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

[BlueDreams]

On 1/11/2017 at 4:15 PM, canard78 said:

That sounds outstanding. They're lucky to have you there. 

I wish you'd written "Aunty Wendy's" talk for her. It seems a shame that the books you've read and the books she's read have resulted in such a different approach to teaching sex and sexuality. 

Could I ask, do you ever discuss masturbation in any of your lessons like the one you've just described?

I grew up in a generation where it was strictly prohibited. I wondered if your professional experience meant you taught a different approach?

I usually discuss masturbation in smaller individual bases. Not in group contexts. If I do it's with basic stats to point out that if your concerned or feel like the only one, your likely not...far from it. For one, I know my views are a little different from a traditional outlook...one that still has a lot of stigma. For another the behavior itself may not be a problem but context can be. Giving an overall yea or nay to masturbation isn't my thing. I'm not a big fan of masturbation coupled with porn, for example. Particularly with teens or pre-teens. Or if it's taking over relational intimacy. I'm less concerned about basic masturbation and self-exploration that most will go through at some point. Masturbation can have some benefits that aren't acknowledged, like being familiar with ones sexual response and what feels pleasurable. There's other times and disorders that it's needed (I won't go into detail because of the board). It's easier to share ones desires with a spouse if you know what feels good to you. People that don't, at least that I've seen, may have more difficulty with sex in marriage, particularly at first. Not all the time, but enough to notice a pattern. 

With my own children I plan to talk frankly about it, point out its normal to want to explore pleasurable feelings, teach boundaries and that it shouldn't overtake other important parts of your life. As well as not doing so in inappropriate places or circumstances. That what you decide is primarily between you and God first because it's deciding what to do with your body (and doesn't entail anyone else). It would follow a basic construct of respecting others and doing what feels right for them spiritually and personally. 

 

In generally I'm not a big believed in telling them what they should or shouldn't do but teaching them to have their sexuality be something that is prayerfully guided and letting the spirit be their teacher. I do say in group contexts that any one else can be places of guidance or support but shouldn't be there to dictate their bodies or spiritual journeys in mastering it.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 13, 2017 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

On 1/11/2017 at 4:15 PM, canard78 said:

wish you'd written "Aunty Wendy's" talk for her. It seems a shame that the books you've read and the books she's read have resulted in such a different approach to teaching sex and sexuality. 

I forgot to respond to this, but want to keep it separate from the questions. I really do think Aunt Wendy is getting more of a bum wrap on this thread than she deserves based off of a sound bite. Like I said, though I would have done a few things differently and have minor disagreements, I largely agree with her! We also happen to have her book in the office and she's had the experience that most leaders in the church talking about this topic don't. A PhD in pyschology and years of experience in marriage and family therapy. She would have been a peer with several of my professors, including my old professor who taught our sex therapy class. Some of the books I read are likely the books she did as well.

One big difference is that as a general MFT, though sex probably came up, it wasn't nearly as in depth as my sessions typically go. I generally ask more invasive questions and get into topics that make the typical Mft a little squirmy. I don't say his to brag, I watched it with my cohort. It takes an odd-duck of a soul to be able to focus on sex and sexual concerns day in and day out. To do so and open up people who our shy about these topics and air out their dirty laundry in front of a basic stranger.

And then we just have differing perspectives period, and that's just fine. I have a tendency to question everything. To deconstruct everything. I have a hard time taking anyone's word for anything. Particularly if I'm seeing different. I'm also younger, from a different generation, and differing cultural baggage. All of which effect this.

Some of the reactivity I see on this thread honestly doesn't seem to fit her actual message. It's more indicative of our own religious contexts and sense that religious messages to sex are bad and repressive or backwards, in my opinion, than what she was actually saying. The message around sex cannot just maintain this diametrically opposing direction in our people, where either most everything goes as long as all parties consent, or maintaining extreme puritanical ideals where discussing sex in just about any format is dangerous. Ironically this reactivity to me, doesn't allow one to reap positive messages from either side and finding truths in such. Instead we box the messages further in, creating more conflict than there need be. 

I'm big advocate for changing the dialogue around sex in the church. I'm slowly working on doing so. But I in no way think that the message in a secular context devoid of value-based terminology is going to work. It will hamstring LDS sexuality and leave some of the problems that are still maintained in the sexual revolution and in what Nelson called "worldly sex."

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 14, 2017 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

 

If you don't even know what it means, how in the world can you be so certain about its impact?

If we're using sexual purity as a catchall then sure. If we're being specific about words then not so much.

[HappyJackWagon]

There's a very candid discussion about the pros and cons of this talk as well as a general discussion on the topic of intimacy for those interested. http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/the-truths-about-marital-intimacy-a-critique-of-wendy-nelsons-sex-talk-helfer-parker-and-de-azevedo-hanks/

[bcuzbcuz]

I couldn't find any references to the books written by Wendy Watson Nelson, so if I'm rehashing old stuff, please forgive.

Has anyone here read "The Not Even Once Club" by Wendy Watson Nelson, Deseret Book Company, 2013.

I would enjoy listening to opinions about this book. Please don't merely copy reviews, I can Google as well as the next. 

I will withhold my opinion until someone who has actually read the book can put in their two cents worth.

