Why do LDS members marry so fast?

[Anonymous]

I won’t speak for Ray, Rob, but I believe the key point of his post is this:

Old-Timer wrote:

The LDS Church itself also does not teach those things.

Individual members of the Church teach that sex is bad, nasty and/or inappropriate, but the percent is low; the vast majority of members of the Church teach that we should wait until marriage to have sex (which is a gift of God meant for marriage) – NOT that we should have sex with someone we love, without qualification.

I’ve gotten myself in trouble before on this point relating to what “the church” teaches on another topic. But “the church” does not teach that sex is bad. Some leaders (including perhaps a prophet) may have at one point taught something along the lines that sex is bad but “the church” does not currently teach this nor does the general leadership. As Ray points out, individual members of the church teach that sex is nasty and unfortunately some of those individual members are in positions of influence locally/regionally. I recognize you live in the heart of the Corridor and I live in the liberal East where others far outnumber members, but I do not believe for a minute that the majority or even a sizable minority of individual members in the Corridor or anywhere else are teaching children that sex is bad.

Church teaching (if there is any such thing) on the subject is very simple (and I think you know I like simple): That we have no sexual relations with anyone to whom we are not legally and lawfully wedded.

[Anonymous]

Just to stir up more mud …

I have had a hard time with the differences between doctrine, beliefs, teachings, principles, … The words themselves are a bit jello-ish to nail down.

I would say it this way. The church does not explicitly teach “sex is bad”, but within the church there are talks by top leaders ( https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng jumps to my mind) and downward in the organization that can make this an easy conclusion to draw. There are a very limited number of counterbalancing talks.

I had a close friend who was a bishop say, “They key to being a successful bishop is simple. Keep unmarried people from having sex and get the married people to have sex. That is all there is too it.” Another close friend told me about 2 months after becoming a bishop, “I can’t believe how many people have porn issues, but what really shocked me was how many people have marriage issues – especially in the bedroom.” I agree not all of these “issues in the bedroom” are always the good girl syndrome that Laura Brotherson mentions. Some can be a-hole husbands and other things. I have talked with several guys in my ward and some have said they didn’t even mention it to their bishop, but they have opened up to me on scout campouts and such. I assume many more don’t say anything. I did have one bishop that did “have a talk with the RS sisters” very bluntly. He said a few months later (when having a blunt talk with the men) that he was astounded at how many couples came forward to him and said they deal with this.

So in a way I do agree with Ray and DJ about it being a TEACHING, but I do agree to some of what Rob is venting. I very much feel that leadership is guilty of not trying to correct the issue. Even Pres Kimball said something to the affect of, “Even though the couple may not say it, the core issue in problem marriages is more often than not an issue that started in the sexual arena.” I don’t know if the leadership is unaware of the extent of the issue, don’t know how to fix it without fueling domineering husbands abusing (not physically) their wifes (deciding it is better to let some men suffer blue balls than have an increase in unrighteous dominion affect more women).

I am going to back off now as I am not sure we are going to resolve anything here. Go take it over to LDSSexuality.com to have those discussions.

[Anonymous]

I certainly share the questions and confusion about what’s doctrine, what’s a belief, what’s a teaching, what’s tradition. And there are several topics where I just wish the top leadership would come out and say stuff they don’t say just to clear the air. But that’s just it – we know by now they’re not about to do that for whatever reason. That is the reality.

You can read whatever you like into talks like Callister’s (and I am no fan of the guy), but he did not say sex is bad, that we shouldn’t have sexual feelings (he said the opposite in fact), or that sex is nasty or inappropriate. He did say to save it for someone you love – within the bounds of marriage. There’s no doubt he was attempting to paint sex outside marriage as sin and for those who believe the law of chastity (and I do) he’s absolutely passing along a church teaching which is probably also doctrine. Could we have got the message without the parts about porn and touching private parts? Sure. But if you’re reading things in that are not there it’s not his problem, it’s yours.

