"The more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be"

[canard78]

The following statement, specifically in the context of discussing fulfilling sexual relationships, was made by Sister Nelson in last nights broadcast to young adults:

"The more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be"

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng

(19:13 on the full video) 

I'd be interested to hear from any of you who agree her statement. What I'd like to ask is for references and evidence. What evidence does she or you have to back up such a specific statement?

If one or both partners in a married Mormon couple is NOT finding their "marital intimacy" to be "marvellous" and "glorious" then is there an implication that one of them is not pure enough?

Is it either them or their spouse that is not holy enough and spoiling their intimacy?

In her talk she contrasts "worldly sex" with "God-ordained marital intimacy." She makes the point that the latter needs the presence of the holt spirit to be such. In that case, is a mixed faith or non-member marriage the former or the latter?

Phyisical intimacy has many, many aspects that can make it "marvellous" and fulfilling and many reasons why it might not be (for one or both in the marriage). What evidence is there that "purity" and presence of the spirit is one of those factors?

Given the sensitivity of the topic, can I suggest we discuss it "implicitly" rather than "explicitly?" Given it was raised by Sister Nelson and to a, relatively, young audience, I hope it's something we can discuss responsibly. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

The following statement, specifically in the context of discussing fulfilling sexual relationships, was made by Sister Nelson in last nights broadcast to young adults:

"The more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be"

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng

(19:13 on the full video) 

I'd be interested to hear from any of you who agree her statement. What I'd like to ask is for references and evidence. What evidence does she or you have to back up such a specific statement?

If one or both partners in a married Mormon couple is NOT finding their "marital intimacy" to be "marvellous" and "glorious" then is there an implication that one of them is not pure enough?

Is it either them or their spouse that is not holy enough and spoiling their intimacy?

In her talk she contrasts "worldly sex" with "God-ordained marital intimacy." She makes the point that the latter needs the presence of the holt spirit to be such. In that case, is a mixed faith or non-member marriage the former or the latter?

Phyisical intimacy has many, many aspects that can make it "marvellous" and fulfilling and many reasons why it might not be (for one or both in the marriage). What evidence is there that "purity" and presence of the spirit is one of those factors?

Given the sensitivity of the topic, can I suggest we discuss it "implicitly" rather than "explicitly?" Given it was raised by Sister Nelson and to a, relatively, young audience, I hope it's something we can discuss responsibly. 

Wow. Just got finished posting this on another tread! Karma! https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/01/marriage-technology-and-emotional-infidelity?lang=eng

Emotional fidelity, whatever its relation to the spirit, is pure and marvelous.

[canard78]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Wow. Just got finished posting this on another tread! Karma! https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/01/marriage-technology-and-emotional-infidelity?lang=eng

Emotional fidelity, whatever its relation to the spirit, is pure and marvelous.

Emotional fidelity is indeed pure and marvellous. But that's not what she said. She said as one become more pure ones sexual relationship becomes better/more marvellous. Do you agree with her?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Emotional fidelity is indeed pure and marvellous. But that's not what she said. She said as one become more pure ones sexual relationship becomes better/more marvellous. Do you agree with her?

Doesn't the presence of the Spirit of God -- that which brings light, life and divine LOVE to all things -- make everything better? In light of all the teachings of the Gospel, I don't understand how Sister Nelson's comment can even begin to be questioned. 

[Gray]

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Emotional fidelity is indeed pure and marvellous. But that's not what she said. She said as one become more pure ones sexual relationship becomes better/more marvellous. Do you agree with her?

Did she say "as one becomes more pure one's sexual relationship becomes better"

[canard78]

43 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Doesn't the presence of the Spirit of God -- that which brings light, life and divine LOVE to all things -- make everything better? In light of all the teachings of the Gospel, I don't understand how Sister Nelson's comment can even begin to be questioned. 

And do you support the proposal that the more pure one is, the more "marvellous" intimacy can be?

Have you considered the implications to the contrary?

If a person does not feel their marital intimacy is "marvellous," if it is actually unfulfilling and unsatisfying, is that a measure of their (or their partner's) individual purity?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, canard78 said:

And do you support the proposal that the more pure one is, the more "marvellous" intimacy can be?

Have you considered the implications to the contrary?

If a person does not feel their marital intimacy is "marvellous," if it is actually unfulfilling and unsatisfying, is that a measure of their (or their partner's) individual purity?

If she said 'can be' then that implies that there are also other issues that can affect intimacy than just pureness.  If she said 'will be' then i think you could hold her to the implications you outlined.