[canard78]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I usually discuss masturbation in smaller individual bases. Not in group contexts. If I do it's with basic stats to point out that if your concerned or feel like the only one, your likely not...far from it. For one, I know my views are a little different from a traditional outlook...one that still has a lot of stigma. For another the behavior itself may not be a problem but context can be. Giving an overall yea or nay to masturbation isn't my thing. I'm not a big fan of masturbation couples with porn, for example. Particularly with teens or pre-teens. Or if it's taking over relational intimacy. I'm less concerned about basic masturbation and self-exploration that most will go through at some point. Masturbation can have some benefits that aren't acknowledged, like being familiar with ones sexual response and what feels pleasurable. There's other times and disorders that it's needed (I won't go into detail because of the board). It's easier to share ones desires with a spouse if you know what feels good to you. People that don't, at least that I've seen, may have more difficulty with sex in marriage, particularly at first. Not all the time, but enough to notice a pattern. 

With my own children I plan to talk frankly about it, point out its normal to want to explore pleasurable feelings, teach boundaries and that it shouldn't overtake other important parts of your life. As well as not doing so in inappropriate places or circumstances. That what you decide is primarily between you and God first because it's deciding what to do with your body (and doesn't entail anyone else). It would follow a basic construct of respecting others and doing what feels right for them spiritually and personally. 

 

In generally I'm not a big believed in telling them what they should or shouldn't do but teaching them to have their sexuality be something that is prayerfully guided and letting the spirit be their teacher. I do say in group contexts that any one else can be places of guidance or support but shouldn't be their to dictate their bodies or spiritual journeys in mastering it.

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks for the excellent reply and thoughtful explanation.

I participate in a wide range of forums (fora??) which has a every scale and depth of belief. This topic comes up from time to time. Based on the anecdotal evidence, I think your approach is very different to the approach taken by most LDS leaders. 

I remember being in a councillor to a branch president whose attitude to teaching the youth about masturbation was similar to yours, but it was definitely the exception. It was also informed by him being a medical professional, with a better understanding of human biology than most. 

I think you would be hard pressed to find anything close to your teaching methods in any church materials and many would specifically teach that masturbation would make them impure. I've been taught it and I've taught it. 

I'm glad you're working for change.  I hope the leaders are listening. 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

Thanks for the excellent reply and thoughtful explanation.

I participate in a wide range of forums (fora??) which has a every scale and depth of belief. This topic comes up from time to time. Based on the anecdotal evidence, I think your approach is very different to the approach taken by most LDS leaders. 

I remember being in a councillor to a branch president whose attitude to teaching the youth about masturbation was similar to yours, but it was definitely the exception. It was also informed by him being a medical professional, with a better understanding of human biology than most. 

I think you would be hard pressed to find anything close to your teaching methods in any church materials and many would specifically teach that masturbation would make them impure. I've been taught it and I've taught it. 

I'm glad you're working for change.  I hope the leaders are listening. 

I know it does. Which is another reason I don't do so in presentations just yet and focus more on principal than specific acts (i.e. Prayerful personal decisions.). I probably will in some ways at some point...particularly with porn and masturbatuin. but I understand both points on a very personal level. I know for me, personally it took a couple of years of prayer and searching and whatnot before I reached these conclusions. I'm ok having it take time, or I'd basically be a hypocrite.

And so far I haven't had anything but positive affirmations from my leaders. It's taking longer to get going with presentations than I'd like on church related groups (done plenty in school oriented ones), but the ones I've had have been absolute successes. I was surprised by just how well my FHE one went. A) it was long. B) I decided not to cut some very frank pictures, including an art instillation of cast moundings of real vulva. C) I used such to talk frankly about sexual arousal, sexual responses, and basic differences between men and women...to a bunch of YSA's. I stated frankly that I wouldn't tell them what they could or couldn't do because I don't have authority to dictate your sexual choices. I answered questions given to me, including ones like why would people have oral sex, frankly and honestly. I also talked about assault and consent and gave a shout out to those with differing sexual orientations. I didn't skirt, just reminded myself that this would be new, so no deep dives.

I knew it was a success because the entire bishopric there profusely thanked me, and several ward members stated that they talked about it for hours after (it was already 9 when I left), I went home to Texas and a kid who happened to be at that presentation at school, spotted me, and stated it was the best presentation at an FHE he had gone to. I don't say this to brag, I say this to point out that the people are ready for change in this area. But it has to be OUR change in our contexts. And there already is change happening. A lot of this change can't be hierarchical. But more grassroots. People think that mormons do something a specific way and often it's the more rigid conservative white American families that become templates in people's minds of what "the church" teaches or has done about sex. But that's not true. Families widely differ about sex and the good news is we're a people who believe in repentance.

Generationally, there's growing differences in how families talk about sex. I've had more than one young person who was strongly referred by a parent to a sex therapist. I know that on surface doesn't seem a big deal, but think about it. It means that the family had fostered a culture where children felt safe to tell their parents their sexual concerns. That's a big change. And it's becoming more common. Furthermore I heard from someone else that in their ward in Denmark (I believe) they had a sex presentation as their RS activity and. I one batted an eye. 

I'm a believer in change and I'm not a believer in complaining about something that I'm not willing to try and fix. And I'm a big believer that this is one area where there is actually a lot of space to change and our culture is at a point that they're willing to do so. One of the reasons I did the presentation in my ward was because my previous bishop had given one of the worst annual sex talks I'd ever heard...ever. (YSA's have a tendency to get an annual sex talk from the bishops). It was terrible. I was cussing in my head in church terrible. So I decided that I would talk to him personally to see if I could lend my growing expertise. Unfortunately he was released before I could, but the first thing I did with the new bishop was talk to him about the idea. It also happened that he was a counseling psych professor. It took work, we had to shrink down our grandiose ideas (he wanted this to be a multi-ward activity). But it happened, Working directly with a church leader.

obviously this is small scale and exceptional. But exceptions, done enough, change rules. Change dynamics. It just takes time.

