Popular Post TrespassersW Posted January 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 9, 2017 7 hours ago, canard78 said: 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? I don't think so. Asserting that P implies Q is not the same as asserting that NOT Q implies NOT P. As you said, there are many potential reasons that marital intimacy might be poor. I don't see anything in what you've quoted that would suggest that she believes otherwise. If I say that serving chocolate cake for desert will make any meal more delicious, that does not in any way suggest that if a meal failed to be delicious it could only be because you did not serve chocolate cake. 5
canard78 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 58 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: BTW...since I was banned from replaying on the tithing thread...I was never able to add that according to the recent GA income leak, its been confirmed that Elder Eyring paid 10% tithing on gross income...thought you'd like to know...don't know where he would get the idea that 10% of gross was what he should pay when he could have just been paying on net income all of these years 46 minutes ago, bluebell said: He probably got that idea because he believes that that is what tithing is for him. Thankfully, a full tithing can be paid many different ways because it depends on what the person believes the Lord has told them is acceptable. That is what the church teaches-It's between you and the Lord. Grrrrowl... get back on topic... grrrr #ThreadGuardDog #jokingnotjoking #sorrynotsorry 2
Bobbieaware Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 48 minutes ago, Thinking said: Last time I checked, sex was carnal. The scriptures speak otherwise. The first of God's first commandments to the children of men, a commandment reiterated in the New Testament, is the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. And the following two verses from Doctrine and Covenants 29 tell us that none of God's commandments, including the first commandment to multiply, are canal and sensual. 34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. 35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither CARNAL nor SENSUAL. (Doctrine and Covenants 29) So if the words attributed to the Savior in the Doctrine and Covenants are the voice of the Lord, that means Sister Nelson is exactly right -- that all things, including sexual relations, can be pure, holy and spiritually edifying. The fact that you guys apparently imagine otherwise is interesting. 2
canard78 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 31 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: 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? Maybe... What about the 1001 other moments of sexual intimacy in a couples life when no "sacred earthly bodies" are being created? 2
bluebell Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, canard78 said: Grrrrowl... get back on topic... grrrr #ThreadGuardDog #jokingnotjoking #sorrynotsorry
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 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. I really don't know if you realize that what is being revealed here in each post is how well each poster is doing in their sex lives- clearly implied in each statement. I really have no desie to know that For those who care mine is wonderous. Now can we get on with something worthwhile? 2
Danzo Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 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. What kind of evidence are you looking for? If you are asking for comparisons between people who are pure vs people that are not pure than you put us that have had only one partner at a disadvantage. We could not possibly make an honest comparison according to our experiences without deliberately becoming un pure. For the record, I think my marital intimacy is marvelous. Since neither me nor my wife have ever had any other partner, I cannot make any comparisons. Many people I know who do not practice the law of chastity seem to have many problems we don't have, but all evidence I would have would be anecdotal. I don't they you could have a "scientific" Study (whatever that would mean) to measure the "marvelousness" of martial intimacy that would be accurate in any way. 1
Anijen Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Thinking said: Last time I checked, sex was carnal. That is the whole point. "Aunt Wendy" was making the point that if one is not pure then it is just, well, just sex. I happen to agree with Sister Nelson that intimacy from a partnership of purity, can exceed marvelous expectations... Although I am not diminishing plain sex from an impure partnership I am pretty sure it is still pleasurable, but yes there is probably a measurable difference. 2
canard78 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. I did indeed. Congratulations on the photo. I hope you enjoy watching it once you get the stream working. My favourite moment is the "bananas" and "Easter eggs" comment. It was absolutely brilliant, I couldn't help but laugh generously at his self-deprecating humour. There were other comments he made that I'd be interested to discuss at some point (prophets as greater templates of leadership than George Washington and Ghandi) as well as the story about Pres. Hinckley and Gorbachev... but I'll leave that for someone else to start in other threads. I'm already at risk of upsetting Johnnie and Bluebell after I chided them for going off topic.
canard78 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I really don't know if you realize that what is being revealed here in each post is how well each poster is doing in their sex lives- clearly implied in each statement. I really have no desie to know that For those who care mine is wonderous. Now can we get on with something worthwhile? But therein lies the problem. Every individuals sex life is hugely complex and variable both in absolute and in seasons. I can't how "level of spirituality" or "purity" can have any bearing on it at all and I also can't see how teaching that to young adults is going to be the basis for a healthy future sexual relationship.
canard78 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 7 minutes ago, Anijen said: That is the whole point. "Aunt Wendy" was making the point that if one is not pure then it is just, well, just sex. I happen to agree with Sister Nelson that intimacy from a partnership of purity, can exceed marvelous expectations... Although I am not diminishing plain sex from an impure partnership I am pretty sure it is still pleasurable, but yes there is probably a measurable difference. What measure?