[canard78]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did she say "as one becomes more pure one's sexual relationship becomes better"

Hi bluebell, if you go to 19:07 on this link you'll hear her say "The truth is, the more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be."

When she says the above, she is showing a slides that says:

• Worldy Sex: Involves carnal, sensual, and devilish passions
• God-ordained marital intimacy: Involves Spirit-enhanced and purified passions 

Were you questioning whether she was really talking about sex in the original quote?

[canard78]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If she said 'can be' then that implies that there are also other issues that can affect intimacy than just pureness.  If she said 'will be' then i think you could hold her to the implications you outlined.

I've checked again in case I misheard. Definitely "will be."

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

The following statement, specifically in the context of discussing fulfilling sexual relationships, was made by Sister Nelson in last nights broadcast to young adults:

"The more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be"

I'd be interested to hear from any of you who agree her statement. What I'd like to ask is for references and evidence. What evidence does she or you have to back up such a specific statement?

If one or both partners in a married Mormon couple is NOT finding their "marital intimacy" to be "marvellous" and "glorious" then is there an implication that one of them is not pure enough?

Is it either them or their spouse that is not holy enough and spoiling their intimacy? 

I was there last night in the Mariott watching this. Funny enough, my friend I was with was wondering if I was cringing. I told her I had a few minor disagreements but generally agreed and had several things that I appreciated about it. Such as that passion wasn't in and of itself carnal.

That stated, I actually do mostly agree with her statement. I haven't had the best sleep so am not much in the mood to give scriptural indications for this....I might be able to later. But I'll give personal references for this from my job. I've seen this with couples that come in, were relatively "chaste" (not crazy puritanical mormons who barely kissed over the altar, just generally good at keeping some basic boundaries with a little play that didn't become overwhelming). Obviously if they're coming to see me, something is wrong sexually. But it's an honest relief when they don't have a lot of baggage under their proverbial belt. I remember one or two saying basically to situations where they couldn't have intercourse something along the lines of "well I've waited this long, I'll wait for as long as needed. I love you." And they work within the sexual/relational intimacy and parameters that are set out for them in order to heal. There's something very sweet about them that entails a level of respect, care, and patience that I think is often fostered by what they were (not) doing before marriage. This doesn't mean that other relationship with some hanky-panky before marriage or that entailed previous sexual partners or that had pasts with porn can't have this or who haven' necessarily developed much spiritually/emotionally for whatever reason. Particularly if they repented and had a little space to mature. It's just a little more likely and easier from the beginning. The basic principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are extremely good ones to practice in a marriage and foster more satisfying sex. Think of a lover who is loving, patient, temperate, long-suffering, peaceful, placing the other before oneself, charitable, seeking out knowledge and understanding, etc (hopefully, I'm just describing your spouse  ). Most of those can't be fostered in the way that "worldly sex" depicts intimacy.   

You can also google this and find some studies that point to what Sis. Nelson mentions such as this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html

I know. Huffington Post. I've seen more reputable sources. But again, I'm tired. And hungry. So that's what you're getting  

To the Second question, no. As I mentioned, they're coming into me for a reason. Just like following the law of tithing won't make you a millionaire, following the WoW will mean you will become an olympian and never experience health problems, and that following the Gospel of Jesus Christ means you'll get everything you want when you want it.......being "pure" doesn't mean you'll be a sexual Adonis or Venus or that there won't be sexual ups and downs. Or relational ups and downs. But in general, as a rule, it will be better or more likely to be. And even if there's sexual problem the relational ground may have more capacity to endure it and grow.   

To your third. No.....but sometimes yes. I know that's not the PC answer and I certainly wouldn't label it "holy enough" because it assumes worthiness based off of our own capacities. We all fall well short of that. But sometimes i have people coming in for problems and say....gosh this would go a lot better if you weren't so dang selfish. Or impatient. Or tended towards unkind words. Or defensive and self-justifying. Or sexually caustic and trending towards infidelity. Or a liar. Or taught by porn what sex should be. etc. All of these really hurt marital intimacy (That includes sex). All of these, in my opinion, define an impure state. Not a state that's JUST about sexual purity, but being cleansed by Christ.  Following the Gospel of JC means that these traits are chiseled away one after another. 

Quote

In her talk she contrasts "worldly sex" with "God-ordained marital intimacy." She makes the point that the latter needs the presence of the holt spirit to be such. In that case, is a mixed faith or non-member marriage the former or the latter?

