Sexuality And Marriage In The Bible

[stephenpurdy]

I live in Texas, so its not like I get BYU radio down here.  Often I listen to the Christian radio station and my favorite guy is John MacArthur.  

 

Yes he is a Trinitarian (and leans towards Calvinism to boot), but he also often gives great insights into Biblical context (historical and textual).  This week he spoke about Sexuality and Marriage in the Bible, and I found much of what he said to be insightful.  Here are the links:

 

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1827/Christian-Liberty-and-Sexual-Freedom

 

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1828/To-Marry-or-Not-to-Marry

 

-Stephen

[aurelio]

I live in Texas, so its not like I get BYU radio down here.  Often I listen to the Christian radio station and my favorite guy is John MacArthur.  

 

Yes he is a Trinitarian (and leans towards Calvinism to boot), but he also often gives great insights into Biblical context (historical and textual).  This week he spoke about Sexuality and Marriage in the Bible, and I found much of what he said to be insightful.  Here are the links:

 

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1827/Christian-Liberty-and-Sexual-Freedom

 

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1828/To-Marry-or-Not-to-Marry

 

-Stephen

I've read several books by MacArthur.  Generally, I like his writing and enjoy listening to his radio show.  I can't say I agree with everything he has to say, though.  I recently read his book "The Gospel According to Jesus."  He spends time talking about Lordship.  It made me think.  Jesus can be your God but is He your Lord?  OK.  That's part of the "Lordship Salvation" thought, and I didn't agree with it all, but it did make me stand back and think about it some.  It changed how I thought about my relationship to the Lord.  

[aurelio]

MacArthur doesn't just lean toward Calvinism.  He is very much a self identified Calvinist.  It is very evident from his NKJV Bible and from his books.  He has a discussion about it here.

Yes he is a Trinitarian (and leans towards Calvinism to boot), but he also often gives great insights into Biblical context (historical and textual).  

[BlueDreams]

I really hesitate when reading from a solely religious standpoint about anything to do with sexuality. I know that probably sounds bad, but I'm talking as one who deals with people's sexuality on a daily basis (I'm a therapist specializing in sexual concerns). So, yeah I have some issues with this straight off the bat based on both my work and my personal deep musings about this topic. I've only read half way through the first article (sermon?) you posted and I've already got my problems. Funny enough, the chapters he's using in Proverbs are the ones that I was reading in the temple a couple of weeks ago.

 

My problems aren't entirely with him...some are just in the limitations of the scriptures. One big problem I have is that it's solely from a male perspective about sex and sexual sin. Part of that is from the limitation of the Scripture that obvious notes the fidelity of a male moreso than a person. What do you expect from millenia old proverbs? The thing is, he also falls into the same perspective limitation, which make some on this inadvertently lacking. He also (so far) misses the opportunity to address/highlight the use of feminine language that is available in those verses. So this talk comes off as very dude-oriented....and leaves women kinda splitzed as either your wife, the adulteress, or the prostitute (the latter are working to ensnare the man). It's just lightly scented with a view point that can inadvertently be harmful to women.    

 

The other problem, and the one I was somewhat expecting...is his use of exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims such as this:

"There is no other sin that a man or a woman commits that has built into it the deep-rooted damage that the sin of sexual immorality has.  It has destroyed more people than drugs or booze ever together ever could have destroyed." 

 

He gives no stats for this, no basis for his assetion, nothing....just throws it out there like it was nothing. And I may agree if he weren't talk just talking about some form of consensual sex. But that's all he's talking about. No sexual violence, power dynamics, etc. 

 

Much of this he just quotes straight up and then gives a "yeah, this" type of commentary. 

 

Another problem, that I was expecting, is the hyper focus on the damaging effects of sexual sin. The problem is that he doesn't differentiate (this is also a problem that we LDS also have). Is sleeping with prostitutes and cheating with your neighbors wife devastating?...yeah.  It's awful. But there's little differentiation between that and your everyday sexuality. The worse was when he starts talking about the enslaving effect of physical touch....including holding hands and a first kiss:

 

"You desire to touch and you put your arm – I’ll never forget the first time I kissed a girl.  Just bells and the whole thing.  You think back to that first experience.  Then all of a sudden you realize you’re in a trap, man, and you’re caught on this deal and where are you going to go?  You just get further and further on to say, “This is how the sexual thing works.”  It becomes an enslaving thing."

 

This is awful. And one of the bigger problems I see. You can't talk about physical intimacy of every level, that in a good relationship is health and clean and fine in this manner. You just can't. PArticularly for women (but also for men), many of whom I've met have been culturally taught so heavily that their sexuality is heavily repressed. Physical expression becomes difficult with this sort of mentality, male or female. 

 

Other issues later down: 

"If you’re looking at something that isn’t good get out of there.  If you’re reading something that isn’t good junk it.  If you’re in a situation that’s going in the direction of compromising, “Sorry,” go.  You say, “Well they won’t understand.”  Well who cares whether they understand.  Just get out of there.  Some simple solutions, aren’t there?  Everything isn’t complicated."

 

Easier said than done. This idea can inadvertently lead to a heavy dose of shame when a person can't seem to stop just that easily. Which, Ironically compounds the issues and maintains that problem behaviors.