bluebell Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, canard78 said: But therein lies the problem. Every individuals sex life is hugely complex and variable both in absolute and in seasons. I can't how "level of spirituality" or "purity" can have any bearing on it at all and I also can't see how teaching that to young adults is going to be the basis for a healthy future sexual relationship. I think BlueDream explained well how our level of spirituality or purity affects marital intimacy. 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted January 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: My gag reflex just kicked in reading this... You should get that medically and psychologically checked out. Definitely not healthy. 6
mfbukowski Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, canard78 said: But therein lies the problem. Every individuals sex life is hugely complex and variable both in absolute and in seasons. I can't how "level of spirituality" or "purity" can have any bearing on it at all and I also can't see how teaching that to young adults is going to be the basis for a healthy future sexual relationship. Thanks for the information on your sex life that I did not want I agree with the talk immensely. If you disagree that says a lot about you that I did not need to know Have a nice day 1
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 35 minutes ago, canard78 said: Maybe... What about the 1001 other moments of sexual intimacy in a couples life when no "sacred earthly bodies" are being created? Now that is solid birth control. 1
Gray Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) This sounds like prosperity gospel thinking, but aimed at sexuality instead of money. A similar line of thought was circulating among the missionaries I served with back in the day - that if you served an honorable mission God would reward you with a good sex life in marriage. Edited January 9, 2017 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) I honestly have no idea as to what she meant by sexual purity. Edited January 9, 2017 by thesometimesaint 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 37 minutes ago, canard78 said: I did indeed. Congratulations on the photo. I hope you enjoy watching it once you get the stream working. My favourite moment is the "bananas" and "Easter eggs" comment. It was absolutely brilliant, I couldn't help but laugh generously at his self-deprecating humour. There were other comments he made that I'd be interested to discuss at some point (prophets as greater templates of leadership than George Washington and Ghandi) as well as the story about Pres. Hinckley and Gorbachev... but I'll leave that for someone else to start in other threads. I'm already at risk of upsetting Johnnie and Bluebell after I chided them for going off topic. One more note, then I'll stop the off-topic diversions. Without having yet watched the video, I think I can guess his comments about the bananas and Easter eggs. He probably said that at his age, he never buys green bananas and that his memory is getting so bad he can hide his own Easter eggs. (I saw Mickey Dolenz of the Monkees tell the Easter eggs joke on a YouTube video.)
Duncan Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: BTW...since I was banned from replaying on the tithing thread...I was never able to add that according to the recent GA income leak, its been confirmed that Elder Eyring paid 10% tithing on gross income...thought you'd like to know...don't know where he would get the idea that 10% of gross was what he should pay when he could have just been paying on net income all of these years what recent GA Income leak?
Popular Post cinepro Posted January 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 9, 2017 With all due respect, I'm not going to take advice from someone who can't use the word "sex" when discussing sex. Using euphemisms and indirect language may be appropriate when talking to children and those with limited understanding, but when talking to adults about adult things, feeling the need to speak indirectly is a bad sign. She's also been giving sex advice since long before she was married. Interestingly, her views on the subject don't seem to have expanded or changed since she got off the bench and into the game, so we must conclude she had learned everything she needed to know from books and no experience was necessary. Which I wouldn't have believed to be the case on the subject. 6
canard78 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks for the information on your sex life that I did not want I agree with the talk immensely. If you disagree that says a lot about you that I did not need to know Have a nice day You're making assumptions that aren't supported out by anything I've said. I'm glad you're not going to be contributing any further to the thread, based on your judgmental approach and un-constructive contribution to it. In case you do read this, have a nice day too. 1
Oliblish Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 2 hours ago, TrespassersW said: Asserting that P implies Q is not the same as asserting that NOT Q implies NOT P. Actually that is the same: Transposition
cinepro Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 Also, it sounds like Sister Watson/ Nelson may have been giving the same talk (or some version of it) for 18+ years: Personal Purity and Intimacy 2
Bobbieaware Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 10 minutes ago, cinepro said: With all due respect, I'm not going to take advice from someone who can't use the word "sex" when discussing sex. Using euphemisms and indirect language may be appropriate when talking to children and those with limited understanding, but when talking to adults about adult things, feeling the need to speak indirectly is a bad sign. She's also been giving sex advice since long before she was married. Interestingly, her views on the subject don't seem to have expanded or changed since she got off the bench and into the game, so we must conclude she had learned everything she needed to know from books and no experience was necessary. Which I wouldn't have believed to be the case on the subject. Like the young men and young women in the room wouldn't understand what she was talking about. 1
Thinking Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Anijen said: That is the whole point. "Aunt Wendy" was making the point that if one is not pure then it is just, well, just sex. I happen to agree with Sister Nelson that intimacy from a partnership of purity, can exceed marvelous expectations... Although I am not diminishing plain sex from an impure partnership I am pretty sure it is still pleasurable, but yes there is probably a measurable difference. Measurable? I also think it's condescending to judge others' sexual fulfillment as being less than what what a so-called partnership of purity can experience.
Recommended Posts