reaction to sexless marriage and the sacrament


Recommended Posts

As always, I recognize that lds.net is very strict about sexual discussions, so if the admins feel that this needs to be closed or deleted, I will understand. I also hope that this discussion can be kept "generic" enough to not need to be closed.

 

http://ldsmarriagebed.blogspot.com/2010/12/sexless-marriage-and-sacrament.html

This is an essay written by an LDS marriage coach, and I am interested in a conservative LDS reaction to this. As I read the article, he uses the idea of marriage "covenant" and Elder Holland's old "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" talk to make sexless marriages out to be inappropriate or maybe even sinful -- to suggest that each spouse has some level of obligation to be sexually available to the other.

 

If the mods and admins will allow, I would be interested in this community's reaction to this article? What do you understand his overall message to be? What parts do you agree with? What parts do you disagree with?

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with this author's overall point. He has equated THE Sacrament with A Sacrament, saying that all types must be "partaken of" regularly. 

 

Here is Elder Holland's original explanation of the term:

 

 

 

Sexual intimacy is not only a symbolic union between a man and a woman--the uniting of their very souls--but it is also symbolic of a union between mortals and deity, between otherwise ordinary and fallible humans uniting for a rare and special moment with God himself and all the powers by which he gives life in this wide universe of ours.

In this latter sense, human intimacy is a sacrament, a very special kind of symbol. For our purpose here today, a sacrament could be any one of a number of gestures or acts or ordinances that unite us with God and his limitless powers. We are imperfect and mortal; he is perfect and immortal. But from time to time--indeed, as often as is possible and appropriate--we find ways and go to places and create circumstances where we can unite symbolically with him, and in so doing gain access to his power. Those special moments of union with God are sacramental moments--such as kneeling at a marriage altar, or blessing a newborn baby, or partaking of the emblems of the Lord's supper. This latter ordinance is the one we in the Church have come to associate most traditionally with the word sacrament, though it is technically only one of many such moments when we formally take the hand of God and feel his divine power.

These are moments when we quite literally unite our will with God's will, our spirit with his spirit, where communion through the veil becomes very real. At such moments we not only acknowledge his divinity, but we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves. Such are the holy sacraments

 

There is nothing in there at all about it needing to become a habit or something to be regimented or kept track of. And with that, I think the rest of the article is pretty much left unfounded. Yes, intimacy is important for the health of a marriage and its members. But it is not sinful to let that aspect of a marriage dwindle a bit, just so long as you are as united as you can be in other aspects. 

 

My parents have been living apart for almost 12 years. My father has been trying to find gainful employment in the US during all that time, but has been working in the Middle East the rest of the time. By the definition quoted in the article, their marriage is completely sexless, they only see each other one month or so out of every year. But they are more united than they have ever been, I think.. having to manage their household, the family, and their lives just by phone and email contact, and they are making it work. They aren't living in a state of sin by omission. 

 

Neither are any other couples who may have grown together toward "sexlessness." Obviously there are exceptions, but that's because there are other bigger sins in the lives of one or both members. Pornography use might have a lot to do with most of these instances, I would guess. But couples who have one or more members who are suffering from depression or other prolonged illness, or disability.. these people are not to be held accountable before God for their sexlessness. Even less so by a blogger without a degree in counseling or psychology or any other certification, or any other kind of "wise fool."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no fan either of psychology or of people who give sex advice. But I find myself mostly agreeing with what the author wrote. Sex is a sacrament of a sort, as Elder Holland said, and should be viewed as such. I really can't find very much that the guy actually wrote (versus what others might infer from what he wrote) that is objectionable. His line-in-the-sand timetables of "ten times per year" or whatever are bogus, of course, but I think his idea is generally sound.

 

Marital sex is one of the greatest of God's gifts to us, and in general should be exercised often. (What "often" means is not something I care to explore too deeply, though perhaps ironically, I would agree that less than once a month is basically "sexless".) Of course, some people cannot enjoy this "sacrament" regularly because of issues of distance or, perhaps, health. That's too bad, but let's not pretend they're necessarily offending the Spirit of God. Even cases where both parties (NB: BOTH parties) simply lose desire for sexual relations may not be "something wrong", though that does set off alarm bells. But people are different, and perhaps some couples simply don't have much libido. I don't see that as a sin or offense against God, any more than skin blemishes or bad posture is an offense against God.