 

with luv,

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, canard78 said:

Thanks for the excellent reply and thoughtful explanation.

I participate in a wide range of forums (fora??) which has a every scale and depth of belief. This topic comes up from time to time. Based on the anecdotal evidence, I think your approach is very different to the approach taken by most LDS leaders. 

I remember being in a councillor to a branch president whose attitude to teaching the youth about masturbation was similar to yours, but it was definitely the exception. It was also informed by him being a medical professional, with a better understanding of human biology than most. 

I think you would be hard pressed to find anything close to your teaching methods in any church materials and many would specifically teach that masturbation would make them impure. I've been taught it and I've taught it. 

I'm glad you're working for change.  I hope the leaders are listening. 

Without further comment, I will just mention that I think it would be very unusual for a bishop or a stake president to contradict the Church's teachings as enunciated in "For the Strength of Youth."

Here is what is contained therein pertaining to masturbation:

Quote

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

(Emphasis added)

[halconero]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without further comment, I will just mention that I think it would be very unusual for a bishop or a stake president to contradict the Church's teachings as enunciated in "For the Strength of Youth."

Here is what is contained therein pertaining to masturbation:

(Emphasis added)

What I will say though is that while President Packer does advise against it, in his own (somewhat infamous, though I don't mind it) talk "To Young Men Only," he doesn't consider it a major issue or concern.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, halconero said:

What I will say though is that while President Packer does advise against it, in his own (somewhat infamous, though I don't mind it) talk "To Young Men Only," he doesn't consider it a major issue or concern.

What he said in that talk, as I recall, is that it is not so egregious that the Lord will reject you for it (or perhaps I'm conflating that with President Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness). That doesn't leave very much to commend it, though. Every authoritative teaching that I've heard from the Church is that it is to be avoided and/or overcome, perhaps with the help of priesthood leaders. When I was a young adult, it was enough to delay one's call as a missionary or his advancement in the priesthood; to my knowledge that's still the case.

Edited to add:

Here's the precise quote from "To Young Men Only":

Quote

First, I want you to know this. If you are struggling with this temptation and perhaps you have not quite been able to resist, the Lord still loves you. It is not anything so wicked nor is it a transgression so great that the Lord would reject you because of it, but it can quickly lead to that kind of transgression. It is not pleasing to the Lord, nor is it pleasing to you. It does not make you feel worthy or clean.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bcuzbcuz]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without further comment, I will just mention that I think it would be very unusual for a bishop or a stake president to contradict the Church's teachings as enunciated in "For the Strength of Youth."

Here is what is contained therein pertaining to masturbation:

(Emphasis added)

I understand your viewpoint, Scott, because I was also raised in the church, but an opinion that views natural human behaviours, masturbation, and natural human physical discharges, menstruation, as sinful and unclean is not an enlightened view. Your comments that view masturbation as a sinful discharge harp back to old testament viewpoints and are hardly "aware". They imply to any youth that natural body functions are unclean, sinful and mean  a distancing between human spirit and the godly. In the old testament menstruation is unclean. Do you see it the same way today? Do you see masturbation as "unclean"?

To me it would be like comparing urination with copulation. When a human reaches puberty, their body functions are not unclean. Simply because one can see similarities between the bodily functions and sexual maturity doesn´t mean there is a ink. 

It is, however, easy for religions, do-gooders, merchants of guilt, to sell normal body functions as sinful and evil. 

[canard78]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without further comment, I will just mention that I think it would be very unusual for a bishop or a stake president to contradict the Church's teachings as enunciated in "For the Strength of Youth."

Here is what is contained therein pertaining to masturbation:

(Emphasis added)

Do you have any thoughts on why masturbation used to be specifically prohibited in FTSoY but now is only alluded to?

The 1990 version that I was raised with stated:

The Lord specifically forbids certain behaviors, including... masturbation...

If it's still prohibited, why move to a position of ambiguity in the current wording. 

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without further comment, I will just mention that I think it would be very unusual for a bishop or a stake president to contradict the Church's teachings as enunciated in "For the Strength of Youth."

Here is what is contained therein pertaining to masturbation:

"Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression"

(Emphasis added)

Blue emphasis added to this is mine. As I've already mentioned, I know my views do not align with the FtSY pamphlet. Even before I was a sex therapist it sounded holey. I can guarantee that most of the singles I know in their 20's at some point in their relationships have done these. I have never met anyone who has been disciplined in any way for doing such. Sexual arousal is also a silly meter in my mind. Sexual excitement is about as controllable as salivating over food. It's a bodily function that is expected and doesn't necessarily equal lustful or selfish desires, but natural reactions when you're with someone you are excited about. These as guidelines are not equitable in severity or concern and because some are absolutely difficult to predict, can lead to weariness about sexuality that need not be there. These don't teach necessarily self-mastery and more so self-leeriness. The other concern is that the level of shame can be confused for the Spirit of the Lord. Shame for the vast majority of circumstances, is not spirit induced. In fact it can block people from the spirit more. 

I also have a problem with how disciplinary actions are carried out on these. You mentioned this:

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

. Every authoritative teaching that I've heard from the Church is that it is to be avoided and/or overcome, perhaps with the help of priesthood leaders. When I was a young adult, it was enough to delay one's call as a missionary or his advancement in the priesthood; to my knowledge that's still the case.