 

"You know it is far more destructive than alcohol.  It is far more destructive than drugs.  It is far more destructive than crime.  It is the deepest, penetrating sin that a man can commit because it unites him to another person in the vileness of that sin..... All sin blackens.  All sin devastates but this sin destroys a person at the roots of his being.  It harms him.  It devastates him.  It enslaves him and it just diametrically opposes everything God intended for the body of a Christian.  It’s for the Lord and it’s one with Christ."

 

Again, where does he get this? And he doesn't differentiate....and there is a difference between spending tons of money on prostitute and adultery compared to having a healing monogamous relationship when one isn't married. It's not the same as a gamut of sexual sins that a person can commit. It's like saying lying is horrifyingly evil...just look at embezzlement schemes. And then he goes further and states "You say, “Well what’s a prostitute?”  Anybody who prostitutes the right meaning and use of sex." So if you've lied you've embezzled. If you've slept with your significant other you're a whore.  

 

What this ends up looking like for the individual who hear this is what I'm most concerned about. For some, who has a great sex life with their respective spouse with few to no problems....there may not be an issue. For the person in some form of sexual sin, this may be completely ignored (someone calls out bull because their form of whatever fornication has been good....they may have felt some form of healing within these relationships, they may be in the most healthy relationship they've ever had (including with a former spouse who was abusive or sexually humiliating, etc)). Ergo the idea of sexual "purity" is roundly/prematurely dismissed. Or it can be taken too personally, leading to not godly guilt and repentance...but shame and isolation. I don't say this hypothetically...I've seen all of these scenarios in some way shape or form because of similar messages.

 

So no, I don't find this sermon at all good.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited July 17, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Robert F. Smith]

"Sexuality and marriage in the Bible" is very much concerned with the culture of the time, and the Bible covers a long period of time and a variety of different cultures.

 

The rules are generally well-understood by the community at large.  Biblical narrative describes how that works in practice, and specific rules are sometimes listed (as in Leviticus).  Marriage, for example, generally consisted of no ritual. other than the agreement between the suitor and the father -- and a dowry or bride-price being paid.  The consummation of the marriage was very simply the sexual reproductive act itself.  No priest presided at any stage, except at the birth of the first son, when he accepted the redemption payment from the parents (a Mosaic rule).  Levirate marriage was arranged in the presence of some authoritative figures (in the book of Ruth it is done at the City Gate).

 

Any esoteric rites remain obscure in the Bible, probably deliberately so.  In Ruth 3:2-4, for example, only an endowed Mormon would understand the full meaning of the sequence of washing, anointing, and clothing, and going up (LXX) to the sacred site (a threshing floor also being the site for the Jerusalem Temple, II Sam 24:18,24), which takes place at the center of a chiasm and in the midst of a series of covenant terms.  A similar sequence can be found in II Sam 12:20, Ex 29:4-11, and Lev 8:6-31.  See Edward F. Campbell, Ruth, Anchor Bible 7 (Doubleday, 1975), 113,118-119, recognizing that the threshing-floor at Tell Gezer was at the highest point of the Tell -- where one would typically place an altar or temple.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[AddamS]

I really hesitate when reading from a solely religious standpoint about anything to do with sexuality. I know that probably sounds bad, but I'm talking as one who deals with people's sexuality on a daily basis (I'm a therapist specializing in sexual concerns). So, yeah I have some issues with this straight off the bat based on both my work and my personal deep musings about this topic. I've only read half way through the first article (sermon?) you posted and I've already got my problems. Funny enough, the chapters he's using in Proverbs are the ones that I was reading in the temple a couple of weeks ago.

 

My problems aren't entirely with him...some are just in the limitations of the scriptures. One big problem I have is that it's solely from a male perspective about sex and sexual sin. Part of that is from the limitation of the Scripture that obvious notes the fidelity of a male moreso than a person. What do you expect from millenia old proverbs? The thing is, he also falls into the same perspective limitation, which make some on this inadvertently lacking. He also (so far) misses the opportunity to address/highlight the use of feminine language that is available in those verses. So this talk comes off as very dude-oriented....and leaves women kinda splitzed as either your wife, the adulteress, or the prostitute (the latter are working to ensnare the man). It's just lightly scented with a view point that can inadvertently be harmful to women.    

 

The other problem, and the one I was somewhat expecting...is his use of exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims such as this:

"There is no other sin that a man or a woman commits that has built into it the deep-rooted damage that the sin of sexual immorality has.  It has destroyed more people than drugs or booze ever together ever could have destroyed." 

 

He gives no stats for this, no basis for his assetion, nothing....just throws it out there like it was nothing. And I may agree if he weren't talk just talking about some form of consensual sex. But that's all he's talking about. No sexual violence, power dynamics, etc. 

 

Much of this he just quotes straight up and then gives a "yeah, this" type of commentary. 

 

Another problem, that I was expecting, is the hyper focus on the damaging effects of sexual sin. The problem is that he doesn't differentiate (this is also a problem that we LDS also have). Is sleeping with prostitutes and cheating with your neighbors wife devastating?...yeah.  It's awful. But there's little differentiation between that and your everyday sexuality. The worse was when he starts talking about the enslaving effect of physical touch....including holding hands and a first kiss:

 

"You desire to touch and you put your arm – I’ll never forget the first time I kissed a girl.  Just bells and the whole thing.  You think back to that first experience.  Then all of a sudden you realize you’re in a trap, man, and you’re caught on this deal and where are you going to go?  You just get further and further on to say, “This is how the sexual thing works.”  It becomes an enslaving thing."