 

I do think that sex is viewed in a very unhealthy manner by the majority of people, on all "sides" of whatever issue you care to bring up. That's a pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also largely agree with the author.

 

I agree spouses ought to be sexually open and available to them as much as possible. Now, that will vary from couple to couple and even the definition of sexuality will vary (as has been said, there are obstacles and possibly even just life that can get in the way.)

 

I feel couples who don't reasonably seek to overcome obstacles to sexuality are breaking, if not a covenant, something (apology for vagueness, but I think it's wrong to allow misery over sex in a marriage without seeking to fix it).

 

I don't think those incapable of sex ought to be banned from marriage (as long as the other spouse is aware and at peace with this fact) and I think the notion of "marriage must have sex to be holy" has too many exceptions to be a straightforward rule.

 

But to whatever degree possible, sexuality is good in marriage, desirable, and should be sought after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it.

So, a person who cannot engage in sexual activity in one form or another (such as caused by physical or psychological handicap) can't get married?

2 unrelated thoughts:

 

1) I don't think Coach Sam or anyone is trying to say that such "handicaps" should preclude someone from getting married. However, I also recall a recent discussion elsewhere on the topic of whether asexuals should marry. The general consensus that I see in such cases is, as Litzy says, they can enter marriage if both parties are aware of and agreeable to the challenges that face such a "mixed orientation marriage". Considering the generally low success rate of mixed-orientation marriages, many suggest that they should be approached with trepidation. Other disabilities create their own issues (both in and out of the marriage bed), and, again, will need extra consideration.

 

2) (rhetorical question) what kinds of "physical and psychological disabilities" really preclude and prevent a sexual relationship? I have seen anecdotes of parapalegics and quadrapalegics who claim to maintain "sexual relationships" with their spouses, though I am reasonably sure these look different than what normal able bodied people consider a "sexual relationship". Many people enter marriage with different emotional and psychological scars (including sexual abuse and rape victims), who manage to figure out how to have a sexual relationship (sometimes with 3rd party help).

 

I suspect that the number of sexless marriages caused by disability is rather small. From what I gather, the vast majority of sexless marriages are caused by differences in libido and willingness, and not by disability. I could be wrong in that, but that is the impression I get from those who study and discuss sexless marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see sex as a renewal of our marriage covenant, it certainly renews my commitment and desire to be with her in the CK.

 

I think however that when it comes to a sexless marriage, the important question is WHY is it a sexless marriage?  If there is some medical situation or military deployment etc. then I don't see why God would condemn them for it as long as they stay faithful to each other.  If it is sexless because one or both spouses are being unChristlike (selfish, petty, unforgiving, etc.) then the unChristlike behavior causing the sexless marriage is the problem and they are under condemnaton for that.

 

We should not focus on the external actions, we should focus on what is going on in the heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with this author's overall point. He has equated THE Sacrament with A Sacrament, saying that all types must be "partaken of" regularly. 

 

Here is Elder Holland's original explanation of the term:

 

 

There is nothing in there at all about it needing to become a habit or something to be regimented or kept track of. And with that, I think the rest of the article is pretty much left unfounded. Yes, intimacy is important for the health of a marriage and its members. But it is not sinful to let that aspect of a marriage dwindle a bit, just so long as you are as united as you can be in other aspects. 

 

My parents have been living apart for almost 12 years. My father has been trying to find gainful employment in the US during all that time, but has been working in the Middle East the rest of the time. By the definition quoted in the article, their marriage is completely sexless, they only see each other one month or so out of every year. But they are more united than they have ever been, I think.. having to manage their household, the family, and their lives just by phone and email contact, and they are making it work. They aren't living in a state of sin by omission. 

 

Neither are any other couples who may have grown together toward "sexlessness." Obviously there are exceptions, but that's because there are other bigger sins in the lives of one or both members. Pornography use might have a lot to do with most of these instances, I would guess. But couples who have one or more members who are suffering from depression or other prolonged illness, or disability.. these people are not to be held accountable before God for their sexlessness. Even less so by a blogger without a degree in counseling or psychology or any other certification, or any other kind of "wise fool."