 Because of my job and clientele (as well as people's tendency to open up about their sexual concerns when I'm chatting with them) I've become very aware that said disciplinary actions, probations, etc. are all over the place. There's no set stances, particularly with porn and masturbation or other gray areas to sexual activities. I've had people who've been placed on probation for months for what I see as relatively minor issues (like infrequent masturbation). And then have someone with a serious porn addiction that is wreaking havoc on their relationships, be permitted to attend the temple. Kids like my bro may end up being delayed from attending the temple or advancement in the priesthood for minor amounts of porn. While a missionary may be worked with on the mission performing priesthood duties. The difference, from what I can see, has little to do with the severity of the sin but the leader's attitude towards sex, sexual conduct, and their own feelings between mercy/justice and letter of the law v. spirit.  It's why I have a big belief in working with God first and then if the Spirit says talk to your bishop, you talk. 

What this does give is heavily loads of shame that are disproportionate to the level of potential sin. (like I said, I find the context NOT the act that makes is potentially sinful). Some who I talk to this about, come in with heaps and heaps of shame for actions that 95% of men and 89% of women (depends the survey) happen to do at some point. I'm not saying that large scale practice makes this alright, but that the degree of sin it represents is probably not actually tied to the level of gravity some in the church give it. We talk about sexual sin as if it's at the same level of gravity all the way to the top. And that leads to many of my clients feeling like they've committed a sin next to murder. It only takes a little poking and prodding for that to fall apart. To me, it's as serious to the Law of Chastity as Red Bull is to the WoW. In most cases should it happen and happen with great frequency? No, probably not, as we're to learn to bridle all our passions (or eat healthy and stay away from addictive things). But it isn't fully breaking it either and shouldn't be treated with the same level of concern with things that actually do. And that shame is POTENT. It's often what's keeping half of their "problems" in gear. When it's reduced, their problems often reduce and begin to erode as well.   

In rhetrospect, it's probably closer to chocolate to me in parallel. Like masturbation, chocolate can be helpful and have some benefits. But also like chocolate, most circumstances it's not needed or even that great for you (especially white "chocolate"....evil counterfeit!). And if in excess can be a problem.  Chocolate isn't necessarily against the WoW, but can be if used improperly.

 

With luv,

BD

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

  5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression"

RE: your blue highlight emphasis, I think the message here is about the purity of intent and the intent to be pure. Feelings of arousal will come easily enough, through societal osmosis and the body's natural processes, to just about everyone from early childhood on up; the same with a sense of conscience and the sense of right and wrong.

By the time a young person who understands the principles and ordinances of the Gospel reads “For the Strength of Youth,” he will know the difference between that which finds him while he’s off guard and that which he finds intentionally, what temptation is, and the difference between nurturing the spirit or thought or sensation. He will know there are many ways to consciously and intentionally arouse sexual feelings and emotions (masturbation being only one).

The Proclamation provides the principles for developing, over the course of a lifetime, well-adjusted adults, children and their families. So I think the Proclamation does not take so much a therapeutic perspective but a preventative or rather an edifying one (the same with the Strength of Youth).

Of course we are all fallen and need “therapy” but that comes from the other principles and ordinances of the Gospel. And when people get so mentally or physically or sexually sick for any reason (even in a positive family environment and living the principles and ordinances), professional therapy is certainly in order.

[cinepro]

On 1/12/2017 at 0:12 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

I couldn't find any references to the books written by Wendy Watson Nelson, so if I'm rehashing old stuff, please forgive.

Has anyone here read "The Not Even Once Club" by Wendy Watson Nelson, Deseret Book Company, 2013.

I would enjoy listening to opinions about this book. Please don't merely copy reviews, I can Google as well as the next. 

I will withhold my opinion until someone who has actually read the book can put in their two cents worth.

I read it at Deseret Book a few years ago.  I'm not sure what I could say that isn't mirrored in the other reviews.  It's awful. 

If I wanted to write a book that parodied the worst version of LDS doctrine for kids, I couldn't come up with anything better.  It's astoundingly bad.

FWIW, here's how I would have written the book.  It would be the "Getting Better Club", where the kids allow anyone to join, and they each help each other overcome different challenges to be better people (i.e. Bobby likes to steal things, so they help him break the habit; Mary often tells lies, so they help her understand that she doesn't need to).  And when a kid makes a mistake, they are forgiven and encouraged.  Kind of like an AA meeting for kid problems.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Blue emphasis added to this is mine. As I've already mentioned, I know my views do not align with the FtSY pamphlet. Even before I was a sex therapist it sounded holey. I can guarantee that most of the singles I know in their 20's at some point in their relationships have done these. I have never met anyone who has been disciplined in any way for doing such. Sexual arousal is also a silly meter in my mind. Sexual excitement is about as controllable as salivating over food. It's a bodily function that is expected and doesn't necessarily equal lustful or selfish desires, but natural reactions when you're with someone you are excited about. These as guidelines are not equitable in severity or concern and because some are absolutely difficult to predict, can lead to weariness about sexuality that need not be there. These don't teach necessarily self-mastery and more so self-leeriness. The other concern is that the level of shame can be confused for the Spirit of the Lord. Shame for the vast majority of circumstances, is not spirit induced. In fact it can block people from the spirit more. 