 

This is awful. And one of the bigger problems I see. You can't talk about physical intimacy of every level, that in a good relationship is health and clean and fine in this manner. You just can't. PArticularly for women (but also for men), many of whom I've met have been culturally taught so heavily that their sexuality is heavily repressed. Physical expression becomes difficult with this sort of mentality, male or female. 

 

Other issues later down: 

"If you’re looking at something that isn’t good get out of there.  If you’re reading something that isn’t good junk it.  If you’re in a situation that’s going in the direction of compromising, “Sorry,” go.  You say, “Well they won’t understand.”  Well who cares whether they understand.  Just get out of there.  Some simple solutions, aren’t there?  Everything isn’t complicated."

 

Easier said than done. This idea can inadvertently lead to a heavy dose of shame when a person can't seem to stop just that easily. Which, Ironically compounds the issues and maintains that problem behaviors.

 

"You know it is far more destructive than alcohol.  It is far more destructive than drugs.  It is far more destructive than crime.  It is the deepest, penetrating sin that a man can commit because it unites him to another person in the vileness of that sin..... All sin blackens.  All sin devastates but this sin destroys a person at the roots of his being.  It harms him.  It devastates him.  It enslaves him and it just diametrically opposes everything God intended for the body of a Christian.  It’s for the Lord and it’s one with Christ."

 

Again, where does he get this? And he doesn't differentiate....and there is a difference between spending tons of money on prostitute and adultery compared to having a healing monogamous relationship when one isn't married. It's not the same as a gamut of sexual sins that a person can commit. It's like saying lying is horrifyingly evil...just look at embezzlement schemes. And then he goes further and states "You say, “Well what’s a prostitute?”  Anybody who prostitutes the right meaning and use of sex." So if you've lied you've embezzled. If you've slept with your significant other you're a whore.  

 

What this ends up looking like for the individual who hear this is what I'm most concerned about. For some, who has a great sex life with their respective spouse with few to no problems....there may not be an issue. For the person in some form of sexual sin, this may be completely ignored (someone calls out bull because their form of whatever fornication has been good....they may have felt some form of healing within these relationships, they may be in the most healthy relationship they've ever had (including with a former spouse who was abusive or sexually humiliating, etc)). Ergo the idea of sexual "purity" is roundly/prematurely dismissed. Or it can be taken too personally, leading to not godly guilt and repentance...but shame and isolation. I don't say this hypothetically...I've seen all of these scenarios in some way shape or form because of similar messages.

 

So no, I don't find this sermon at all good.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

BD just won the internet.

[KevinG]

BD just won the internet.

 

She usually does.

[KevinG]

"Biblical" is always a tricky precedent.  

 

[stephenpurdy]

 

 

The other problem, and the one I was somewhat expecting...is his use of exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims such as this:

"There is no other sin that a man or a woman commits that has built into it the deep-rooted damage that the sin of sexual immorality has.  It has destroyed more people than drugs or booze ever together ever could have destroyed." 

 

He gives no stats for this, no basis for his assetion, nothing....just throws it out there like it was nothing. And I may agree if he weren't talk just talking about some form of consensual sex. ...

 

I think that he is talking about any kind of sex outside of marriage.  Sure, it could include prostitution, rape, child molestation, adultery, pornography, etc.

 

I happen to agree with him.   I agree with you that there are no "stats" to back it up, however, from a religious and theological standpoint , I agree that it has been more widespread, throughout the history of the world, than substance abuse.

 

 

 

 

Another problem, that I was expecting, is the hyper focus on the damaging effects of sexual sin. The problem is that he doesn't differentiate (this is also a problem that we LDS also have). Is sleeping with prostitutes and cheating with your neighbors wife devastating?...yeah.  It's awful. But there's little differentiation between that and your everyday sexuality. The worse was when he starts talking about the enslaving effect of physical touch....including holding hands and a first kiss:

 

"You desire to touch and you put your arm – I’ll never forget the first time I kissed a girl.  Just bells and the whole thing.  You think back to that first experience.  Then all of a sudden you realize you’re in a trap, man, and you’re caught on this deal and where are you going to go?  You just get further and further on to say, “This is how the sexual thing works.”  It becomes an enslaving thing."

 

This is awful. And one of the bigger problems I see. You can't talk about physical intimacy of every level, that in a good relationship is health and clean and fine in this manner. You just can't. PArticularly for women (but also for men), many of whom I've met have been culturally taught so heavily that their sexuality is heavily repressed. Physical expression becomes difficult with this sort of mentality, male or female. 

 

 

I think you are mischaracterizing Macarthur's position a bit here.  He was talking in that segment there about, perhaps a young couple, who are making out, but they are not married ... it is tough to stop.  He isn't saying that sex is wrong altogether.  In fact, he clearly states that sex is a good thing!

 

He particularly sets out the good purposes of Marriage:

- - - - - -  -- -  - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So many unmarried people have problems today because of the constant barrage of sexual temptation being thrown at them.  Now he’s not saying that marriage is the absolute demand for everybody.  He is saying the norm is everybody gets married because it is normal to have physical desire.  And I’ll show you how this works in a minute. 

 

You say, “Well Paul sure got a rotten view of marriage.  Marriage is just so you don’t get in trouble and if you’ve got a lot of desire find anybody just so you don’t get in trouble.  Just get anybody to marry you.”  Is that what it’s – no.  He is simply answering one problem.  ...

Now you say, “But is that the only reason to get married?”  No, I’ve got six reasons to get married the Bible gives.  Six biblical reasons for marriage all start with a P.  You ready? 