[Anonymous]

I think that you have clarified it a lot, Rob. I don’t think anyone can take issue with your statements here:

Rob4Hope wrote:

I know, for example, that I was hurt by teachings growing up. My friend Tiffany was, my friend Kimberly was, my friend Roger was, my friend David was, and probably a dozen others were….all in Utah.

People do get hurt by what they are told in church, some by church leaders with twisted ideas of sex.

Rob4Hope wrote:

I’m not saying the church blatantly teaches sex is bad

I agree.

I think we all agree the church can better teach it’s members how to better talk about sex.

Rob4Hope wrote:

And I’m sorry to be doubling down on this….I want to be understood.

I think that is what we want to do here. Getting nit-picky on wording isn’t always needed, but to understand some things better, there are times it is important to clarify statements to separate out feelings, experiences and viewpoints from facts. I think that helps us process things and learn.

The 4 experts you quotes give some perspective, and some data. It is interesting stuff you present. None prove the church teaches these things, they only support the idea that people in the church have issues talking about sex. Again, that sounds nit-picky, but it is an important distinction.

Quote:

at one time they made sex for pleasure and anything outside of child birth bad

this statement is suspect to me. I don’t know that the church taught this as an official LDS church teaching. I would challenge that and have to research that.

Sorry to pick through your statements. Those are just my thoughts as you stated you wanted to learn. You might consider my perspective as you learn, as your thoughts help me learn.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Quote:

at one time they made sex for pleasure and anything outside of child birth bad

this statement is suspect to me. I don’t know that the church taught this as an official LDS church teaching. I would challenge that and have to research that.

Sorry to pick through your statements. Those are just my thoughts as you stated you wanted to learn. You might consider my perspective as you learn, as your thoughts help me learn.

This one goes back several years into things like Joseph Fielding Smith. Here is something that was published in Dialogue that will make it more clear….

Romel Mackelpgrang wrote:

“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).”

There seems to be 2 general concerns:

1. Is there a problem or not in the first place? Some on this board say: “No problem. The church is not teaching bad things…so what’s the issue?” Well, my teachers taught me. My leaders taught me. The culture around me while attending church taught me. I beg to differ, but was I the only one taught these things?…and is there a silence on the issue now?

2. If there is a problem, what is being done about it?

Why would SWK say people are getting divorced over sex unless THEY WERE?

Are divorces still happening over sex like they were in SWK days?

And, if the church knows about this divorce problem and marriage is a big deal,…what is the church doing about it?

And, is silence on the goodness and appropriateness of sexuality in marriage enough to offset the immense negative warnings we receive about some types of sexuality?

I’m gunna leave those questions dangling out there.

I guess something Ray said above just … I don’t know … got me thinking again.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

There seems to be 2 general concerns:

1. Is there a problem or not in the first place? Some on this board say: “No problem. The church is not teaching bad things…so what’s the issue?” Well, my teachers taught me. My leaders taught me. The culture around me while attending church taught me. I beg to differ, but was I the only one taught these things?…and is there a silence on the issue now?

2. If there is a problem, what is being done about it?

(emphasis added)

That is the issue, Rob. Taught is past tense. The most recent quote you gave in your last citation is 40 years old. I don’t think anyone here is saying that at one time the teachings about sex were more shaming and intrusive than they are now. That was not limited to Mormonism.

38 years ago we were taught that Blacks would not receive the priesthood – with some even going so far as to say never. The church does change.

I know it’s not as easy as just saying let go – but that’s what you need to do. Put your behind in the past. The church, which moves very slowly, is moving past that, it’s time for the members to do so as well – and most of us have. You’re not going to heal until you can let go and trust in Christ’s atonement.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Church leaders say little or nothing regarding the physical and emotional pleasure, satisfaction, and bonding that are possible in a healthy sexual relationship.