I also have a problem with how disciplinary actions are carried out on these. You mentioned this:

 Because of my job and clientele (as well as people's tendency to open up about their sexual concerns when I'm chatting with them) I've become very aware that said disciplinary actions, probations, etc. are all over the place. There's no set stances, particularly with porn and masturbation or other gray areas to sexual activities. I've had people who've been placed on probation for months for what I see as relatively minor issues (like infrequent masturbation). And then have someone with a serious porn addiction that is wreaking havoc on their relationships, be permitted to attend the temple. Kids like my bro may end up being delayed from attending the temple or advancement in the priesthood for minor amounts of porn. While a missionary may be worked with on the mission performing priesthood duties. The difference, from what I can see, has little to do with the severity of the sin but the leader's attitude towards sex, sexual conduct, and their own feelings between mercy/justice and letter of the law v. spirit.  It's why I have a big belief in working with God first and then if the Spirit says talk to your bishop, you talk. 

What this does give is heavily loads of shame that are disproportionate to the level of potential sin. (like I said, I find the context NOT the act that makes is potentially sinful). Some who I talk to this about, come in with heaps and heaps of shame for actions that 95% of men and 89% of women (depends the survey) happen to do at some point. I'm not saying that large scale practice makes this alright, but that the degree of sin it represents is probably not actually tied to the level of gravity some in the church give it. We talk about sexual sin as if it's at the same level of gravity all the way to the top. And that leads to many of my clients feeling like they've committed a sin next to murder. It only takes a little poking and prodding for that to fall apart. To me, it's as serious to the Law of Chastity as Red Bull is to the WoW. In most cases should it happen and happen with great frequency? No, probably not, as we're to learn to bridle all our passions (or eat healthy and stay away from addictive things). But it isn't fully breaking it either and shouldn't be treated with the same level of concern with things that actually do. And that shame is POTENT. It's often what's keeping half of their "problems" in gear. When it's reduced, their problems often reduce and begin to erode as well.   

In rhetrospect, it's probably closer to chocolate to me in parallel. Like masturbation, chocolate can be helpful and have some benefits. But also like chocolate, most circumstances it's not needed or even that great for you (especially white "chocolate"....evil counterfeit!). And if in excess can be a problem.  Chocolate isn't necessarily against the WoW, but can be if used improperly.

 

With luv,

BD

I have...SO many questions about all your posts.  Very interesting stuff.

But I'm wondering your opinion on one:

A while ago, someone here had posted a first presidency message from way back when (late 70's early 80's??), that stated their position on oral sex within the confines of marriage.  In short, they disapproved and equated it as an "impure and unholy practice"

Based on what you've said so far, I would imagine that you would disagree with that,  of course assuming both partners were comfortable with, and consenting to. 

My question is, within an LDS temple marriage, and assuming both partners are consenting, is there "a boundary" with regards to their sexual intimacy that you would agree to?  I don't want specifics, but do you think the church should just stay silent on setting boundaries with regard to sexual intimacy within marriage?  Between the couple and the Lord only?  Or are there things you've seen that lead you to believe boundaries should be in place?  

Hope that makes sense

[canard78]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Blue emphasis added to this is mine. As I've already mentioned, I know my views do not align with the FtSY pamphlet. Even before I was a sex therapist it sounded holey. I can guarantee that most of the singles I know in their 20's at some point in their relationships have done these. I have never met anyone who has been disciplined in any way for doing such. Sexual arousal is also a silly meter in my mind. Sexual excitement is about as controllable as salivating over food. It's a bodily function that is expected and doesn't necessarily equal lustful or selfish desires, but natural reactions when you're with someone you are excited about. These as guidelines are not equitable in severity or concern and because some are absolutely difficult to predict, can lead to weariness about sexuality that need not be there. These don't teach necessarily self-mastery and more so self-leeriness. The other concern is that the level of shame can be confused for the Spirit of the Lord. Shame for the vast majority of circumstances, is not spirit induced. In fact it can block people from the spirit more. 

I also have a problem with how disciplinary actions are carried out on these. You mentioned this:

 Because of my job and clientele (as well as people's tendency to open up about their sexual concerns when I'm chatting with them) I've become very aware that said disciplinary actions, probations, etc. are all over the place. There's no set stances, particularly with porn and masturbation or other gray areas to sexual activities. I've had people who've been placed on probation for months for what I see as relatively minor issues (like infrequent masturbation). And then have someone with a serious porn addiction that is wreaking havoc on their relationships, be permitted to attend the temple. Kids like my bro may end up being delayed from attending the temple or advancement in the priesthood for minor amounts of porn. While a missionary may be worked with on the mission performing priesthood duties. The difference, from what I can see, has little to do with the severity of the sin but the leader's attitude towards sex, sexual conduct, and their own feelings between mercy/justice and letter of the law v. spirit.  It's why I have a big belief in working with God first and then if the Spirit says talk to your bishop, you talk. 

What this does give is heavily loads of shame that are disproportionate to the level of potential sin. (like I said, I find the context NOT the act that makes is potentially sinful). Some who I talk to this about, come in with heaps and heaps of shame for actions that 95% of men and 89% of women (depends the survey) happen to do at some point. I'm not saying that large scale practice makes this alright, but that the degree of sin it represents is probably not actually tied to the level of gravity some in the church give it. We talk about sexual sin as if it's at the same level of gravity all the way to the top. And that leads to many of my clients feeling like they've committed a sin next to murder. It only takes a little poking and prodding for that to fall apart. To me, it's as serious to the Law of Chastity as Red Bull is to the WoW. In most cases should it happen and happen with great frequency? No, probably not, as we're to learn to bridle all our passions (or eat healthy and stay away from addictive things). But it isn't fully breaking it either and shouldn't be treated with the same level of concern with things that actually do. And that shame is POTENT. It's often what's keeping half of their "problems" in gear. When it's reduced, their problems often reduce and begin to erode as well.   

