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

[senjustindiaz]

Thats crap many people that hate each other still have great sex

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, senjustindiaz said:

Thats crap many people that hate each other still have great sex

"Great sex" and marital intimacy are two different things.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

"Great sex" and marital intimacy are two different things.

Not necessarily.  I think they both very much can and hopefully are a part of every marriage. I do know there are circumstances where sometimes that's not possible though.    

[senjustindiaz]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

"Great sex" and marital intimacy are two different things.

depends on the couple, every couple has their own "thing" as far as the bedroom goes

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not necessarily.  I think they both very much can and hopefully are a part of every marriage. I do know there are circumstances where sometimes that's not possible though.    

I agree.  I was more responding to the idea that great sex = marital intimacy.  Like you said, great sex can be a part of marital intimacy, but they are not the same thing.

[mrmarklin]

On 1/9/2017 at 10:49 AM, Thinking said:

Last time I checked, sex was carnal.

It's 90% mental, in fact.

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

Absolutely. The two references have somewhat different audiences and purposes, but with the same general message with regards to morality and a good deal of overlap in terminology. From the Strength of Youth, “The standards in this booklet will help you with the important choices you are making now and will yet make in the future.” While this goes for anyone, the simple and straightforward listing of morality in the form of standards is in a format and delivery that is apparently seen as more palatable to younger people.

True to the Faith "is designed as a companion to your study of the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets…. We are especially mindful of youth, young single adults, and new converts…" As a companion reference, it covers all sorts of topics and requires a bit more insightful use than the simpler For the Strength of Youth. This chapter on Chastity, for example, gets into the topic with quite a bit more complexity and detail (over 20 paragraphs vs. Strength of Youth's 9), which should lead to more introspection, faithful questions, study and individual application. I think it takes a bit more maturity, which a youth certainly could possess, to work the interconnections between these concepts and their personal scripture and doctrinal study.

I think the appeal of one over the other would align with one's developmental level and life experience (which is not always in chronological terms!). More comes with applying the standards in faith, granting maturity and wisdom by successfully negotiating the complexities of life in faith and moving on to benefit from the additional study materials. Milk and meat is a much better way to put that...

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely. The two references have somewhat different audiences and purposes, but with the same general message with regards to morality and a good deal of overlap in terminology. From the Strength of Youth, “The standards in this booklet will help you with the important choices you are making now and will yet make in the future.” While this goes for anyone, the simple and straightforward listing of morality in the form of standards is in a format and delivery that is apparently seen as more palatable to younger people.

 

True to the Faith "is designed as a companion to your study of the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets…. We are especially mindful of youth, young single adults, and new converts…" As a companion reference, it covers all sorts of topics and requires a bit more insightful use than the simpler For the Strength of Youth. This chapter on Chastity, for example, gets into the topic with quite a bit more complexity and detail (over 20 paragraphs vs. Strength of Youth's 9), which should lead to more introspection, faithful questions, study and individual application. I think it takes a bit more maturity, which a youth certainly could possess, to work the interconnections between these concepts and their personal scripture and doctrinal study.

I think the appeal of one over the other would align with one's developmental level and life experience (which is not always in chronological terms!). More comes with applying the standards in faith, granting maturity and wisdom by successfully negotiating the complexities of life in faith and moving on to benefit from the additional study materials. Milk and meat is a much better way to put that...

Indeed. 

I've never had much use for the notion that because one is older, one has license to be more cavalier and casual with regard to obeying the law of chastity or heeding prophetic counsel relating thereto. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed. 

I've never had much use for the notion that because one is older, one has license to be more cavalier and casual with regard to obeying the law of chastity or heeding prophetic counsel relating thereto. 

It just comes in different forms. This just made me recall the articles i this month's Ensign, and how often sexuality is addressed in this publication for more mature inclinations.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/01/marriage-technology-and-emotional-infidelity?lang=eng

An implied reference to broader aspects of human sexuality is also embedded in a at least three other articles.

[kllindley]

On 1/13/2017 at 5:16 PM, BlueDreams said:

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.

This is so true! I know I don't have the depth of experience and training you do. I'm just a clinical professional counselor. But I do a lot of work with compulsive sexual behaviors and sexuality in general. 

I'm generally one to be more critical of the cultural messages around sexuality in the Church. And even then I have a hard time getting worked up about her comments regarding purity. I tend to see purity as a measure of fidelity to spouse. Like 100% pure means uncontaminated and undiluted. Sexual purity would be the degree to which I focus my sexual energy on my wife. It's hard for me to see how increasing my focus and fidelity would NOT improve our intimacy. 

[Calm]

I like your definition.

[canard78]

On 1/14/2017 at 9:21 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

So in your mind masturbation is still clearly and unequivocally prohibited in Mormon standards/doctrine?

If a leader was teaching anything otherwise would you consider them to be "going rogue."

[CV75]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

So in your mind masturbation is still clearly and unequivocally prohibited in Mormon standards/doctrine?

If a leader was teaching anything otherwise would you consider them to be "going rogue."

