and unexpected circumstances simply removed that possibility immediately. This is a different application, I know, but my dad found out that my mom is schizophrenic about six years after they got married – when she had her first break from reality. It changed his life radically, on a very practical level, since he had to become both father and mother to his children in most practical ways in order to keep her condition in remission with the help of medication. She became a totally different person than the woman he married – a very sweet, loving mother but one who couldn’t worry about anything whatsoever. He literally did everything for us – while working two jobs, as well. He wore himself out physically and emotionally for 40 years before having a stroke from which he still is recovering.
He said something to me a few years ago after my mom’s second break from reality. It took the doctors about four months to get her meds adjusted properly to push back the hallucinations and the other effects of her condition. After dealing with that, and having to continue to deal with her slowly advancing dementia, as well, he said to me:
I understand why some people get divorced from their spouses in situations like this – or put them in a home and never visit. I could never do that to your mother, but I understand why some people do.
Like him, I understand intellectually why someone would leave a spouse who can’t have sex – but I don’t think I could do it myself. I can’t know unless something happens to make me choose, but I also have had 26 years of a “normal” marriage in that regard – so I can’t judge anyone in SD’s situation who had to face it immediately upon marriage. All I can say as an unaffected friend is that I admire SD greatly for staying with his wife and making the best life possible despite that challenge.
Now, if my wife had known she couldn’t have sex and simply not told me – or lied to me . . . That changes the situation radically, in my mind.
The Rules wrote:
The List of Don’tsNo profanity – including derogatory words associated with racism, sexual orientation, etc.
No explicit sexual discussions.No specific descriptions of the signs and tokens from the temple ceremony. General discussion about the content and nature of the ceremonies are fine.
Please do not start discussions that lead to a debate with the results of finding the one correct answer to a problem. Topics like this will probably be moderated.
Topics and comments should not portray the beliefs of others (traditional Mormon, non-believers or those of other religions) in a disrespectful manner. This violates the mission and spirit of our community, and content like that will probably be moderated or removed.
Very well then.
The original intention of this particular thread was really just to introduce myself. It later became a means to have a road map. I do welcome other discussions and tangents as my life at times feels like one large tangent.
I enjoy reading your posts as they are very well written and well thought out. I also enjoy your personal insights of what you thought back when VS. what you think or feel now. I enjoy being able to see a life’s journey written in a condensed form.SilentDawining wrote:In my view, it is there to cement the growth of the church. JS, BY and subsequent leaders realized that one key to internal growth in the church is stable families. So, the faster they can get you married (young) having children immediately, and committing to a high stakes relationship on which your salvation depends, the better it is for this internal growth. The one-year penalty is another unfeeling case in point that puts the church’s priorities higher than the personal happiness and even spiritual well-being/salvation of the individual.
What is the one-year penalty. Are there multiple one-year penalty’s? What exactly are you referring to in this statement.I know that your example was just an example to make a point. However I felt the need to go into more detail for the sake of distancing myself from what was listed within the example. I respect and appreciate your thoughts and insights. I also appreciate your willingness to take a break from your day to help moderate and maintain this website.For now though I’m into project lose weight for the NAVY. I’ve been trying to exercise a bit everyday. Some days are better than others. I’ve also been switching up my diet. I’ve been taking green tea pills and will also drink green tea from time to time. My Bishop knows of this. I hope to measure up at the friendly requiting office within a week or two. Hopefully I will be down to the Navy requirements by then.
Thanks for the support thus far.
😈 GREEN
APPLES:angel: What is the one-year penalty. Are there multiple one-year penalty’s? What exactly are you referring to in this statement.The church has a policy that in certain parts of the world where temple marriages are recognized by law, that if a couple gets a civil marriage, they have to wait one year before getting married in the temple. It is meant to discourage civil weddings, and various reasons are given for it. There has been lengthy discussion about this on this site. I think there was one in November of 2009 when I first joined this site because it was the topic that made me feel safe sharing how I feel about it.
In areas of the world where temple weddings are not recognized by law, there is no such waiting period.
There is no such thing as a multiple one-year penalties. Each marriage is subject to the one-year waiting period though.
Just to be fully accurate, it isn’t referred to as a “penalty” – although it functions as one in practical terms. It’s referred to as a “waiting period”. Here’s a link to the first post about it that SD mentioned:
“The One Year Waiting Period”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1340&hilit=waiting+period Here’s a longer thread about it started by SD:
“Rationale for the Civil Marriage Waiting Period”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2641&hilit=waiting+period Feel free to comment on either or both of them.