 

1) Number one, procreation.  Genesis 1:28 says to be fruitful and multiply and you’re supposed to have children.  That’s one reason to get married, to have children.  That’s a good reason to get married.  God wants to reproduce especially godly people. 

 

2) Secondly, pleasure.  Another reason to get married is pleasure.  Did you know that God designed marriage just for physical pleasure, just to enjoy?  Hebrews 13:4, “The bed is undefiled.”  In other words, it’s an enjoyable experience.  Marriage is honorable.  Marriage is enjoyable.  Proverbs 5 talks about the satisfaction that a husband finds in the physical body of his wife and vice versa.  Song of Solomon from beginning to end all it is is physical satisfaction, isn’t it?  Pleasure.  You read in the Bible about one of the Old Testament patriarchs sporting with his wife.  I always liked that.  That’s part of it.  That’s part of the marriage situation, pleasure.  So procreation, pleasure. 

 

3) Thirdly, marriage is provision.  Another reason for marriage is provision.  God wants a man to provide what a woman needs.  The woman says Peter in 1 Peter 3 is the weaker vessel and God knows that a man can support the weakness of a woman.  God wants the man to provide for the woman, to nourish her Ephesians 5 says, to cherish her, to strengthen her, to give her something to lean on, to fortify her.... 

 

4) It’s also partnership.  Marriage is for partnership.  In the Old Testament God says, “You need a helpmeet,” right?  You need a helper.  You don’t need to do things alone.  You need a helper.  So it is for partnership.  God gives us a friend and I think really the key ingredient in marriage is friendship.  A partner.

 

5) marriage is a picture.  Marriage is given as a picture.  Ephesians 5 says, “It is a symbol to the world of God’s relationship to his church.”  Lastly, marriage is for purity, to keep us from committing fornication.  So marriage is for procreation, pleasure, provision, partnership, picture

 

6) and purity.  Those are the reasons the Bible gives.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Later he goes on to say that Sexuality is NOT to be repressed, not within marriage.  Now, If you are surprised that a Christian pastor teaches that sexual desires should be constrained outside marriage, then perhaps you had unrealistic expectations of the sermon.

 

 

 

Other issues later down: 

"If you’re looking at something that isn’t good get out of there.  If you’re reading something that isn’t good junk it.  If you’re in a situation that’s going in the direction of compromising, “Sorry,” go.  You say, “Well they won’t understand.”  Well who cares whether they understand.  Just get out of there.  Some simple solutions, aren’t there?  Everything isn’t complicated."

 

Easier said than done. This idea can inadvertently lead to a heavy dose of shame when a person can't seem to stop just that easily. Which, Ironically compounds the issues and maintains that problem behaviors.

 

 

Of course it is "easier said than done", but that doesn't mean that it isn't good advice.  He gave the example of Joseph in Egypt with Potifer's wife.  Are you saying Joseph didn't do the right thing?

 

Should people go to strip clubs or avoid them?  Should people go to pornographic web sites or avoid them?  If someone from work is flirting with a married person from work, should the married person spend time alone with that individual outside of work, thus putting themselves in a tempting situation? 

 

I just don't see why you have a problem with this.

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

"Biblical" is always a tricky precedent.  

 

 

 

Christians will argue , and I think there is Biblical support for this, that only the first illustration is what God wanted to be the norm for society.  All of the other situations were in reaction to different situations which result in a fallen world. 

 

For example, you will find provisions for divorce in the Bible, but that does not mean that God WANTS divorce.  God simply knows that it will happen in a fallen world, and thus allows for the management of this separation.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Now, what I particularly like about the sermon is the context of what was happening , historically, surrounding the text of 1 Corinthians chapter 7.  http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1828/To-Marry-or-Not-to-Marry

 

He discusses the different situations of individuals within roman society and how roman law handled it... and how the Christians who find themselves in those situations should handle it.  I like having insight on the context of Paul's advice here, and given that, the advice that Paul gives is good advice.

 

-Stephen

 

P.S.  Obviously Mormons disagree with MacArthur concerning the interpretation of, among other verses,   Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:35, however, I think that LDS could agree with him on quite a bit.

Edited July 18, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

MacArthur doesn't just lean toward Calvinism.  He is very much a self identified Calvinist.  It is very evident from his NKJV Bible and from his books.  He has a discussion about it here.

 

It is no surprise that he supports Calvinist doctrines.

 

Anybody who understands the implications of "Ex Nihilo" creation should logically gravitate towards Calvinism.  That is discussed on another thread in this forum:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/page-24#entry1209514934

 

-Stephen

Edited July 18, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Andreaes]

I have a question. Let's say you broke the law of chasity for about a year, then you decided to go on a mission and started a repentance process, but after 6 months you started comittimg the same sins again for about 7 months. Then you don't tell your bishop about it cause you still want to go on a mission but now you have stopped comittimg the sin. What happens is this situation?

[Bernard Gui]

I have a question. Let's say you broke the law of chasity for about a year, then you decided to go on a mission and started a repentance process, but after 6 months you started comittimg the same sins again for about 7 months. Then you don't tell your bishop about it cause you still want to go on a mission but now you have stopped comittimg the sin. What happens is this situation?

You would enter your mission based on deceit and fraud. Not the best way to go. Do the right thing, and then go with confidence.

[BlueDreams]

I think that he is talking about any kind of sex outside of marriage.  Sure, it could include prostitution, rape, child molestation, adultery, pornography, etc.