Can you explain what the focus on masturbation is all about, as there are many erogenous zones, many of which are common to most people but many of which can also vary from person to person? I think the general instruction applies to them all and to all methods of stimulation, and is rooted in Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. At the end of the sermon (textually at least), He speaks of being perfect or whole, and I take this to mean having all the principles He taught “symphonized,” just as (zeroing in sexuality for the moment) sexuality is integrated with all our other capacities for psychic and bodily feeling and function, whether we recognize it or not.

Each generation learns differently through the techniques and technologies prevailing in their social structure. Families are pretty much a constant, hence the genius of applying the principles of the Proclamation in teaching each generation living under the roof and otherwise associated. From my observation, the application of Jesus’ teachings have been framed over the centuries by whatever might have become the question of the day for the overall society, so lust then self-abuse then masturbation then pornography and now virtual reality. All grounded of course in what Jesus first taught.

So I would comfortably say that lust is “clearly and unequivocally prohibited in Mormon standards/doctrine,” and always has been. In general, that could involve masturbation if you want to focus on that one sliver of an application, but I’m asking, “Why the focus?”

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

So in your mind masturbation is still clearly and unequivocally prohibited in Mormon standards/doctrine?

If a leader was teaching anything otherwise would you consider them to be "going rogue."

I don't see how a leader could teach that it is acceptable and regard himself as being in conformity with the principles of the gospel and the position of the Church. 

[BlueDreams]

On 1/14/2017 at 2:47 PM, 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.

I'm talking about group settings, not individual bishop counseling. And these are all adults. Even when some of my adults that I work with have similar issues as a teenager, I treat them and help them bridge the gap to ideals and dialogue. Doing otherwise maintains the problem. 

And the dating came from the section on dating from the FtSY pamphlet. I know you weren't talking about dating. I was pointing out that the pamplhet is meant for teenagers and that the advice given in it, should probably be upgraded a little for those in the mid to late 20's who are not in the first throws of realizing they have sexual urges. 

The 3 examples are definitely social, cultural, and at times personal issues. They're social, cultural, and personal issues that are currently being maintained in religious language and spaces. We've done little to counter the narrative that found it's roots in victorian ideology. This goes in the same boat as other ideas that have been culturally driven and have some loose connection to a doctrinal principle. An example would be Canard's quote of a previous version of FtSY where it stated " The Lord specifically forbids certain behaviors, including... masturbation... " I personally see the word change because there isn't any place in scripture that the Lord specifically forbade masturbation. There are plenty of scriptures that people have interpreted to say such, but they don't explicitly state such. And people falling in love very rarely transcend their social and cultural constraints to healthy relationships. That's a myth made up somewhere around Romeo and Juliet. We simply don't transcend our humanity. We find those that fit within our social and cultural constraints the majority of the time. An easy example of this is the slow increase in mixed race marriages over the years. If people truly do shed their socio-cultural inhibitions for love, there would be far more of these happening. They don't. Don't get me wrong, we love the stories where they do, but there's a reason they can be highlighted. People fall in love and learn to work in their cultural influences. When these have been particularly constricting around sex, they often don't melt away but are maintained in things like low desire, finding sex "gross," rigid boundaries around positions or sexual touch, ticklishness.....everywhere (like head to toe), skitishness, etc. They till love their partner, but just as love doesn't pay the bills, love doesn't fix all sexual problems. Which is why in the first 10 years, sexual issues are the second reason for divorce. And in the first 3 years, the number one reason.  

Quote

 

“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.

"Off guard" is just not a word I would use around anything sexual. I get your reasoning, but I've got to think in terms of larger scale implications. And though this isn't what you implied, it's still a part of the backbone that maintains crazier sexual conversations such as the one I mentioned. Ones that go to an audience of YSA's. Sexual feelings should be integrated with the finest of our other human feelings, but there are some strong trends that indicate a strong number of us are somewhat missing the boat. Language can be important in redefining how we think about sex and hopefully fewer of these problems that are heavily socially constructed.

As for the proclamaion, I think I get what you're saying....are you talking about this part:

Quote

 

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

....

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.

 

If so, this only is talking about one specific role for sex/sexuallity in marriage. If I used this to discuss sex, I would have it somewhere near the beginning as a really basic intro and spend a part of the time also using it to explain that sex isn't procreation. Or this clean in the actual act. For me and what  I'm doing, I still don't find it particularly useful. I don't mind it, just doesn't have much utility when teaching about sex. It's too broad, too sterile in language, and falls into the procreation language, which bottlenecks sex into one specific utility. It still feels like a stretch to me when discussing sexual concerns with children. I think it gives a basic format for how families should be created and interact, but not necessarily the needed advice for how sex is discussed. In someways it may unintentionally hamstring the dialogue for some. Because it's focused heavily on sacred terminology. Extremely sacred things in LDS contexts aren't discussed (as a cultural and somewhat doctrinal stance). And if they are, it's in very vague concepts. That is not how I would hope parents would talk to their kids about sex or their bodies. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

It just comes in different forms. This just made me recall the articles i this month's Ensign, and how often sexuality is addressed in this publication for more mature inclinations.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/01/marriage-technology-and-emotional-infidelity?lang=eng

An implied reference to broader aspects of human sexuality is also embedded in a at least three other articles.