SilentDawning wrote:In areas of the world where temple weddings are not recognized by law, there is no such waiting period.
There is no such thing as a multiple one-year penalties. Each marriage is subject to the one-year waiting period though.
I was just wondering if you meant the 1 year after baptism for an adult to even begin to qualify for a Temple Interview. In situations when a newly baptized guy or gal want’s to get married I suppose a civil marriage would be ideal for them. I also wondered if the church had a one year waiting period for marriage after a divorce or something of that nature. That is what I was mostly curious about I suppose.GREEN[/color] “> [/color] [/size] I thought I would look at my treasure map and see where I have been and where I may be going.Things are much better between my father and me. Things got better after I had some bible oaths done with him. I placed the giant family bible on the table and on top of that another large bible and on top of that my father’s personal scriptures and stacked on top of that was a small bible that once belonged to his father and my grandfather. He swore upon all these books that he would stop belittling, stop purposefully trying pick fights with me or throw punches at me. He promised to allow me to continue with my personal goals without his negative influences.
I had a stack of my own books and I swore upon them that if my father did not keep his promises that I would strike him down with the wrath of GOD and make him feel the pains of hell on earth!
I’m not sure exactly what that means but my Father has been nice to me ever since.
I stuck around for Christmas and my Birthday. I bought myself a mini stepper and have been stomping on that. I have also been going out jogging. I called the Navy office and told them to keep my file fresh and that I would be down there once I’m confident that I will measure up.
My Bishop has always been very supportive of me joining the Navy. He told me that if the only thing stopping me from joining is my waste line then he would be more than willing to help out. I will now be meeting up with him on a weekly basis and compare notes on my diet and exercise and try to figure out what works together.
I think part of the issues with my weight-loss before was the great amount of stress I had felt. now that I am more relaxed and with the aid of my bishop and others will aid me in getting down to where I need to be
I’ve been fighting a cold since the weekend. I hope to be over it soon. Illness always seems to throw things off a little bit. I think before the week is over I will be over my nasty little cold.
my goal is the NAVY. they’ve already done some background checks on me. All that remains is getting down to where I need to be, continue studying up so I can maintain the good ASVAB scores and then get my feet wet with the NAVY. I will keep you all updated on the events of the upcoming weeks.
GREEN[/color] [/size] “> APPLES[/size] Cut your carbs down, seriously it seems to work. Well I’ve been tracking carbs and calories with use of http://www.myfitnesspal.comhttp://www.myfitnesspal.com” class=”bbcode_url”> I thought I would write a slight update. I write this update while watching Dragonheart. As cheesy as some parts of this movie is I think I see myself in black night. A man who felt betrayed left his post for a time and then found a new way to get back to it.
Getting back into shapeI’ve been learning about food grouping. What I found most interesting is that proteins and Starchy foods are best not eaten together. Growing up in the American Moron culture I think I’ve almost always eaten meat with starchy foods.
There are charts that I’ve found on the internet of what foods are okay to go together and what foods should be eaten alone.
http://www.alderbrooke.com/chart.phphttp://www.alderbrooke.com/chart.php” class=”bbcode_url”> I am so very close to where I need to be.
OTHER THOUGHTSI was reading through my scriptures the other night and came across THE SCRIPTURE
The second Book of Nephi. Chapter 27 Verse 23
23 For behold, I am God; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.
This was
THE SCRIPTUREIt was the strong basis for my faith and perhaps the fall of my faith. If God is indeed the same yesterday,today and forever then why has so much changed? I’ve asked myself that question the more I learned about church history as well as the more I read between the old testament, new testament and other religious texts.
You know with all that I’ve been through I feel that I’m lucky. I am on good friendly terms with my bishop and he is aiding me with the information and materials I need to succeed and move forward to the next chapters of my life. I have plans to remain within the church but just on my own terms. Maybe one day I will feel the comfortable secure warmth of Fowler stage 5. Maybe in time I will feel ready and okay to go through the temple. Right now I feel that a fresh start in another land trying new things is what I need to reinvent myself and I feel like the Military will aid me in doing that.
I choose to join for the sake of serving my country and for the sake of building myself up, It is time to take the raw iron and turn it into steel and shape that steel into an instrument that will build success.
Yeah, church members eat far too many bad things. Loved the verse… that’s one of the great things about the BoM it has so many critics, yet so many insights!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.