I believe that Coach Sam has made significant studies in psychology, marriage therapy, human sexuality and sex therapy. I do not know what level of education he has attaned, but I suspect he is a little bit more than a mere "blogger" or "wise fool".

 

I am glad that your parents have a good marriage, in spite of being apart for 80% of it. Sexual issues aside, I'm not sure every marriage is capable of withstanding that level of separation. As I noted above, I also suspect that such "exceptions" to the rule are infrequent as a "cause" of sexless marriages. I am reminded of something Dr. Willard Harley said (http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5007b_qa.html ). " I've noticed that people are more likely to divorce a spouse that they think can meet their needs, but won't, than they are likely to divorce a spouse that can't meet their needs." This perception of "willingness" becomes important in many cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have thought further about the responses, would it be fair to say that most negative reaction is focused on the 10x per year that most therapists use to define "sexless" marriages? Perhaps, as Latter-day marriage suggests, it is more about deeper intentions and motivations, though these things can be much more difficult to measure. Frequency is relatively easy to measure (as long as the responder is "honest").

 

Michelle Weiner-Davis in her book "The Sex-Starved Marriage" suggests that a sex-starved marriage has very little to do with frequency. She says that a sex-starved marriage is "about the fallout that occurs when one spouse is deeply unhappy with his/her sexual relationship and this unhappiness is ignored, minimized, or dismissed."

 

How does your reaction change if we could take out Coach Sam's emphasis on frequency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we leave out the part about frequency, the entire article is reduced to what we already know, that sex is an important part of marriage and spouses should try to make each other happy in that and every other facet of marriage. The article said that because Elder Holland called sex a sacrament, it must mean that we must partake of it often or be held accountable. If we want to have a discussion about selflessness and attention to your spouse's needs, then we need a completely different article to use as a jumping off point, because Coach Sam's piece had very little to do with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we leave out the part about frequency, the entire article is reduced to what we already know, that sex is an important part of marriage and spouses should try to make each other happy in that and every other facet of marriage.

IMO, much of the success of Laura Brotherson's book And They Were Not Ashamed is because "we" (collectively) don't all "know" this. There seems to be a significant portion of us with "Good Girl Syndrome" who believe that sex is supposed to be an unimportant, insignificant part of marriage or some kind of "necessary evil". I don't know if "most" people have unhealthy attitudes and beliefs about sexuality as Vort suggests, but I do believe that a significant portion do. If, after wading through details that do not reflect "absolute truth", we can find true principles about sexuality in an essay such as this, I think it is a valuable effort.

 

The article said that because Elder Holland called sex a sacrament, it must mean that we must partake of it often or be held accountable.
This might be the key element of Coach Sam's essay that I would like to see reaction to -- the idea of equating "sexual relations" to a sacrament or an ordinance. In many ways, Elder Holland did it first, so it is perhaps how far do we take the metaphor and what conclusions we draw from that metaphor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know guys... this thinking is just so alien to me.

In my viewpoint, Sex is not something you must do... like washing dishes. Sex is the EXPRESSION of how you feel. It isn't scheduled. It isn't forced even if you don't feel like it. It isn't counted. It isn't even planned. It is in the same spectrum as picking up the phone and calling my husband because I want to tell him I love him. It's a result of what I'm feeling. It's an expression. I don't think, "Oh, it's already 9PM on a Tuesday, time to tell my husband I love him."... no, something triggers the desire to say it - either me feeling it or me seeing my husband needing to feel it.

But, sex, saying I love you, giving a hug, holding hands, heck - even washing the dishes are one of the MANY ways you express that LOVE. It goes OUT. I don't say, I love You to my husband so I can be elevated. It doesn't go IN... it goes OUT. So, I say, I love You because I want him to feel that I do. I hold his hand because I want him to feel he is loved. Goes out. Sex, same way - it goes out. I just happen to be one of the lucky ones where my husband does the same thing for me - so it seems like it's going towards me, but no... it's going out of me and going out of him... all out.

So, if you're not getting any... the problem is not the sex. The problem may be the LOVE. But even if you're not having any but you are getting all the other expressions of love, there is LOVE. It's not the end of the marriage!

But guess what - you can be going at it daily like rabbits, 1 million times in a year... it doesn't mean anything if you're just doing it to get off. LOVE. It's what marriage is all about.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like every other expression of faith, gratitude, respect, and love, sex could become part of "vain repetition" if it is done more for frequency's sake than anything else. 