That is my understanding as well. The church says little, teaches little. That would then disprove the statement

Quote:

at one time they made sex for pleasure and anything outside of child birth bad.

What the quote by Romel Mackelpgrang does suggest is that because of clear teachings by the church, many members and leaders are left to speculate and to determine for themselves what is right and good. What is right and good for one person, is not right and good for me. It is just a data point on my consideration of what I feel good doing. Therefore, it seems your quotes are supporting the fact that the Church has not formally taught this, supported by Mr Mackelpgrang’s statements. It is speculation and opinion. You can take it or leave it and be a mormon.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Why would SWK say people are getting divorced over sex unless THEY WERE?

You’ve lost me. Where did he say this? Regardless, this issue is not a Mormon issue. It is not happening in the LDS church only, it’s happening in society among several religious and cultural groups. Right? LDS teachings don’t create this problem.

Rob4Hope wrote:

if the church knows about this divorce problem and marriage is a big deal,…what is the church doing about it?

I believe they are preaching love and commitment and purity in marriage. They counseled me against getting divorced, tried to help understand my marital problems, offered advice…and told me it was up to me to choose.

Rob4Hope wrote:

is silence on the goodness and appropriateness of sexuality in marriage enough to offset the immense negative warnings we receive about some types of sexuality?

In some situations, yes. There just are awkward times talking about details of sex is not uplifting spiritually, or appropriate for all people (or kids). On the practical side to minister to families who are struggling in marriage, love and comfort and teaching principles of love and service in marriage is probably what the church should do. And as leaders try that, they begin sharing their personal beliefs as guided by the spirit…and sometimes they get it wrong, even if intending to help or having interpretations of some obscure quotes by prophets and how to apply them. I had that experience with my bishop as I went through my divorce. He didn’t understand what I was going through…he never experienced it. He wasn’t reading a policy manual to me, he simply had opinions of sex and marriage and divorce and talked to me about them. And I disagreed and stopped asking him about it. He was wrong because he didn’t know my situation the way God does. He hurt me, and so I stopped asking me because I didn’t want to keep getting hurt. My next bishop was a great guy. Was there for me, served me, supported me. He knew what it meant to teach and minister. So…which church teaching was right? The 1st bishop or 2nd? The church teachings were the same, no different. It wasn’t the church. It was how leaders taught it, not the gospel teachings themselves. That isn’t to say my pain and hurt wasn’t real…and I know your pain is REAL and not your fault. You weren’t the problem. The way it was taught to you was. But that is not the church.

Because I don’t think marriage therapy comes from bishops.

I don’t think sex therapy comes from the church.

I don’t think that chemotherapy to fight cancer comes from the church.

I have no doubts you have been hurt, and totally believe you and all your friends you’ve talked with. The problem isn’t you. The problem was the way you were taught. But that is not the same thing as saying the church teaches sex is bad unless making babies … which would be someone’s opinion which I disagree with. No church teaching says the church teaches that.

So, I don’t disagree with you on the problem that members are not understanding sex and it affects marriages.

I disagree with some of your statements that seem to claim it is church teachings, and the way you phrase things SWK said or Joseph Field Smith or other things that are interpretations of teachings.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Some on this board say: “No problem. The church is not teaching bad things…so what’s the issue?” Well, my teachers taught me. My leaders taught me. The culture around me while attending church taught me. I beg to differ, but was I the only one taught these things?

I have never said it is not an issue. The problem I see is your teachers, your leaders, and the culture. You are not the only one.

My approach for finding solutions is not to require the church to change so they can teach me about sex. I don’t want their teaching on it. Just like I don’t want them giving me chemotherapy. It’s outside their stewardship, even if others have faith they can heal a marriage or cancer with their prayers. I don’t believe that. The church doesn’t have authority to do those things.

[Anonymous]

I have to read this all more carefully, but what got me going is what Ray said about the “save it for someone you love.”