In rhetrospect, it's probably closer to chocolate to me in parallel. Like masturbation, chocolate can be helpful and have some benefits. But also like chocolate, most circumstances it's not needed or even that great for you (especially white "chocolate"....evil counterfeit!). And if in excess can be a problem.  Chocolate isn't necessarily against the WoW, but can be if used improperly.

 

With luv,

BD

BlueDreams, your contribution to this thread has been outstanding. I know that currently you might feel like you have a relatively small circle of influence, but please keep doing and saying what you are doing. 

It gives me great hope for my Mormon extended family's futures and emotional wellbeing to know there are people like you in the church and leaders who support and fascilitate your approach. 

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

I read it at Deseret Book a few years ago.  I'm not sure what I could say that isn't mirrored in the other reviews.  It's awful. 

If I wanted to write a book that parodied the worst version of LDS doctrine for kids, I couldn't come up with anything better.  It's astoundingly bad.

FWIW, here's how I would have written the book.  It would be the "Getting Better Club", where the kids allow anyone to join, and they each help each other overcome different challenges to be better people (i.e. Bobby likes to steal things, so they help him break the habit; Mary often tells lies, so they help her understand that she doesn't need to).  And when a kid makes a mistake, they are forgiven and encouraged.  Kind of like an AA meeting for kid problems.

 It can all be summed up with the last page. It contains a pledge....copies can be made!....that asks the intended audience (4 to 8 year olds) to sign a pledge for life!!! (I assume it is for life and not just a "youth" pledge, because the pledger promises never to break the law of chastity. Can a 4 year old break the law of chastity?????)

Apart from promising to NEVER lie, which is virtually impossible, it also asks that the pledger will never intentionally look at pornographic billboards! Pornographic billboards???? Do you actually have pornographic billboards in the USA? 

I definitely remember a billboard on the way to bathe (swim?) at the Great Salt Lake. It was a Coppertone commercial. Anyone remember it? A black dog pulling down the bathing shorts of a little girl in pigtails? Was that pornographic?

It´s a children´s book, written by somebody who has never raised any children. Would you trust a dentist who had only read books about dentistry?

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

RE: your blue highlight emphasis, I think the message here is about the purity of intent and the intent to be pure. Feelings of arousal will come easily enough, through societal osmosis and the body's natural processes, to just about everyone from early childhood on up; the same with a sense of conscience and the sense of right and wrong.

By the time a young person who understands the principles and ordinances of the Gospel reads “For the Strength of Youth,” he will know the difference between that which finds him while he’s off guard and that which he finds intentionally, what temptation is, and the difference between nurturing the spirit or thought or sensation. He will know there are many ways to consciously and intentionally arouse sexual feelings and emotions (masturbation being only one).

I don't mind all but the arousal comments for people under the age of 18, who the FtSY pamphlet was initially created for. I think it's fair advice for teens. The problem is that this is overused for people of any age that are single. That's not going to work. I'm not saying that there isn't good advice for all ages in there, but it's still not how I would talk to young adults or applicable. But I have leaders still use that for people in their 20's as still equally applying. I mean think if we did the same with the dating section in the FtSY:
 

Quote

 

You should not date until you are at least 16 years old. When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples. Avoid going on frequent dates with the same person. Developing serious relationships too early in life can limit the number of other people you meet and can perhaps lead to immorality. Invite your parents to become acquainted with those you date.

 

Minus, maybe 18-20, that is in someways literally the opposite advice someone would give to me at my age. 

 And as much as that does happen for some....you'd be astounded by how much people don't naturally learn how to monitor themselves in healthy ways. There's a couple of things that happen that are concerning to me:

- we don't talk about sex and because of that it increases chances for sexual assualt. I've had a string of people that I've had to explain they were sexually assaulted. The reason is because conversations about what consent looks like don't happen. Because we get stuck on the "just don't do it....or do anything" message we can't get to the message of "when you do want to do something that new to the relationship, ask and discuss it with your respective other." I've found myself sad, for not just the women (the usual victim) but the men (the usual perps), because they often don't know what they're doing is assualt.

- It ends up that there's a good chance we teach a little bit of fear of our bodies and in women particularly, disconnect with their sexual desires (this isn't just a mormon thing). This doesn't happen to all. But because we haven't really examined our messages, we're permitting the ones that do. The bishop message that was the worst ever entailed a drawn out picture of a bomb that sad "sex" in the middle of it with a long fuse that had varying sexual acts from holding hands to kissing to making out etc leading up to it. It teaches that we are not in control of our sexual desires, we may accidentally slip into sex, and when we do it'll destroy and maim us. That's not true, at any point. And though I know that's not what many messages within the church are meaning to give, it's another unintentional consequence.

- and he may know all that, but "she" often doesn't. Because of the body disconnect, women often don't know their bodies in marriage. I'm growing more and more convinced that women are seen as less sexual, not because they, but because of how little we teach women about their sexuality. One woman gave this perfect summary to me for what we can unintentionally do: men are taught to control their sexual urges, women are taught we don't have any. But we take women as low desire, less interested in sex, less likely to receive pleasure from it as vaguely normal. Insomuch that if I were to say that I have a high sex drive, I'm often assumed to still not "get" a man's more potent desires.

- And for "him" I'm concerned about phrases like "off-guard." I don't think of my sexual desires as something I have to keep a careful eye on. It's apart of me, apart of my learning, and when pointed in the right direction is also a vehicle to better know God. And that's before I'm married. But, again...whether intentional or not....to talk about being on-guard or sexual desire as temptation give less a sense of control and working with your sexuality and more of fighting it and at best a little leery/cautious of what it may do.  

