Does the LDS Church focus too much on sexual sins?

[thatjimguy]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Jim, when were you ever told only for procreation in the Church?  That concept is totally foreign to Church teaching and I have never heard it, ever, in any ward I have been in  and I have traveled extensively during my life.

Never have I heard any recommendation or discussion about what position one may or should have sexual relations in Church at any time, ever.

Yeah, not so much.  I am getting the distinct impression you are not talking about the Church, but about wild exaggerations found in comedy skits about Catholic teachings.  

Nope, not buying this load of philosophical snake oil you are selling and it has nothing to do with the LDS Church, its teachings, or even the manner it which it teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

That unworthiness line is the plea of a narcissist and a hedonist.  I must be able to do anything I want, when I want, for as long as I want and no one should ever dare to tell me I am wrong.  Gads, this is really low level logic going on here. 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news one this one Storm Rider, but you'll have to do some research on past church statements that promote exactly that. I'll leave you on your own on this one as I won't get this thread taken down.

Granted, this is old stuff, so that is why it is not familiar to you and some of it isn't taught or promoted anymore. I can tell you it was during Pres. Kimball's tenure.

Edited August 19, 2016 by thatjimguy

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, thatjimguy said:

Quote

Jim, when were you ever told only for procreation in the Church?  That concept is totally foreign to Church teaching and I have never heard it, ever, in any ward I have been in  and I have traveled extensively during my life.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news one this one Storm Rider, but you'll have to do some research on past church statements that promote exactly that. I'll leave you on your own on this one as I won't get this thread taken down.

Granted, this is old stuff, so that is why it is not familiar to you and some of it isn't taught or promoted anymore. I can tell you it was during Pres. Kimball's tenure.

It was always the stuff of whispers and rumour with some loosely applied scriptural backing.
I don't think it was ever publicly proclaimed.

[Guest]

On August 10, 2016 at 0:42 AM, Thinking said:

Should the sin next to murder really be the sin next to murder?

Without going into details, let's understand that we are talking about relationships between consenting parties who are mature enough to handle such relationships. I would place rape (in all its forms) as a more serious sin than any sexual sin between consenting mature people.

In fairness, I remember being taught to be honest, and to be nice to people, but it seemed to me that sexual sins had a greater focus than all the others.

 

There are many things that consenting adults can do that could even be a crime. Men and women are free to do as they like, but scriptures and the doctrine derived from them make clear that it is a sin, and a serious one. Also, what if the two consenting adults are committing adultery? Adultery is not a victimless crime, it destroys marriages and places children who are at greater risk of all kinds of social ill's. As the Lord said; "I the Lord delight in the chastity of women". The Book of Galatians (Chapter 3 or 4) lists Adultery and fortification as some of the most serious of all sins that will cause one to lose (which if left in a unrepentant state) their inheritance into the Kingdom of Heaven. 

[Johnnie Cake]

I don't know what world the rest of you live in...but the church is obsessed with the sex lives of its members

[Jeanne]

On 8/16/2016 at 10:49 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

kfisher: Are you trying to insult the members of the church on this board? ...that wasn't my intent...but in hindsight I could have chosen my words better...sorry my limited status does not allow me to edit

 

Storm Rider: Gads, what a yawner.  This is the kind of tripe that you put a quarter in and away goes the recording.  Original thought? Not so much.  

Well, it was good for a laugh; good on ya.  Happy to be able to entertain you Storm Rider

 

The Nehor:  I think sex comes up in lessons about once a year. It is like homosexuality. Not talked about much. Yet we are told we are obsessed with it. I think it is more likely that our critics are obsessed with our standards and fixate on those because they are their preferred sins. Yup sex is my preferred sin but as Joseph said "...What many people call sin is not sin." 