That is a contemporary teaching as taught by this therapist who was commissioned by Area Authorities. And he was pointing out that in SL county, this was a problem in the church.

Is that in dispute?

I will respond later on this. Or not.

But I’m tired. Ok…I conceed. Let me say in closing that the contemporary problem of Good Girl Syndrome doesn’t exist. Therapists like brotherson and the others are wrong.

It’s all false. No teachings from the church currently send guilt messages that hurt people’s sexuality at a core value. The message of “save it for someone

you love” as told by this therapist is a fabrication.

What was I thinking…

I was actually reading other people’s research from hard data gathering. I wonder how they could have missed it so badly…

I don’t know how else to close this…

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Hi Rob,

I think I get what you are talking about. I know that I am trying to raise my two young children (10 yr old girl and 8 yr old boy) in a way that is open about bodily functions. The human body is like a little miracle everyday that it continues to function. It is to be appreciated and respected. Valued for where it can take us in terms of physical activity, thinking, inventing, feeling, and experiencing.

I believe that the sexual component of the body is yet another cool and near miraculous function of the body. I do not believe in heaping embarrassment or shame upon this issue. Nor do I try to emphasize it or make it bigger than what it is. The sexual and reproductive components of the body are pretty amazing – but they are just one piece of the puzzle of what our bodies do for us (both in the tiny, monotonous, largely unnoticed breaths and heartbeats and the incredible lifetime achievements that bodies can help us reach)

That is what I am trying to do for my children as they navigate a world filled with conflicting and sometimes very negative messages about bodies and sexuality (coming from both the church and the secular world). I am just trying to do right by my kids.

[Anonymous]

Rob & Heber, it may seem like a paradox (maybe especially to you, Rob) but I think you’re both correct in your views.

Rob, thanks for responding to me a while back in such a respectful and thoughtful way. I’m not going to quote it, but there was one thing I wanted to clear up:

I mentioned in my post how I know of damaging experiences in which when a man is cheating on his wife or has gotten heavily into pornography, the Bishop says the wife should have sex with him more often and indicates that she bears some of the responsibility for her husband’s problems, even when she’s fighting for the marriage and is already heartbroken. You said that you’d never heard of that situation but you’d take my word for it.

I know of multiple instances of this happening. One of them is very personal.

I believe, similar to situations in which the Bishop is informed about sexual abuse but they do nothing to stop it or even blame the victim, sometimes, Bishops don’t want to believe or accept that their buddy is actually treating their spouse very badly. To accept this would be a scary reality for the Bishop, so he chooses not to. Instead, he buys into the husband’s justification that “she just doesn’t validate me anymore” for his continued adultery and tells the cancer-stricken wife who does all the housework with no help, that she’s not being “supportive” enough of her husband. He tells the wife whose self-esteem has taken a huge hit because her husband is so into porn that sex preferences have been significantly warped, to the point that he only likes violent and aggressive sex, and that he doesn’t like her body anymore, that she needs to work harder to please him. Experiences vary. Leadership roulette. I just wanted to expand on that since you hadn’t heard of those instances before. I think this forum is very valuable because we can learn from people of diverse experiences. I’ve gotten that out of this thread, even if I’ve mostly lurked in it.

[Anonymous]

Getting back to the original question:

Q: Why do LDS members marry so fast?

A: Because they want to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z34r0ZVD_K0” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z34r0ZVD_K0

[Anonymous]

university wrote:

Rob & Heber, it may seem like a paradox (maybe especially to you, Rob) but I think you’re both correct in your views.

Rob, thanks for responding to me a while back in such a respectful and thoughtful way. I’m not going to quote it, but there was one thing I wanted to clear up:

I mentioned in my post how I know of damaging experiences in which when a man is cheating on his wife or has gotten heavily into pornography, the Bishop says the wife should have sex with him more often and indicates that she bears some of the responsibility for her husband’s problems, even when she’s fighting for the marriage and is already heartbroken. You said that you’d never heard of that situation but you’d take my word for it.