Quote

 

The Proclamation provides the principles for developing, over the course of a lifetime, well-adjusted adults, children and their families. So I think the Proclamation does not take so much a therapeutic perspective but a preventative or rather an edifying one (the same with the Strength of Youth).

Of course we are all fallen and need “therapy” but that comes from the other principles and ordinances of the Gospel. And when people get so mentally or physically or sexually sick for any reason (even in a positive family environment and living the principles and ordinances), professional therapy is certainly in order.

 

I'm not sure how the proclamation fits, in my mind, with teaching about sexual desires. Would you mind elaborating? And yes we are all fallen. But i wish the message that our sexuality, at any stage of our life, is just like any other part of our personhood. When we point it in the right direction it is a vehicle for growth, compassion, and even revelation. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, SteveO said:

I have...SO many questions about all your posts.  Very interesting stuff.

Please, feel free to ask. I love answering questions about this. As long as this thread's open and ok with moderators, I'd happily answer whatever. 

Quote

 

But I'm wondering your opinion on one:

A while ago, someone here had posted a first presidency message from way back when (late 70's early 80's??), that stated their position on oral sex within the confines of marriage.  In short, they disapproved and equated it as an "impure and unholy practice"

Based on what you've said so far, I would imagine that you would disagree with that,  of course assuming both partners were comfortable with, and consenting to. 

My question is, within an LDS temple marriage, and assuming both partners are consenting, is there "a boundary" with regards to their sexual intimacy that you would agree to?  I don't want specifics, but do you think the church should just stay silent on setting boundaries with regard to sexual intimacy within marriage?  Between the couple and the Lord only?  Or are there things you've seen that lead you to believe boundaries should be in place?

 

You would be correct, I definitely disagree with the quote. And there's a reason that such quotes have fallen to the way-side, historically.

 For LDS couples, I think the only boundary is that it's within the marriage or follows the idea of fidelity. In other words nothing that would entail other people as sexual partners, even if it was consented by both partners in the marriage. Marriage entails a 3-way covenant where God and the Holy Spirit has set only one really specific bound on their sexual marriage: it be a means to bring union with each other. Any form of that (partner-swapping, polyamory, etc) cannot in anyway maintain that. I'm also a little leery about some forms of porn in the marriage. Some isn't all that bad, particularly if it's done to together. But others are definitely the gray-zone at best. My big concern is that it's often more a desire of the husband, not the wife. And it can easily be pushed without meaning to. It can maintain inequity in sexual voice in the relationship. I also would probably veer away more extreme fetishes or sexual behaviors that become less about the couple and more about object or performance orientation.

I think overall, the boundary is largely not about a specific sexual act but of basic principles: equity, care, respect, mutuality, union, passion, and fun/joy. If those as well as basic gospel principles such as charity, long-suffering, patience, kindness, etc. are involved it doesn't really matter. LDS couples enjoy a variety of sexual acts in a variety of ways, times, and states. No one is the same. And I haven't heard of one sexual act, done as a pair, that a couple couldn't participate in.  BUT (big but) both partners need to feel comfortable, safe, and cared for in these. If they don't, something's off and needs to be worked through. The one wanting something the other doesn't may need to learn to "let it go" or if sex has become too rigid (just about every form of touch is off the table), the other partner may need to learn to explore and work through sexual fears/anxiety.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

 It can all be summed up with the last page. It contains a pledge....copies can be made!....that asks the intended audience (4 to 8 year olds) to sign a pledge for life!!! (I assume it is for life and not just a "youth" pledge, because the pledger promises never to break the law of chastity. Can a 4 year old break the law of chastity?????)

I haven't read the book, so don't feel uber qualified to say anything. But this sounds about as useful as chastity pledges at really young ages (anything under 12). Ie. They don't tend to mean much of anything. Particularly when some concepts, such as chastity, don't have any logistical meaning for them. The only kids I'd worry for are ones that are anxious about doing everything right or tend towards rigidity. 

I can't say much more beyond that, because I haven't read the book at all. Maybe I'll peruse the bookstore today to find it.  

Edit: Forgot this part- 

Quote

I definitely remember a billboard on the way to bathe (swim?) at the Great Salt Lake. It was a Coppertone commercial. Anyone remember it? A black dog pulling down the bathing shorts of a little girl in pigtails? Was that pornographic

Yes, look up Las Vegas Billboards. It does happen. Probably depends the area and laws. UT will generally have less.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 14, 2017 by BlueDreams

[california boy]

 

Quote

 

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

 

 

Does that mean I can gauge my purity by how marvelous my marital intimacy is?  

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, canard78 said:

Do you have any thoughts on why masturbation used to be specifically prohibited in FTSoY but now is only alluded to?

The 1990 version that I was raised with stated:

 

 

I dont agree that it's more ambiguous. If anything, it's more inclusive. Masturbation, by definition, entails arousing within oneself sexual feelings, which is forbidden in "For the Strength of Youth."

Edited January 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't mind all but the arousal comments for people under the age of 18, who the FtSY pamphlet was initially created for. I think it's fair advice for teens. The problem is that this is overused for people of any age that are single. That's not going to work. I'm not saying that there isn't good advice for all ages in there, but it's still not how I would talk to young adults or applicable. But I have leaders still use that for people in their 20's as still equally applying. I mean think if we did the same with the dating section in the FtSY:
 

Minus, maybe 18-20, that is in someways literally the opposite advice someone would give to me at my age. 