 

 

 

You would have to be a sixteen year old girl in a seminary and/or laurel class passing around a twinkie or lipped cupcake to appreciate this. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't know what world the rest of you live in...but the church is obsessed with the sex lives of its members

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. And it's kinda ironic that your lamenting black and white think when the initial post you have on this is super black and white (ok, mostly black and catastrophic). Do they have a focus and can at times place too much emphasis on certain things or cross lines in teaching? Yes. Do members and church culture have struggles of the sort you mention? Yes. But there are also a lot of strengths. Fidelity in Marriage and few sexual partners is a good model for stable and more satisfying sex. We're a church of change and believers of repentance and generations are often very willing to change. It's not uncommon for my clients, who may not have kids yet, asking what they can/want do differently in talking about sex. It's also familial differences. Some LDS families talk frankly and openly. Some don't. And non-LDS parents often have the same problems talking about sex.

speaking of those messages, a number of them haven't been actively present for 20-40 years. Messages now stay strictly out of the bedroom as to what a married couple can do and more about how a married couple should act toward each other (loving and not coercive). And i don't remember anyone talking poorly about birth control in my living memory. Most (no, all) of my friend have used some form in their marriage. Their concerns are based off of personal preferences, not religion. 

And furthermore, our general society has a number of problematic attitudes and messages towards sex that have been just as caustic in the relationships I've seen. We also objectify women in society, place sexist rules and commentary of female bodies, create anxieties/shame for men or women who's sexual appetites do not fit our sex crazed culture. And we are most definitely sex-obsessed. One example that I find horrifying is drastic increase in labiaplasty (surgical cutting of the genitals). It's linked to porn and the standard that they give on female genitalia that can lead to severe body shaming. It is the pendulum swing to female circumcision in extremely conservative societies...but with the same results. (Unnecessary genital mutilation)

Do I think there are messages that could still use tweaking? Definitely. But the dialogue of extreme positions you give doesn't actually open doors for that to happen.

 

with luv,

BD

Edited August 19, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

Quote

And i don't remember anyone talking poorly about birth control in my living memory.

Mine neither and I think I am over twice your age.

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news one this one Storm Rider, but you'll have to do some research on past church statements that promote exactly that. I'll leave you on your own on this one as I won't get this thread taken down.

Granted, this is old stuff, so that is why it is not familiar to you and some of it isn't taught or promoted anymore. I can tell you it was during Pres. Kimball's tenure.

I was around before Kimball, but I really don't recall ever hearing this.  I do recall a solemn assembly I was in with Delbert L Stapley who mentioned some sexual activities that were not acceptable within the marriage, but that was the only time I had heard an apostle/prophet speak in such a manner.  

This is old stuff and I am not sure it has any value in this conversation; it does not make sense to build your position on such old statements that were not universal, were not strictly adhered, nor actual policy of the Church.  Kimball, maligned for his book, "Miracle of Forgiveness", is a bit of a puritan, but he was not wrong and his spiritual parameters remain valid. 

[halconero]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't know what world the rest of you live in...but the church is obsessed with the sex lives of its members

Canada.

[Sky]

All this talk about sex and appropriate behaviors and boundaries, and as far as I can tell, the gay issue has not come up in this thread...

How is all this supposed to apply to a non-heterosexual person?  The orthodox Mormon answer, of course, is to suppress that part of yourself for the rest of your life.  Or if you are one of the lucky few that can make it work, marry somebody of the opposite gender.

I acknowledge that the doctrine has not really changed, but the application of it is somewhat different now than in Spencer W. Kimball's time.  I see this as a good thing.  I can also say that not everything he said was helpful, and may have even been harmful...

Telling a gay man to just go ahead and marry a woman and it will all go away is not a good idea.  And unfortunately that has happened with too many people and it has caused a lot of heartache.  

As has already been mentioned, married couples are not told today which sexual practices are appropriate for the bedroom and which ones aren't.  Some couples even look at porn together to enhance intimacy in their marriage.  Married couples should be able to decide what they are comfortable with, without interference or invasion by a church leader (within reason, of course).

When leaders such as Elder Dallin H. Oaks say that we do not apologize for statements or positions held in the past, it just makes some people more upset.  It makes one wonder how much wrongdoing was brought on by themselves, or by the hands of well-meaning leaders of the Church...

So I guess my point is that not everything that has come from the Church about this subject is necessarily good or totally correct.  By all means, let's keep the Law of Chastity, and repent when we make mistakes.  I'm not saying that the Law of Chastity is not important to keep and that there are no consequences.  I just think we would also do ourselves a lot of good by getting rid of so many sex-shaming attitudes.