I know of multiple instances of this happening. One of them is very personal.

I believe, similar to situations in which the Bishop is informed about sexual abuse but they do nothing to stop it or even blame the victim, sometimes, Bishops don’t want to believe or accept that their buddy is actually treating their spouse very badly. To accept this would be a scary reality for the Bishop, so he chooses not to. Instead, he buys into the husband’s justification that “she just doesn’t validate me anymore” for his continued adultery and tells the cancer-stricken wife who does all the housework with no help, that she’s not being “supportive” enough of her husband. He tells the wife whose self-esteem has taken a huge hit because her husband is so into porn that sex preferences have been significantly warped, to the point that he only likes violent and aggressive sex, and that he doesn’t like her body anymore, that she needs to work harder to please him. Experiences vary. Leadership roulette. I just wanted to expand on that since you hadn’t heard of those instances before. I think this forum is very valuable because we can learn from people of diverse experiences. I’ve gotten that out of this thread, even if I’ve mostly lurked in it.

University, I hear you. I think it is wrong for a bishop or husband to EVER treat a woman that way, especially a wife. It is just plain wrong. And I respect what you have said here.

I’m not going to post any more on this topic after this post….you can only kick this dead horse so many times.

I will close out with this quote.

Spencer Kimball wrote:

Sex and its related intimacy issues are among the leading causes of

divorce. Spencer W. Kimball has said that although most people don’t

divulge this information in divorce court he believed that sex was one of

the primary causes of divorce (Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W.

Kimball, 312)

If this is the case back then, and a major finding of authors like Laura Brotherson is “Good Girl Syndrome” (GGS) which happens when religious ideals of spirituality are pitted against sexuality in an adversarial way, is it possible that the flip side of what you mentioned University could be possible? Strongly patriarchal societies like the LDS church are very prone to this type of polarization (Finalyson-fife found this to be true). And, if there are few if any messages that enthrone the joyful union of husband and wife for pleasure, then is there really a counter-balance for the fallout from GGS?

Perhaps not. Religious teachings and sex between married people for fun have been at enmity since the “mortify the flesh” days with our Pilgrim ancestors.

GGS is a problem. Abusive husbands who require or DEMAND sex is a problem. Both are wrong. As one seeks to solve one side of the problem, they can inadvertently marginalize the other. I think the problem you mentioned University is a BIG problem…and GAs attack it (but some bishops and others are idiots and cause more damage like you mentioned). But, if the message is unilaterally to men to “control YOURSELVES”, then at what point is the message to “Have a little [appropriate] fun”?

An example of the one-sidedness that causes some of this problem?

GAs make it clear that parents are to teach their children at age appropriate times the dangers of things like pornography. But I have yet to hear a GA ever encourage parents to teach children at age appropriate times about the joyful and appropriate happiness that comes from sexuality between married people. Seems pretty one sided to me.

Many say that the church has no business teaching about sexuality or encouraging this or that. I agree. So, the message is one sided, and the counter message from the parents, if there is any at all, is not adequate. Everyone teaches the negatives, but who is teaching the positive? Most families, according to SWK, are having sexual problems themselves. How are they going to teach their own children when they themselves are having marital problems.

The positives receive so little air time, they virtually don’t exist. So GGS goes on and on (and Good Boy Syndrome does as well) while the divorce courts brim and the thunder rolls (from both sides of this pendulum swing — the ‘act out’ and the ‘act in’).

Nuff said.

My posting on this topic is over.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Getting back to the original question:

Q: Why do LDS members marry so fast?

A: Because they want to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z34r0ZVD_K0” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z34r0ZVD_K0

Excellent point that wasn’t really played out here. While we can point at current American norms and talk about the sex factor, there is another viewpoint to look from. If a couple love each other and have already decided they want to spend eternity together, why not get married fast? They could actually want to for no other reason than they are in love.

[Author]

Posts