 

I happen to agree with him.   I agree with you that there are no "stats" to back it up, however, from a religious and theological standpoint , I agree that it has been more widespread, throughout the history of the world, than substance abuse.

 

 

Again, my problem with this is lack of differentiation. There is a big difference between a couple who have been together for years having sex outside of marriage, a person looking at mild porn, and rape/child molestation. They're not equal....and I've seen all 3 have effect in my extended/immediate family...as well as in my work. The problem in this is that he doesn't make that difference. If he were talking about sexual exploitation and violence I would probably agree with him (with no stats of course) as well...but because he doesn't show any variation in sin, I can't.    

 

I think you are mischaracterizing Macarthur's position a bit here.  He was talking in that segment there about, perhaps a young couple, who are making out, but they are not married ... it is tough to stop.  He isn't saying that sex is wrong altogether.  In fact, he clearly states that sex is a good thing!

 

Oh no, he mentioned earlier that sex is a good thing and that you should enjoy it with your wife. I definitely saw that....my problem was that it was coupled with those statement later on and it gives mixed messages. You can't state in one part, sex is great! and in the other any form of sexual touch outside of marriage can lead to (or is) enslavement...including kissing and hand holding. We're just not that good at differentiating when the same touch is involved. We often have similar messages in the church and it can lead to something called "good girl syndrome"....the negative messages about exploring ones body (I'm not talking about intercourse itself) leads one very inexperienced in one's own skin at best. At worse it can lead to (women especially, though I have seen it in men) to feel as though they have no sexual desire or have some sexual aversion. There may also be a deep shame for whatever exploration did happen previous to marriage, even for things at a young age. When sex is not understood in detail as to what to expect the actual act is hard to correlate with a good and righteous thing because we're use to the sacred being clean and sterile. If there's any form of sexual trauma, pain during sex or vaginal pain of some form, UTI's, etc....this can become exacerbated. 

 

He particularly sets out the good purposes of Marriage:

 

Oh dear...To summarize I have no real problem with 1 and 2. I have a HUGE problem with 3. 3 in tangent with 4 makes it also problematic. 5, I hesitate with, because of 3. And 6 just isn't well explained. As I mentioned I haven't read the second link at all. So let me start with 3.

 

3) Thirdly, marriage is provision.  Another reason for marriage is provision.  God wants a man to provide what a woman needs.  The woman says Peter in 1 Peter 3 is the weaker vessel and God knows that a man can support the weakness of a woman.  God wants the man to provide for the woman, to nourish her Ephesians 5 says, to cherish her, to strengthen her, to give her something to lean on, to fortify her....

 

 

 

This is called benevolent patriarchy. It is antithetical to equity in marriage and fosters dependence (ie. female dependence on male support). In a healthy marriage, where there are minimal problems between the couple....this isn't a big deal. Any marriage, with any system that doesn't have major problems will be ok. But if there's problems, this structure quickly becomes an achille's heal and leaves a hierarchical stance in marriage. Even when the couple are generally loving toward each other, the system leaves a woman in a child-like state, the man in a caregiver role (that can lead to caregiver burnout). If the man or culture has any ideas about physical punishment as a way to lead or correct (which is still very common) this can be quickly incorporated into these idea, leaving allowance for spousal abuse when she "misbehaves." This is also a problem if/when there are non-traditional circumstances....the system promotes role rigidity. It also leave the man with a savior/knight in shining armor role. Weaknesses are hard to admit to, because it means that he's failing as a husband and his responsibility to do all that he mentions. After all, how can you strengthen someone when you are not strong.

 

Religiously, this is simply not what LDS believe. We do not see women as "the weaker vessel." Although we have beliefs about male roles in providing, it does have allowance for flexibility.

 

Personally, I recoil from said statement. Nothing about me is weaker to that of a man (minus how much I can squat). That's just an inherent knowledge. What's real is that in a marriage a man may be stronger in some areas, while weaker in others. A woman will also be stronger in some areas while weaker in others.

     

4) It’s also partnership.  Marriage is for partnership.  In the Old Testament God says, “You need a helpmeet,” right?  You need a helper.  You don’t need to do things alone.  You need a helper.  So it is for partnership.  God gives us a friend and I think really the key ingredient in marriage is friendship.  A partner.

 

 

 

Because of point 3 and his focus on helpmeet = "helper"....he is not describing a partnership, he's describing a limited partnership at best.   

 

5) marriage is a picture.  Marriage is given as a picture.  Ephesians 5 says, “It is a symbol to the world of God’s relationship to his church.”  Lastly, marriage is for purity, to keep us from committing fornication.  So marriage is for procreation, pleasure, provision, partnership, picture

 

 

I don't mind marriage being a picture, but I hesitate agreeing because I know which is which in this relationship. Man = God; Woman = church. Hierarchical relationships within marriage just aren't cool to me. Even when they're relatively functional, to me they have deep limitations that I wouldn't ever want for my own life. (note, I don't view follow traditional gender roles (wife at home with kids, husband as breadwinner) at times as the same as this).

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Later he goes on to say that Sexuality is NOT to be repressed, not within marriage.  Now, If you are surprised that a Christian pastor teaches that sexual desires should be constrained outside marriage, then perhaps you had unrealistic expectations of the sermon.