 

I think it is a fair assumption to make that most "sexless" marriages have much bigger problems to work on, many bigger fish to fry, before their sex life can start to become the best it can be for both husband and wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know guys... this thinking is just so alien to me.

In my viewpoint, Sex is not something you must do... like washing dishes. Sex is the EXPRESSION of how you feel. It isn't scheduled. It isn't forced even if you don't feel like it. It isn't counted. It isn't even planned. It is in the same spectrum as picking up the phone and calling my husband because I want to tell him I love him. It's a result of what I'm feeling. It's an expression. I don't think, "Oh, it's already 9PM on a Tuesday, time to tell my husband I love him."... no, something triggers the desire to say it - either me feeling it or me seeing my husband needing to feel it.

But, sex, saying I love you, giving a hug, holding hands, heck - even washing the dishes are one of the MANY ways you express that LOVE. It goes OUT. I don't say, I love You to my husband so I can be elevated. It doesn't go IN... it goes OUT. So, I say, I love You because I want him to feel that I do. I hold his hand because I want him to feel he is loved. Goes out. Sex, same way - it goes out. I just happen to be one of the lucky ones where my husband does the same thing for me - so it seems like it's going towards me, but no... it's going out of me and going out of him... all out.

So, if you're not getting any... the problem is not the sex. The problem may be the LOVE. But even if you're not having any but you are getting all the other expressions of love, there is LOVE. It's not the end of the marriage!

But guess what - you can be going at it daily like rabbits, 1 million times in a year... it doesn't mean anything if you're just doing it to get off. LOVE. It's what marriage is all about.

 

I agree with the most part...  However I think MrShorty given what he has referenced isn't to worried about it when the amount is mutually agreeable... but more for when it is not.  When one partner wants more and the other less or none.

 

For example he reference the "Good Girl Syndrome" The very nature of this Syndrome is that the person thinks they are doing the right thing... therefore the problem must with their partner.  That problem can't be 'fixed' until the person realizes that they are the one that is a bit messed up.  That is where having some kind of baseline of what is acceptable (as crass as that is) becomes useful.  If the person with "Good Girl Syndrome" (it could be a guy) then sees the Sacrament comparison they might realize that they have a bit if a problem. And that could be the first step in them overcoming their problems. 

 

If this is true then its not about finding yet another way to label someone a sinner... But about helping married people work through some of the problems they might be facing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IMO, much of the success of Laura Brotherson's book And They Were Not Ashamed is because "we" (collectively) don't all "know" this. There seems to be a significant portion of us with "Good Girl Syndrome" who believe that sex is supposed to be an unimportant, insignificant part of marriage or some kind of "necessary evil". I don't know if "most" people have unhealthy attitudes and beliefs about sexuality as Vort suggests, but I do believe that a significant portion do. If, after wading through details that do not reflect "absolute truth", we can find true principles about sexuality in an essay such as this, I think it is a valuable effort.

 

My perspective on this is that there is a big difference between knowing something and feeling it. I am guessing that the majority of sisters, and maybe brothers too, who have this "good girl/boy syndrome," have heard talks or lessons about the role of intimacy in marriage, and that they know the facts about it. They just have difficulty internalizing those facts and understanding how it all applies to them and their marriage, and especially how to deal with negative feelings or insecurities they might have about sex and intimacy. I don't understand completely how geometry works, it certainly doesn't come easily to me, but that doesn't mean I don't know a lot of the principles and have not been taught them many, many times over. 

 

I agree that is is a valuable effort to try to help people who struggle with this problem. But only when we are armed with the most truthful and helpful information available, otherwise we are just adding unnecessary confusion to a subject which is already perceived by so many to be full of mixed messages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true then its not about finding yet another way to label someone a sinner... But about helping married people work through some of the problems they might be facing.

Yes, of course. But the analysis of the problem is based on the wrong foundation.

The problem becomes terrible when spouses look at sex as an I WANT thing... going IN. Trying to solve the problem by making the IN happen does not solve the problem and only leads to frustration.