It's not so much what we teach that's a problem, but how we teach it.  Beating ourselves or somebody else with a stick (metaphorically speaking) in order to force obedience or perfection is probably not such a great idea!  

A non-shame based discussion about sex in Mormonism is overdue, in my opinion.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Sky]

I also question the appropriateness of bishops having conversations about masturbation with teenagers.

[rongo]

On 8/9/2016 at 10:14 PM, bluebell said:

When I hear of sexual sins described as a sin next to murder I see it as meaning that it is a sin similar to murder in the way that it usurps God's authority over birth like murder usurps His authority over death.

This only takes into account when a child is conceived. 

The spiritual, emotional, and psychological damage resulting from violating the law of chastity in all its forms is incalculable. While people can be made whole and forgiven through the atonement, the extent of this wholeness varies according to individuals. In many cases, even people who have been institutionally forgiven by the Church (via the disciplinary council system) and feel forgiven through working through the atonement carry damage, baggage, and issues from violating the law of chastity.

It is every bit as serious as the Church has treated it, and I hope it continues to treat it as serious. It goes without saying that all should be treated compassionately, but the seriousness of the law of chastity should not be soft-shoed.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Sky said:

I also question the appropriateness of bishops having conversations about masturbation with teenagers.

Ideally, it would be the parents. Most don't, though.

As a bishop, I have simply referred youth in general settings to the clear statement in FtSoY, which is general, but specific enough. Specifically, I have gone through the TR questions in a group setting and what they are asking (because youth often have a minimal understanding of what these questions mean or ask). With the law of chastity, I rely heavily on the FtSoY statement, and emphasize clean thoughts, and where the line is with touching, in general terms (FtSoY is very helpful in this regard).

My detailed talks about this have always been when the youth have confessed on their own or asked about it. 

More troubling with youth than chastity is tithing. Most (in my experience) act completely surprised that they are supposed to pay tithing, or have no idea for themselves on what they should pay. This can be awkward if they want to do baptisms, have been working, and haven't ever paid tithing.

I think I just heard Bill Reel's head explode ("why is he asking them about tithing?")

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't know what world the rest of you live in...but the church is obsessed with the sex lives of its members

I know every time I went in for an interview or to a bishopric or council meeting that the main goal was to write up the sex schedule for every member for the previous week so we could discuss it in explicit detail.

[The Nehor]

On August 18, 2016 at 3:58 PM, thatjimguy said:

That's a lame response.  About as bad as "those who leave the church cant leave it alone"

I can remember feeling the same way about not what we teach, but the way we teach it.

If it is lame it is also as true as the statement you compared it too. So at least it is true in addition to being lame.

[The Nehor]

On August 16, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

The Nehor: So you admit you are the one obsessed with our rules about sex? We share them and they fester inside you and you imagine we are obsessed because you cannot stop thinking about what we teach?  I hope that is not what I agreed to

So let me be clear.  It is my view that the LDS church is obsessed with the sex lives of its membership.  It teaches abstinence until marriage and fidelity after marriage...all of which are noble standards...but when or if a member fails to met this standard, the church uses guilt and manipulation to further abuse and manipulate the so called sinner into compliance.  Youth interviews? TR interviews, modesty lessons and standards are all used to manipulate the members to a cultural standard of conformity...and should a member again fail to meet the cultural standards then kattie bar the door...cuz then the holier than thou judgementalist do their behind the scenes gossip vines.

Take a recent Bishops wife whom I am familiar with who while on vacation chose to wear a sleeveless sundress and had the courage to post a picture of her wearing it along with her family.  From the comments to her FB page one would have thought she had committed adultery.  Everyone seemed to have an opinion of how inappropriate it was for her to wear a sleeveless dress in public etc etc etc  Seriously Only within Mormonism is what a person wears everyone else's business.

The culture is so prevalent in its insistence of conformity...here in Utah many LDS high school girls are afraid to wear strapless or backless prom dresses...despite wanting to

Boys and girls even those 1 day away from their 16th birthday refuse to go to school dances so as not to break the no dating before 16 expectations

Bishops probe the youth in their wards for their most intimate private activities...and yes many choose to lie rather than admit failure to their bishop ( trust me I know I use to conduct these church mandated interviews...something I deeply regret having done) masturbation and pornography being the most common form of failure among youth and adults alike.