 

 

 

Again, it's easier said than done (about it no being repressed). I read it and again, had serious discrepancies with it. Not because I would expect him to say sexuality in marriage should be repressed... but that his examples just aren't realistic and his statement about it leaves couples where there is some form of sexual dysfunction, lack of desire, etc...in a pickle. There is just no visible knowledge about the intricacies of sexual relationships from this guy. There is little to no acknowledgement of a female perspective on sex or their marital/sexual concerns. I was not expecting a pastor to teach that there should be sexual constraint outside of marriage. I don't believe that for myself (though I may not use the word "constraint").  Rather it is the method, unintended (and intended) messages, the view of women, etc that he bunches with this belief that are my problems.   

 

Of course it is "easier said than done", but that doesn't mean that it isn't good advice.  He gave the example of Joseph in Egypt with Potifer's wife.  Are you saying Joseph didn't do the right thing?

 

 

No...in large part I'm thinking about those especially who have any form issues with porn and/or sexual addictions. I'm also thinking about general issues of shame that can surrounding sexual concerns. It's not uncommon for them to be introduced at a young age where there is little introductory knowledge about sex. By the time they know "how bad" it is to look at it, they often have looked at it for a while...they may also have learn to emotionally self-regulate with it to some extent. They do the whole "just stop it," find that they can't, because porn is viewed in very negative terms, they view themselves as bad. This shame, oddly, keeps them viewing porn because they can't follow the simple advice of "just avoid it." My problem with "just avoid it" is the unnecessary shame that it can bring a person who is struggling that inadvertently exacerbates the problem...not just with porn.

 

Also I don't have a problem just with this pastor. It's a cultural effect that is intrinsic in much of our society that has become dichotomous in sexual talk. On the one end is a glamorized, individualist-orientented, pleasure/asthetics focus view of sexuality. On the other is a very strident, rules-based, silence-oriented, either it's god-given or satan-laden, view of sexuality. Both have serious problems.  LDS have problems with this just as much as other christian communities where the dialogue in theory and reality seem to never fully be bridged. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[stephenpurdy]

Again, my problem with this is lack of differentiation. There is a big difference between a couple who have been together for years having sex outside of marriage, a person looking at mild porn, and rape/child molestation. They're not equal....and I've seen all 3 have effect in my extended/immediate family...as well as in my work. The problem in this is that he doesn't make that difference. If he were talking about sexual exploitation and violence I would probably agree with him (with no stats of course) as well...but because he doesn't show any variation in sin, I can't.

 

 

The sermon is not about which sexual sins are worse than others.  I'm sure that John could tell you that some sexual sins are worse than others, have more grave consequences than others.  Also, I am sure he would tell you that any kind of sin separates you from God, and should be repented of.  However, that is not the point of the sermon.  His point is that sins of a sexual nature, in general, have affected more people than any other sin.  Jesus said that even looking upon another person with lust in your heart is a sin.  That has happened to just about any person who lived past puberty.  Pretty widespread don't you think?

 

He doesn't go into which sins are worse, and which sins are worser.  Just isn't what this discourse was focused on.

 

 

Oh no, he mentioned earlier that sex is a good thing and that you should enjoy it with your wife. I definitely saw that....my problem was that it was coupled with those statement later on and it gives mixed messages. You can't state in one part, sex is great! and in the other any form of sexual touch outside of marriage can lead to (or is) enslavement...including kissing and hand holding. We're just not that good at differentiating when the same touch is involved.

 

I think the context was the idea of a boy and girl (unmarried) who are making out ("touching"), and once you start it is hard to stop and may lead to premarital sex ... a sin.

 

Did you read beyond what he was talking about there?

 

We often have similar messages in the church and it can lead to something called "good girl syndrome"....the negative messages about exploring ones body (I'm not talking about intercourse itself) leads one very inexperienced in one's own skin at best. At worse it can lead to (women especially, though I have seen it in men) to feel as though they have no sexual desire or have some sexual aversion. There may also be a deep shame for whatever exploration did happen previous to marriage, even for things at a young age. When sex is not understood in detail as to what to expect the actual act is hard to correlate with a good and righteous thing because we're use to the sacred being clean and sterile. If there's any form of sexual trauma, pain during sex or vaginal pain of some form, UTI's, etc....this can become exacerbated.

 

It almost sounds like you are suggesting that "good girl syndrome" can be avoided by openly embracing masturbation?

 

Correct me if I am interpreting your statements wrong. 

 

As for the solution, it is all about the gospel of Jesus Christ.  If any sins were committed before marriage, they can be forgiven by the grace of God.  If we have a correct understanding of sexuality , then we can know that it is not inherently wrong.  As you explained that John was teaching, "he mentioned earlier that sex is a good thing and that you should enjoy it with your wife."

 

-Stephen

 

P.S.  Don't have time for the rest of the post yet.

[thesometimesaint]

You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find your prince/princess.

[stephenpurdy]

 

This is called benevolent patriarchy. It is antithetical to equity in marriage and fosters dependence (ie. female dependence on male support). In a healthy marriage, where there are minimal problems between the couple....this isn't a big deal. Any marriage, with any system that doesn't have major problems will be ok. But if there's problems, this structure quickly becomes an achille's heal and leaves a hierarchical stance in marriage. Even when the couple are generally loving toward each other, the system leaves a woman in a child-like state, the man in a caregiver role (that can lead to caregiver burnout). If the man or culture has any ideas about physical punishment as a way to lead or correct (which is still very common) this can be quickly incorporated into these idea, leaving allowance for spousal abuse when she "misbehaves." This is also a problem if/when there are non-traditional circumstances....the system promotes role rigidity. It also leave the man with a savior/knight in shining armor role. Weaknesses are hard to admit to, because it means that he's failing as a husband and his responsibility to do all that he mentions. After all, how can you strengthen someone when you are not strong.

