When I was elders quorum president several years ago, my bishop told me he was having a lot of couples come in and seek counsel about their sex lives. What was appropriate and when and how, etc. He asked me to teach a lesson in priesthood meeting about sexuality and about how to communicate needs and desires and resolve differences. But when I did a little research, I found that there was a lot of conflicting information, at least in what I had been taught.
On one extreme was this statement from President Kimball: "If it is unnatural, you just don't do it. That is all, and all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane. There are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it" (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.311-12).
Along these lines, the previous bishop had said in priesthood meeting that if you were concerned enough to ask the bishop, that meant you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. And of course there was the bishop I had who angrily condemned the purchase of lingerie, for whatever reason.
The current bishop told me he believed that a couple's sex life was something that they had to work out themselves, so if they were comfortable as a couple with their sexual practices, it was no one else's business.
I completely agreed with that bishop. But it seems to me that the more rigid counsel has been historically more prevalent. And judging by my experience with that bishop and teaching that class, the rigid instruction has caused no end of trouble for married couples in determining an appropriate and mutually satisfying sex life.
Counsel on Sexuality
-
_Belial
-
_Bond...James Bond
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4627
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am
-
_Belial
-
_Yoda
I've been pondering the meaning of "unnatural" for some time now and have come to a conclusion that it's a code word for "sinful" when used by the religious community. I sort of thought that it meant "If non-human animals do it, it's natural", but a lot of people disagree, apparently (while not doing me a favor by providing their own definition of "unnatural").
Oh yeah, and we all know that the statement that oral sex is an impure an unholy practice was made by the FP and so far no one has retracted it. So I would strongly advise the faithful to keep their mouths shut, so to speak.
Oh yeah, and we all know that the statement that oral sex is an impure an unholy practice was made by the FP and so far no one has retracted it. So I would strongly advise the faithful to keep their mouths shut, so to speak.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
-
_barrelomonkeys
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
That must be confusing for some if there's no definition for "unnatural". Is this really stressed in the Church now? I've heard different opinions on this.
I've read that the younger couples are more lax in the bedroom. Why is sex even brought up in the Church?
It's so odd thinking about sex and the LDS Church. First there was a man that started the Church that (I don't want to get into a discussion of this!) slept with other women besides his wife. Then that practice spread. Perhaps sex has to be looked upon as not pleasurable to help those early leaders leave behind the stain of lust?
Surely if they felt lust and not some eternal principle the entire argument for polygamy falls away. Make sex completely unnatural and rigid and who in their right mind would believe a man wants extra wives for any purpose other than glory in the Celestial kingdom.
Frankly it is really, really, really bizarre as an outsider to witness.
I've read that the younger couples are more lax in the bedroom. Why is sex even brought up in the Church?
It's so odd thinking about sex and the LDS Church. First there was a man that started the Church that (I don't want to get into a discussion of this!) slept with other women besides his wife. Then that practice spread. Perhaps sex has to be looked upon as not pleasurable to help those early leaders leave behind the stain of lust?
Surely if they felt lust and not some eternal principle the entire argument for polygamy falls away. Make sex completely unnatural and rigid and who in their right mind would believe a man wants extra wives for any purpose other than glory in the Celestial kingdom.
Frankly it is really, really, really bizarre as an outsider to witness.
-
_barrelomonkeys
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Just want to add: It makes complete and total sense that people could believe that polygamy was for some higher purpose than to satisy sexual needs if they view sex as bland and routine.
Absolutely makes sense when they may view sex in this distorted way that they would view what the early leaders did through these rose colored glasses.
Sex fun? Hell no! Not for me so surely it wasn't fun for them either.
blech.
Absolutely makes sense when they may view sex in this distorted way that they would view what the early leaders did through these rose colored glasses.
Sex fun? Hell no! Not for me so surely it wasn't fun for them either.
blech.
some thoughts that I was going to post on my blog and will later with a little more grace (hopefully)
1) I think the Church really F's a person's life up when it just says don't do these things, but that is it. For example. I posted a letter from the first presidency on MAD which was written in 1982 that said that oral sex was unnatural and unpure. I thought about that and if the natural man is an enemy to god then oral sex is really natural, but to them unpure.
2) Another thing is that the sex drive is not like Boyd K. Packer says a little train. It's a force. A huge biological force that is more like a gail force wind at your back. There is no excuse for anyone who stands at some youth fireside and says that a loving parent would rather see their child in coffin than lose their virtue. You have this biological force, you are curious, you have a culture that bombards you about sex, you hear your friends talking about it, the likelyhood that you will have premarital sex is extremely high. I remember (and I have searched for it but can't find it) about ten years ago I saw the results of a survey that a sociologist did at BYU and per that study seventy percent of married ladies in the survey said that they had intercourse prior to getting married.
3) I have read this a couple times that religion makes good people do bad things and it may be that religion causes good people to lie in situations that they normally would not need to. I know when I was growing up I told the Bishop that I did'New Testament masturbate when it was a on-going event, or I guess I said that I said yes when asked if I was "morally clean". I and likely a lot of LDS kids then have a guilt trip for masturbation and lying where some protestant kid has a minister who doesn't even care. To say that premarital sex is a sin close to murder, given the information listed above, about the sex drive as a force, is very reckless. You would almost need to homeschool a kid for eighteen years and then teach him that, but don't say that in the world that teenagers live in because because he or she is likely going to have sex prior to getting married and they are not and never will be close to a murderer.
1) I think the Church really F's a person's life up when it just says don't do these things, but that is it. For example. I posted a letter from the first presidency on MAD which was written in 1982 that said that oral sex was unnatural and unpure. I thought about that and if the natural man is an enemy to god then oral sex is really natural, but to them unpure.
2) Another thing is that the sex drive is not like Boyd K. Packer says a little train. It's a force. A huge biological force that is more like a gail force wind at your back. There is no excuse for anyone who stands at some youth fireside and says that a loving parent would rather see their child in coffin than lose their virtue. You have this biological force, you are curious, you have a culture that bombards you about sex, you hear your friends talking about it, the likelyhood that you will have premarital sex is extremely high. I remember (and I have searched for it but can't find it) about ten years ago I saw the results of a survey that a sociologist did at BYU and per that study seventy percent of married ladies in the survey said that they had intercourse prior to getting married.
3) I have read this a couple times that religion makes good people do bad things and it may be that religion causes good people to lie in situations that they normally would not need to. I know when I was growing up I told the Bishop that I did'New Testament masturbate when it was a on-going event, or I guess I said that I said yes when asked if I was "morally clean". I and likely a lot of LDS kids then have a guilt trip for masturbation and lying where some protestant kid has a minister who doesn't even care. To say that premarital sex is a sin close to murder, given the information listed above, about the sex drive as a force, is very reckless. You would almost need to homeschool a kid for eighteen years and then teach him that, but don't say that in the world that teenagers live in because because he or she is likely going to have sex prior to getting married and they are not and never will be close to a murderer.
I want to fly!