Wanted to answer this one separately:  of course not! this assumes that people outside the church can't be touched by the Spirit. Our faith explicitly states otherwise. That said, I personally believe that a temple marriage where both are living up to said covenants and actively pursuing to take upon themselves the name of Christ have a great power afforded to them and that includes developing relational intimacy that is also, at times, sexual. And where Sis Nelson wasn't JUST talking about sex with intimacy in this talk, I think that having someone with similar spiritual values can be a very empowering thing. I don't have absolute proof on this one, sorry. It's a personal belief based on what I've seen from people I've known. And some studies that point to inter-religious marriages more likely to fail, particularly with certain faiths (like mormons and jewish people)

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 9, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Bobbieaware]

37 minutes ago, canard78 said:

And do you support the proposal that the more pure one is, the more "marvellous" intimacy can be?

Have you considered the implications to the contrary?

If a person does not feel their marital intimacy is "marvellous," if it is actually unfulfilling and unsatisfying, is that a measure of their (or their partner's) individual purity?

I would say both would have to be on board with the "purity thing" in order to have the marvelous intimacy of which sister Nelson speaks. And it also must be presumed both participants need to love the Lord, love each other, and have healthy, active sex-drives in order to have said marvelous experiences. Sister Nelson's council is a good general rule for normal, healthy men and women who are physically and emotionally capable of having intimacy. Doesn't her comment presuppose this is the case? Now for men and women who, for one reason or another, are incapable of 'performing' we're in different territory. But the bottom line is that intimacy with purity offers the BEST CHANCE to experience marvelous intimacy.

But with all the above having been said, isn't it obvious Sister Nelson's target audience is a large group of young adult boys and girls with burgeoning levels of sexual hormones? So (excuse my French) what she's saying is, "I know for the majority of you young people strong sexual feelings are beginning to be felt within your bodies, but if you want to have the best and most emotionally fulfilling sexual experiences, they must be engaged in in the Lord's way. So she was simply speaking of the Lord's reward to those who keep the law of chastity.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I've checked again in case I misheard. Definitely "will be."

 

21 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Hi bluebell, if you go to 19:07 on this link you'll hear her say "The truth is, the more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be."

When she says the above, she is showing a slides that says:

• Worldy Sex: Involves carnal, sensual, and devilish passions
• God-ordained marital intimacy: Involves Spirit-enhanced and purified passions 

Were you questioning whether she was really talking about sex in the original quote?

I was questioning whether she used the actual words you claimed she said, because right before that you were calling out a poster for putting words in her mouth.  Your quote of her also seemed to be putting words in her mouth but i wasn't sure because i didn't watch the whole link so that's why i asked for clarification.

I think her use of "worldly sex" compared to "marital intimacy" implies that she's not talking about sexual satisfaction as a promise of being pure.  She probably should have been more clear.

Edited January 9, 2017 by bluebell

[CV75]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

Emotional fidelity is indeed pure and marvellous. But that's not what she said. She said as one become more pure ones sexual relationship becomes better/more marvellous. Do you agree with her?

Sure, why not?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

Emotional fidelity is indeed pure and marvellous. But that's not what she said. She said as one become more pure ones sexual relationship becomes better/more marvellous. Do you agree with her?

Sure, why not?

[Thinking]

Does carnal have to be devilish?

[canard78]

25 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Does carnal have to be devilish?

Or how about sensual passion? Also devilish?

Or is there also holy carnal, sensual passion?

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

Given the sensitivity of the topic, can I suggest we discuss it "implicitly" rather than "explicitly?" Given it was raised by Sister Nelson and to a, relatively, young audience, I hope it's something we can discuss responsibly. 

I think the church has a very complicated record around this topic.  Its really just a mess, from polygamy to contraceptives, to instructions about what is appropriate for married couples in the bedroom, the church has been all over the spectrum on this issue.  

Does God want us to have a fulfilling intimate relationship with our spouse?  I think so.  I also think that church leaders need to quit the obsession with this topic and focus on the central messages of the gospel.  Seriously, I think there is an unhealthy obsession with talking about and wanting to shame and control church members around this topic.  Leave it alone and lets focus on serving others and doing good in the world.  

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Or how about sensual passion? Also devilish?

Or is there also holy carnal, sensual passion?

Last time I checked, sex was carnal.

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

The following statement, specifically in the context of discussing fulfilling sexual relationships, was made by Sister Nelson in last nights broadcast to young adults:

"The more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be"

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng

(19:13 on the full video) 

I'd be interested to hear from any of you who agree her statement. What I'd like to ask is for references and evidence. What evidence does she or you have to back up such a specific statement?

If one or both partners in a married Mormon couple is NOT finding their "marital intimacy" to be "marvellous" and "glorious" then is there an implication that one of them is not pure enough?