 

Religiously, this is simply not what LDS believe. We do not see women as "the weaker vessel." Although we have beliefs about male roles in providing, it does have allowance for flexibility.

 

Personally, I recoil from said statement. Nothing about me is weaker to that of a man (minus how much I can squat). That's just an inherent knowledge. What's real is that in a marriage a man may be stronger in some areas, while weaker in others. A woman will also be stronger in some areas while weaker in others.

 

I think you are looking for problems beyond what is stated.  I mean, you might read the New Testament and say, "I don't like how it says that the woman should submit to her husband."   Well, is this text from Paul meant to be interpreted that the wife must do everything her husband says? 

 

When you say that "nothing about (you) is weaker to that of a man (minus how much you can squat)" , well "how much you can squat" is exactly what Paul is referring to.  The "vessel" is the physical body.  While I can think of exceptions, (this sermon is not meant to deal with exceptions, it is meant to deal with the "norm"), the male has a stronger physical body.  That's it.

 

 

 

     

Because of point 3 and his focus on helpmeet = "helper"....he is not describing a partnership, he's describing a limited partnership at best.   

 

 

 

 

Wow.  I never thought I'd be on here defending an Evangelical Christian, but anywho .... what part of the sermon makes you think that he places "limits" on the partnership?   Jesus Christ is a "helper" and the holy spirit is "another helper".  Are you claiming that "helping" someone is equivalent to being "inferior" to the person that you are helping?

 

 

I don't mind marriage being a picture, but I hesitate agreeing because I know which is which in this relationship. Man = God; Woman = church. Hierarchical relationships within marriage just aren't cool to me. Even when they're relatively functional, to me they have deep limitations that I wouldn't ever want for my own life. (note, I don't view follow traditional gender roles (wife at home with kids, husband as breadwinner) at times as the same as this).

 

When it comes to the picture, we just have to realize that all analogies, parables, etc. have their limits.  

 

God loves and serves humanity.  The Church should love and serve God.  This is not about hierarchy.  It is about a mutual relationship.

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

.........

 

Again, it's easier said than done (about it no being repressed). I read it and again, had serious discrepancies with it. Not because I would expect him to say sexuality in marriage should be repressed... but that his examples just aren't realistic and his statement about it leaves couples where there is some form of sexual dysfunction, lack of desire, etc...in a pickle. ...... 

 

 

 

I don't think that this sermon was focused on sexual dysfunction.

 

.........

 

 

No...in large part I'm thinking about those especially who have any form issues with porn and/or sexual addictions. I'm also thinking about general issues of shame that can surrounding sexual concerns. It's not uncommon for them to be introduced at a young age where there is little introductory knowledge about sex. By the time they know "how bad" it is to look at it, they often have looked at it for a while...they may also have learn to emotionally self-regulate with it to some extent. They do the whole "just stop it," find that they can't, because porn is viewed in very negative terms, they view themselves as bad. This shame, oddly, keeps them viewing porn because they can't follow the simple advice of "just avoid it." My problem with "just avoid it" is the unnecessary shame that it can bring a person who is struggling that inadvertently exacerbates the problem...not just with porn.

 

 

Should pornography be viewed as sin, in your opinion?   Should we be ashamed when we sin?

 

.........

 

 

Also I don't have a problem just with this pastor. It's a cultural effect that is intrinsic in much of our society that has become dichotomous in sexual talk. On the one end is a glamorized, individualist-orientented, pleasure/asthetics focus view of sexuality. On the other is a very strident, rules-based, silence-oriented, either it's god-given or satan-laden, view of sexuality. Both have serious problems.  LDS have problems with this just as much as other christian communities where the dialogue in theory and reality seem to never fully be bridged. 

 

 

He says that it is not inherently wrong or sinful to be single.  It is good.   Same with marriage.  It is good. 

 

He says that sexual relationships are to be within marriage.

 

-Stephen

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You would enter your mission based on deceit and fraud. Not the best way to go. Do the right thing, and then go with confidence.

They used to let you stay out there if you repented in the field. Not sure if it was church wide policy in the 90's or not but I have only anecdotal evidence to support it. On the same side today, they would send you home. Again, I only have anecdotal evidence to support this too.

 

The best thing is to do it the right way and repent now and get it out of the way.

[BlueDreams]

Don't have a lot of time, so I'll keep this short (hopefully...i stink at that)... Sorry in advance for the formatting

I think you are looking for problems beyond what is stated.  I mean, you might read the New Testament and say, "I don't like how it says that the woman should submit to her husband."   Well, is this text from Paul meant to be interpreted that the wife must do everything her husband says? 

No, that's not what I thought. It's a matter of perspective. I'm stating is that line of thought easily supports my stated concerns. Benevolent patriarchy is still a sharp contrast in equity of responsibility, accountability, etc.

 

When you say that "nothing about (you) is weaker to that of a man (minus how much you can squat)" , well "how much you can squat" is exactly what Paul is referring to.  The "vessel" is the physical body.  While I can think of exceptions, (this sermon is not meant to deal with exceptions, it is meant to deal with the "norm"), the male has a stronger physical body.  That's it.