The problem becomes a journey through the strait and narrow path that leads to joy when spouses look at sex as going OUT. Therefore, bridging the gap between somebody who doesn't have sex in the list of Love Expressions and somebody who has sex as the #1 Love Expression becomes rooted in LOVE and all the other love expressions come into play to ease the burden. It then becomes a matter of communication. Because, a spouse who doesn't have it on the list will be more than willing to put it on the list when she realizes, "whoa! my spouse really digs this thing! let me figure out how this thing works." And at the same time, the spouse having it #1 on the list is not going to care if he gets any because, "whoa! my spouse doesn't speak this language, maybe I can teach him/her... but in any case, maybe he/she really digs getting hand-fed popcorn while watching TV...".

So that, when it does happen, it is not rooted in the I WANT thing, rather it is deeply rooted in the LOVE thing. Which is how it should be.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know guys... this thinking is just so alien to me.

In my viewpoint, Sex is not something you must do... like washing dishes. Sex is the EXPRESSION of how you feel. It isn't scheduled. It isn't forced even if you don't feel like it. It isn't counted. It isn't even planned. It is in the same spectrum as picking up the phone and calling my husband because I want to tell him I love him. It's a result of what I'm feeling. It's an expression. I don't think, "Oh, it's already 9PM on a Tuesday, time to tell my husband I love him."... no, something triggers the desire to say it - either me feeling it or me seeing my husband needing to feel it.

But, sex, saying I love you, giving a hug, holding hands, heck - even washing the dishes are one of the MANY ways you express that LOVE. It goes OUT. I don't say, I love You to my husband so I can be elevated. It doesn't go IN... it goes OUT. So, I say, I love You because I want him to feel that I do. I hold his hand because I want him to feel he is loved. Goes out. Sex, same way - it goes out. I just happen to be one of the lucky ones where my husband does the same thing for me - so it seems like it's going towards me, but no... it's going out of me and going out of him... all out.

So, if you're not getting any... the problem is not the sex. The problem may be the LOVE. But even if you're not having any but you are getting all the other expressions of love, there is LOVE. It's not the end of the marriage!

But guess what - you can be going at it daily like rabbits, 1 million times in a year... it doesn't mean anything if you're just doing it to get off. LOVE. It's what marriage is all about.

I agree that these expressions of love are definitely "reactionary" -- we do them as a result of our feelings of love towards our spouse. I also see many (Dr. Gary Chapman might be the easiest to reference) who talk about being "proactionary" (if that is a word) in love as well. Especially when we consider the nature of marriage covenants, we are constantly admonished to do things that build, create, and strengthen those feelings of love. Most of my research suggests that sexual expression is (or can be) an important part of generating and strengthening love -- not just a reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that these expressions of love are definitely "reactionary" -- we do them as a result of our feelings of love towards our spouse. I also see many (Dr. Gary Chapman might be the easiest to reference) who talk about being "proactionary" (if that is a word) in love as well. Especially when we consider the nature of marriage covenants, we are constantly admonished to do things that build, create, and strengthen those feelings of love. Most of my research suggests that sexual expression is (or can be) an important part of generating and strengthening love -- not just a reaction.

Proactionary, of course. But, that is already considering that you don't have a problem expressing in that manner. I don't see "not being proactionary" as leading to problems with frequency. Because, if love isn't there, there's just no amount of proaction that is going to put it there. But, if love is there, the expression naturally follows (when both already communicate properly) at the very least, as a reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the most part...  However I think MrShorty given what he has referenced isn't to worried about it when the amount is mutually agreeable... but more for when it is not.  When one partner wants more and the other less or none.

 

For example he reference the "Good Girl Syndrome" The very nature of this Syndrome is that the person thinks they are doing the right thing... therefore the problem must with their partner.  That problem can't be 'fixed' until the person realizes that they are the one that is a bit messed up.  That is where having some kind of baseline of what is acceptable (as crass as that is) becomes useful.  If the person with "Good Girl Syndrome" (it could be a guy) then sees the Sacrament comparison they might realize that they have a bit if a problem. And that could be the first step in them overcoming their problems. 

 

If this is true then its not about finding yet another way to label someone a sinner... But about helping married people work through some of the problems they might be facing.