 And as much as that does happen for some....you'd be astounded by how much people don't naturally learn how to monitor themselves in healthy ways. There's a couple of things that happen that are concerning to me:

- we don't talk about sex and because of that it increases chances for sexual assualt. I've had a string of people that I've had to explain they were sexually assaulted. The reason is because conversations about what consent looks like don't happen. Because we get stuck on the "just don't do it....or do anything" message we can't get to the message of "when you do want to do something that new to the relationship, ask and discuss it with your respective other." I've found myself sad, for not just the women (the usual victim) but the men (the usual perps), because they often don't know what they're doing is assualt.

- It ends up that there's a good chance we teach a little bit of fear of our bodies and in women particularly, disconnect with their sexual desires (this isn't just a mormon thing). This doesn't happen to all. But because we haven't really examined our messages, we're permitting the ones that do. The bishop message that was the worst ever entailed a drawn out picture of a bomb that sad "sex" in the middle of it with a long fuse that had varying sexual acts from holding hands to kissing to making out etc leading up to it. It teaches that we are not in control of our sexual desires, we may accidentally slip into sex, and when we do it'll destroy and maim us. That's not true, at any point. And though I know that's not what many messages within the church are meaning to give, it's another unintentional consequence.

- and he may know all that, but "she" often doesn't. Because of the body disconnect, women often don't know their bodies in marriage. I'm growing more and more convinced that women are seen as less sexual, not because they, but because of how little we teach women about their sexuality. One woman gave this perfect summary to me for what we can unintentionally do: men are taught to control their sexual urges, women are taught we don't have any. But we take women as low desire, less interested in sex, less likely to receive pleasure from it as vaguely normal. Insomuch that if I were to say that I have a high sex drive, I'm often assumed to still not "get" a man's more potent desires.

- And for "him" I'm concerned about phrases like "off-guard." I don't think of my sexual desires as something I have to keep a careful eye on. It's apart of me, apart of my learning, and when pointed in the right direction is also a vehicle to better know God. And that's before I'm married. But, again...whether intentional or not....to talk about being on-guard or sexual desire as temptation give less a sense of control and working with your sexuality and more of fighting it and at best a little leery/cautious of what it may do.  

I'm not sure how the proclamation fits, in my mind, with teaching about sexual desires. Would you mind elaborating? And yes we are all fallen. But i wish the message that our sexuality, at any stage of our life, is just like any other part of our personhood. When we point it in the right direction it is a vehicle for growth, compassion, and even revelation. 

 

With luv,

BD

I agree that the pamphlet wasn’t written or intended for adults, but perhaps some leaders feel it is an appropriate reference for the individuals they are counseling. Sad but true, some adults have the same issues as teenagers, and approach them in the same way.

I’m not sure where the dating quote came from (I wasn’t talking about dating). The three examples you listed seem to be social or cultural issues, and in the case of the bishop, perhaps a personal issue. People falling in love often find themselves transcending their social or cultural constraints to a healthy relationship (most romantic stories--tragic, comic and moral--include this component; brain chemistry and pheromones are a miracle!), as they do when they have the Holy Ghost with them. But yes, these pressures can also contribute to the need for therapy.

“Off guard” to me means unexpected or unanticipated that is all, not an implication that we must ever remain hyper-vigilant on the subject. When it dawns upon someone that he or she is in a morally seductive situation, it would be good for him or her to get on guard. This applies to any other emotion or feeling that we might act upon in regrettable ways. Sexual feelings are hopefully integrated with the finest of our other human feelings.

The Proclamation, in my mind, is pertinent because its principles foster an environment where family members can become well-adjusted in all areas of human capacity, and sexuality is obviously included in that. In this way the young are mentored by their parents in dealing with all sorts of feelings, and parents can be in tune to recognize and acknowledge their children’s feelings and guide them in the most appropriate ways.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I agree that the pamphlet wasn’t written or intended for adults, but perhaps some leaders feel it is an appropriate reference for the individuals they are counseling. Sad but true, some adults have the same issues as teenagers, and approach them in the same way.

 

I’m not sure where the dating quote came from (I wasn’t talking about dating). The three examples you listed seem to be social or cultural issues, and in the case of the bishop, perhaps a personal issue. People falling in love often find themselves transcending their social or cultural constraints to a healthy relationship (most romantic stories--tragic, comic and moral--include this component; brain chemistry and pheromones are a miracle!), as they do when they have the Holy Ghost with them. But yes, these pressures can also contribute to the need for therapy.

 

“Off guard” to me means unexpected or unanticipated that is all, not an implication that we must ever remain hyper-vigilant on the subject. When it dawns upon someone that he or she is in a morally seductive situation, it would be good for him or her to get on guard. This applies to any other emotion or feeling that we might act upon in regrettable ways. Sexual feelings are hopefully integrated with the finest of our other human feelings.

 

The Proclamation, in my mind, is pertinent because its principles foster an environment where family members can become well-adjusted in all areas of human capacity, and sexuality is obviously included in that. In this way the young are mentored by their parents in dealing with all sorts of feelings, and parents can be in tune to recognize and acknowledge their children’s feelings and guide them in the most appropriate ways.

 

The requirement to remain sexually pure applies to all ages, not just to teens. While "For the Strength of Youth" is directed toward youth, the Church-published reference work "True to the Faith" is written for all ages and includes similar phrasing in its teaching on maintaining sexual purity and on behavior outside of marriage:

"Decide now to be chaste.
You need to make this decision only once. Make the decision now, before the temptation comes, and let your decision be so firm and with such deep commitment that it can never be shaken. Determine now that you will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not arouse those emotions in another person’s body or in your own body. Determine now that you will be completely true to your spouse."