 

Sex is always percolating just below the surface of Mormonism although it is framed behind many masks

 

 

A classic case of psychological projection. Tell me. What was your relationship like with your mother?

[Jeanne]

My daughter came home from a Bishop's interview in tears.  She said that he asked her about masturbation..wasn't sure what it was as she was twelve just getting ready to go into Beehives.  Seriously, I had to restrain my husband when he found out.  In my view, Johnny Cakes post above speaks volumes.

[Calm]

Jeanne, It undoubtedly happens and in those cases, something should be done, imo.  But from the amount that is discussed online, it would appear that this happens in a small minority of cases.  If so, it cannot be used to demonstrate a churchwide attitude towards sex.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Jeanne, It undoubtedly happens and in those cases, something should be done, imo.  But from the amount that is discussed online, it would appear that this happens in a small minority of cases.  If so, it cannot be used to demonstrate a churchwide attitude towards sex.

Well, I hope not.  Just hoping that isn't in a church handbook or something...  That being said, it doesn't change the rather horrific moment of my daughter's life and her perspective of any interviews after that. 

[Calm]

Absolutely not.  Your daughter's reaction is so understandable and any fallout from that.  

I can't imagine how I would have felt at that age...or any age as all my interviews have been exceedingly mild.  Even with the one bishop I thought would be totally rigid due to earlier behaviour and he actually okayed a friend to continue in being an astrologer after getting baptized as long as he avoided making predictions and concentrated on self exploration.  That was the most shocking report of an interview in my personal experience.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, carlitos said:

that is apostasy. 

Huh?

[Anne E. Prufe]

I think the Presidents of the Church, not to mention the First Presidency itself, has spoken quite definitively that sexual sin is next to murder.  http://www.ldsanswers.org/is-sexual-sin-next-to-murder-book-of-mormon-central-fact-check/

[Teancum]

On August 19, 2016 at 7:30 PM, The Nehor said:

A classic case of psychological projection. Tell me. What was your relationship like with your mother?

A classic case of the ad hominem response. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Anne E. Prufe said:

I think the Presidents of the Church, not to mention the First Presidency itself, has spoken quite definitively that sexual sin is next to murder.  http://www.ldsanswers.org/is-sexual-sin-next-to-murder-book-of-mormon-central-fact-check/

Thanks for posting this link. Here's what Church President Ezra Taft Benson had to say about whether or not sexual immorality is the sin that stands next to murder in seriousness:

"One of the most solemn statements about being chaste is that of Alma to his son Corianton: “Know ye not, my son,” he said, “that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all the sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5; emphasis added). Very few of us will ever be guilty of murder or of the sin against the Holy Ghost. But the law of chastity is frequently broken and yet it stands next to these other sins in seriousness in the eyes of the Lord.

My beloved brothers and sisters, are we living in accordance with these scriptures? Do we clearly understand the seriousness of sexual sins? Do we constantly stress the blessings that come from obedience to this law? I say again, as have all the prophets before me, there is one standard of virtue and chastity, and all are expected to adhere to it. What the Lord says unto one, he says unto all: “Ye must practice virtue and holiness before me continually” (D&C 46:33)."

Could it be sexual sin has become so pervasive and common place in this world that the majority of the human race -- including a fair number of active Latter-day Saints -- think a sin that's so common couldn't possibly be the sin that stands next to murder in seriousness?  But I think the key to properly understand this issue is found in President Benson's words when he said (above) "it stands next to these other sins (various forms of murder) in seriousness in the eyes of the Lord." 

So the problem is we have become so accustomed to sexual immorality that we can't imagine something that's so widely accepted as fun and harmless could possibly be the sin that stands next to murder in serious. Nevertheless, in the un-jaded eyes of the Lord it is the sin that stands next to murder -- further proof the world is blindly ripening in iniquity.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

A classic case of the ad hominem response. 

A classic case of humor-impairment. Diagnosis: Will lead a life without laughter. Recommend euthanasia for patient's own good.