 

The "Good Girl Syndrome" is described in Laura M. Botherson's book as follows:

 

"A result of the negative conditioning that occurs from parents, church, and society as they teach - or fail to teach - the goodness of sexuality and its divine purposes." This conditioning leads to negative thoughts and feelings about sex and the body, resulting in an inhibited sexual response within marriage.[...] The Good Girl Syndrom represents a distorted image of what a "good girl" really is or should be. The good girl should be applauded for her desire to do what is right, but the unintentional overemphasis on the negative consequences of immodesty and immorality and the negative images in society lead many to incorrectly internalize negative teachings regarding sexuality. The good girl would rather err on the side of right than make a mistake, which is a good thing. But the sometimes unfortunate, unintended consequences are that she distances herself from anything percieved as bad or sinful to the point of not letting herself learn about or enjoy sexual relations even within marriage." 

 

In a lot of ways this seems to resemble, to me at least, a few common symptoms of those who have been sexually abused. IMHO, the correct approach is not to tell them they are "messed up" but to supply them with the necessary materials to help them to be able to notice, and correctly pinpoint their own insecurities and negative thought patterns. And then to support  them as they try to heal. Their responses, behaviors, and insecurities are not their fault, at least not until they have reached a certain point of understanding but refuse to seek help or try to heal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In a lot of ways this seems to resemble, to me at least, a few common symptoms of those who have been sexually abused. IMHO, the correct approach is not to tell them they are "messed up" but to supply them with the necessary materials to help them to be able to notice, and correctly pinpoint their own insecurities and negative thought patterns. And then to support  them as they try to heal. Their responses, behaviors, and insecurities are not their fault, at least not until they have reached a certain point of understanding but refuse to seek help or try to heal.

 

Please note my exact wording

 

"That problem can't be 'fixed' until the person realizes that they are the one that is a bit messed up. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Good Girl Syndrome" is described in Laura M. Botherson's book as follows:

 

In a lot of ways this seems to resemble, to me at least, a few common symptoms of those who have been sexually abused. IMHO, the correct approach is not to tell them they are "messed up" but to supply them with the necessary materials to help them to be able to notice, and correctly pinpoint their own insecurities and negative thought patterns. And then to support  them as they try to heal. Their responses, behaviors, and insecurities are not their fault, at least not until they have reached a certain point of understanding but refuse to seek help or try to heal.

 

There are plenty of people who get like that without being sexually abused, and in a fair number of cases those who have been abused become promiscuous as teenagers. 

 

I think the biggest factor is the attitude they pick up from their parents.  One of the challenges is that in this church a big portion of the members are converts who grew up in other faiths, and so there is constand influx of new members who have the ideas on sexuality they learned before they were members, and they pass that on to their kids.  Catholic theology in particular is rather hostile toward sex.  Just see how they react if you suggest Mary and Joseph had sex after Christ was born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I had a friend who confided in me that she hadn't had sex with her husband for 4 years. She had severe anxiety and I believe she was abused as a teenager by her father. I don't think any amount of explaining the necessity of it for her marriage or for her husbands sake, even comparing it to the Sabbath sacrament would do any good. She already felt so much guilt about it that comparing sex in her marriage to a religious ritual or rite would have only compounded the problem. She was Catholic but I don't think that had anything to do with her situation. ( I say "was" because she died of cancer at age 49)

 

There are 1001 reasons why women and men have negative feelings towards sex. In my opinion, it's just as important for the spouse that isn't getting any to be long suffering and patient and full of love as it is for the person who can't give out to try to overcome whatever is preventing them from desiring it and giving it. When the one who is deprived becomes sulky, pestery, whiney or even preachy about it, uh...that is about the biggest turn off ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I will bring this back from the dead to note Sister Nelson's 3rd point from the devotional Sunday evening. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng

Quote

The Lord wants a husband and wife to partake of the joys of marital intimacy. Marital intimacy is ordained by God. It is commanded and commended by Him, because it draws a husband and wife closer together and closer to the Lord (emphasis mine)

I recognize that I am assuming that she is using "intimacy" and "sex" almost interchangeably here (and I think the context of her talk makes it a good assumption). She says that [sex] is ordained, commanded, and commended. As with her book (Purity and Passion) she focuses exclusively on sexual misbehavior, and makes no mention at all about sexless marriages (she is talking to YSA's after all), but she does use the word "commanded".

Edited by MrShorty
add link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I will bring this back from the dead to note Sister Nelson's 3rd point from the devotional Sunday evening.

1 Corinthians 7:5 "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share