Except that's not what he said. If he had, I wouldn't have a problem and would have put it as humor. Here's the paragraph for quick reference:

Thirdly, marriage is provision.  Another reason for marriage is provision.  God wants a man to provide what a woman needs.  The woman says Peter in 1 Peter 3 is the weaker vessel and God knows that a man can support the weakness of a woman.  God wants the man to provide for the woman, to nourish her Ephesians 5 says, to cherish her, to strengthen her, to give her something to lean on, to fortify her.  So it’s procreation, it’s pleasure, it’s provision. 

Even if it were about physical weakness, the way he puts it, you'd think I was six steps shy of a fainting spell at any point. Besides women, in general don't need a physically stronger male (I like one, but it's largely aesthetics). Furthermore, it's one-direction and talks nothing about the wife providing that same things back. 

 

Wow.  I never thought I'd be on here defending an Evangelical Christian, but anywho .... what part of the sermon makes you think that he places "limits" on the partnership?   Jesus Christ is a "helper" and the holy spirit is "another helper".  Are you claiming that "helping" someone is equivalent to being "inferior" to the person that you are helping?

 

Haha, I feel you there on the defending (lived in Texas for 4 years). I don't think (or at least I hope) that he views it as limited...just that his views, particularly with the weaker vessel piece, necessitates it. I don't have a problem with "helping" I help people for my job. My problem is in the language, which is not equitable (ie, helping v providing for the "weaker vessel"). 

 

When it comes to the picture, we just have to realize that all analogies, parables, etc. have their limits.  

 

No, I actually like the analogy, I just don't agree with the picture he's painted for a married couple.

 

God loves and serves humanity.  The Church should love and serve God.  This is not about hierarchy.  It is about a mutual relationship.

No, it's not. We are learning from God. God is not generally learning from him. We submit to him. If there's a disagreement between him or us, we're the one's who are wrong, etc. His goal, of course is to raise us up to to have all things that he has....but we're definitely the "weaker vessels" in this relationship and there's definitely hierarchy involved. We have a child-parent relationship after all. 

 

 

 

I don't think that this sermon was focused on sexual dysfunction.

That's the problem. It never is. It's never even really on sex (name one part in here talking about what possible expectations one should expect in a marriage sexually). It's about, sex is good in marriage (cut here, minimal exploration) and all sexual sins are (inferred) equally abominable before the Lord.  

 

Should pornography be viewed as sin, in your opinion?   Should we be ashamed when we sin?

Yes, it should be viewed as sinful....mostly (I don't have a problem if spouses were sexting, sharing pictures of each other, etc....not a sin....technically pornographic. as you can tell I'm a exceptions kinda gal). No we should not be ashamed. Shame does nothing but make you feel bad about yourself. Proper guilt, ie. acknoweldging that you've done something wrong and have the power to change (through Christ) is good. I also don't think it should be seen as the same degree of sexual sin as, say, "following after Isabelle" seen in the BoM (ie seeking after a beguiling fairly well-known prostitute while claiming to be serving the Lord). We also have a problems indicating gradation of sins. Viewing porn just isn't THAT bad. 

 

He says that it is not inherently wrong or sinful to be single.  It is good.   Same with marriage.  It is good. 

 

He says that sexual relationships are to be within marriage.

Yep, and those points I don't have as much of a problem with. It's the points littered in between that I have problems with

 

 

Oh shoot didn't notice the earlier post....

[BlueDreams]

The sermon is not about which sexual sins are worse than others.  I'm sure that John could tell you that some sexual sins are worse than others, have more grave consequences than others.  Also, I am sure he would tell you that any kind of sin separates you from God, and should be repented of.  However, that is not the point of the sermon.  His point is that sins of a sexual nature, in general, have affected more people than any other sin.  Jesus said that even looking upon another person with lust in your heart is a sin.  That has happened to just about any person who lived past puberty.  Pretty widespread don't you think?

Yes, but he does so, comparing them to extremely grievous sins in language. Sexual sins are fairly widespread, but their impact are not the same...and in this he treats the impact exactly the same. The problem with that is that couples aren't going to see this in relationships that are good, healthy, and mutually caring. Their sex life may often be very healthy and even soul-healing. So this message will fall on deaf ears and not help them aspire for even greater depth in relational ties through marriage. 

 

 

I think the context was the idea of a boy and girl (unmarried) who are making out ("touching"), and once you start it is hard to stop and may lead to premarital sex ... a sin.

I disagree with this (hard to stop and may lead to premarital sex)....as well as his wording of enslavement. In large part because it assumes that we are some how out of control of our capacity to decide our level of sexual expression. I just don't believe it....it hasn't been true in my life.   

Did you read beyond what he was talking about there?

 

Yes, still had the same problems with it.

It almost sounds like you are suggesting that "good girl syndrome" can be avoided by openly embracing masturbation?

 

Correct me if I am interpreting your statements wrong. 

Yeah you are interpreting that wrong. I meant more developing a better knowledge of their body as well as a better appreciation for their sexual organs.  

 

As for the solution, it is all about the gospel of Jesus Christ.  If any sins were committed before marriage, they can be forgiven by the grace of God.  If we have a correct understanding of sexuality , then we can know that it is not inherently wrong.  As you explained that John was teaching, "he mentioned earlier that sex is a good thing and that you should enjoy it with your wife."

That's my problem....the way he mentions this does not foster a correct understanding of sexuality at all. It's helped maintain problems people have with sexuality. I'm not saying it's the only reason we've got issues, but it's one of them.

 

 

With luv,

BD