Is it either them or their spouse that is not holy enough and spoiling their intimacy?

In her talk she contrasts "worldly sex" with "God-ordained marital intimacy." She makes the point that the latter needs the presence of the holt spirit to be such. In that case, is a mixed faith or non-member marriage the former or the latter?

Phyisical intimacy has many, many aspects that can make it "marvellous" and fulfilling and many reasons why it might not be (for one or both in the marriage). What evidence is there that "purity" and presence of the spirit is one of those factors?

Given the sensitivity of the topic, can I suggest we discuss it "implicitly" rather than "explicitly?" Given it was raised by Sister Nelson and to a, relatively, young audience, I hope it's something we can discuss responsibly. 

My gag reflex just kicked in reading this...

[Thinking]

What bothers me about this talk is that she claims that there are different types of intimacy, but then is non-descriptive about them. Instead she uses words like carnal or devilish. This will lead young married couples to ask their bishops to clarify, which is an awkward conversation that should not have to take place.

[ERMD]

I think BD hit one out of the park.

[Tacenda]

I guess I don't like to think anyone such as God or the Holy Ghost should be around during marital intimacy. It feels just wrong. I once felt uncomfortable when my sister in law said she and her husband had a great sex life and she and her husband have served several missions.

Maybe I needed this talk early in my life.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

The following statement, specifically in the context of discussing fulfilling sexual relationships, was made by Sister Nelson in last nights broadcast to young adults:

"The more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be"

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng

(19:13 on the full video) 

I'd be interested to hear from any of you who agree her statement. What I'd like to ask is for references and evidence. What evidence does she or you have to back up such a specific statement?

If one or both partners in a married Mormon couple is NOT finding their "marital intimacy" to be "marvellous" and "glorious" then is there an implication that one of them is not pure enough?

Is it either them or their spouse that is not holy enough and spoiling their intimacy?

In her talk she contrasts "worldly sex" with "God-ordained marital intimacy." She makes the point that the latter needs the presence of the holt spirit to be such. In that case, is a mixed faith or non-member marriage the former or the latter?

Phyisical intimacy has many, many aspects that can make it "marvellous" and fulfilling and many reasons why it might not be (for one or both in the marriage). What evidence is there that "purity" and presence of the spirit is one of those factors?

Given the sensitivity of the topic, can I suggest we discuss it "implicitly" rather than "explicitly?" Given it was raised by Sister Nelson and to a, relatively, young audience, I hope it's something we can discuss responsibly. 

Hey Canard, this will be a brazenly off-topic post.

If you watched the address by President Nelson, perhaps you saw my photo that I shot a few months ago in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, when President Nelson, Elder Ballard and other Church leaders went there to observe flood relief and cleanup efforts by Mormon Helping Hands volunteers. The photo shows President Nelson standing at the pulpit in a stake center chapel with a sea of volunteers in yellow "Helping Hands" T shirts seated before him.

I didn't watch the broadcast. And I can't get the linked video to play on my computer right now. But I learned that President Nelson showed the picture when my missionary son in Sweden mentioned it in his weekly email to us this morning. He happened to catch part of the broadcast and recognized the photo from when I sent a digital copy to him a few days after I took it.

The circumstances of my shooting the photo are pretty memorable (to me, anyway). I was there on a Church News assignment to cover the visit by the general Church leaders. It was a sacrament meeting on a Sunday morning before the volunteers were to be sent out on their shifts to help individuals throughout the city and the area. I had been asked to help pass the sacrament because I was one of the few priesthood holders in the meeting wearing a white shirt. President Nelson remarked that the volunteers were such a striking sight that he wanted a picture to take back to Salt Lake City to show to President Monson. Then, he spontaneously called me by name to come up from the congregation and shoot the photo from the rostrum.

President Nelson has a good photographer's eye. I shot one frame as I was standing by his side at the pulpit. I showed it to him on the viewer of my digital camera. He said, "That's good, but it's not good enough." He told me to stand at the rear of the choir seats and shoot another one. It turned out to be a much better photo, the one that got published, the one that he posted on his Facebook page.

Now, I'm hoping I can somehow view the video so I can see how President Nelson used it in his talk.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I don't like to think anyone such as God or the Holy Ghost should be around during marital intimacy. It feels just wrong. I once felt uncomfortable when my sister in law said she and her husband had a great sex life and she and her husband have served several missions.

Maybe I needed this talk early in my life.

So the Lord's Spirit shouldn't be involved when the sacred earthly bodies of his sons and daughters are being created through his miraculous power of procreation?