Fun aside, the woman who wrote this was one of the people I had supervision with in my program. I really like her!

[BlueDreams]

On 1/14/2017 at 5:29 PM, senjustindiaz said:

depends on the couple, every couple has their own "thing" as far as the bedroom goes

No, it really doesn't. Great sex can be apart of every couple's marital intimacy but marital intimacy shouldn't just be great sex. That's very limiting and can lead to less flexibility or a major weakpoint in their marriage if that's basically it. In other words, if there's any issue that reduces great sex, that couple is going to have more difficult times weathering concerns. And there is plenty in the duration of a marriage that can rock the proverbial "great sex" boat. Such as babies. Aging. Health problems. Stress. etc.

Marital intimacy needs to be broader and more about basic care and safety to help weather inevitable storms in their life.  

 

With luv,

BD

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see how a leader could teach that it is acceptable and regard himself as being in conformity with the principles of the gospel and the position of the Church. 

We had a member of the Pres. of the 70 tell us in Priesthood Leadership in 2004 that if you struggle with Porn you should attend the Temple. Our MP told us that masturbation doesn't affect your standing in the Church so he doesn't need to get called at 4am with the stories how it all happened. if you need help overcoming these things why do you even need to tell a leader anyways, just go to ARP or hire a counsellor, the less the Bishop knows the better and it promotes self reliance. Personally I wouldn't want to drag my Bishop out of something to tell him hey , I have this problem and then have him tell me okay, go to ARP-well, thanks for the hot tip, why didn't I think of that before-eliminate the middle man and do it yourself

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

We had a member of the Pres. of the 70 tell us in Priesthood Leadership in 2004 that if you struggle with Porn you should attend the Temple. Our MP told us that masturbation doesn't affect your standing in the Church so he doesn't need to get called at 4am with the stories how it all happened. if you need help overcoming these things why do you even need to tell a leader anyways, just go to ARP or hire a counsellor, the less the Bishop knows the better and it promotes self reliance. Personally I wouldn't want to drag my Bishop out of something to tell him hey , I have this problem and then have him tell me okay, go to ARP-well, thanks for the hot tip, why didn't I think of that before-eliminate the middle man and do it yourself

My friend who's hubby struggled with porn was told the same thing by his bishop.  Go to the temple more.

[Duncan]

Just now, bluebell said:

My friend who's hubby struggled with porn was told the same thing by his bishop.  Go to the temple more.

probably one of the most uncomfortable meetings I've had was a zone conference. The President excused the sisters and of course everyone was like whaaaaaaaaaa?  So, they all left and who knows what they talked about but the President told us about this masturbation stuff and I tried so hard to keep it together but alas...didn't always happen. I know our Stake President told us in Stake Priesthood a few years ago that "masturbation leads to murder", which is awful news as I live across the street from a high school so I guess I am doomed now

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

probably one of the most uncomfortable meetings I've had was a zone conference. The President excused the sisters and of course everyone was like whaaaaaaaaaa?  So, they all left and who knows what they talked about but the President told us about this masturbation stuff and I tried so hard to keep it together but alas...didn't always happen. I know our Stake President told us in Stake Priesthood a few years ago that "masturbation leads to murder", which is awful news as I live across the street from a high school so I guess I am doomed now

😝

[CV75]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm talking about group settings, not individual bishop counseling. And these are all adults. Even when some of my adults that I work with have similar issues as a teenager, I treat them and help them bridge the gap to ideals and dialogue. Doing otherwise maintains the problem. 

And the dating came from the section on dating from the FtSY pamphlet. I know you weren't talking about dating. I was pointing out that the pamplhet is meant for teenagers and that the advice given in it, should probably be upgraded a little for those in the mid to late 20's who are not in the first throws of realizing they have sexual urges. 

The 3 examples are definitely social, cultural, and at times personal issues. They're social, cultural, and personal issues that are currently being maintained in religious language and spaces. We've done little to counter the narrative that found it's roots in victorian ideology. This goes in the same boat as other ideas that have been culturally driven and have some loose connection to a doctrinal principle. An example would be Canard's quote of a previous version of FtSY where it stated " The Lord specifically forbids certain behaviors, including... masturbation... " I personally see the word change because there isn't any place in scripture that the Lord specifically forbade masturbation. There are plenty of scriptures that people have interpreted to say such, but they don't explicitly state such. And people falling in love very rarely transcend their social and cultural constraints to healthy relationships. That's a myth made up somewhere around Romeo and Juliet. We simply don't transcend our humanity. We find those that fit within our social and cultural constraints the majority of the time. An easy example of this is the slow increase in mixed race marriages over the years. If people truly do shed their socio-cultural inhibitions for love, there would be far more of these happening. They don't. Don't get me wrong, we love the stories where they do, but there's a reason they can be highlighted. People fall in love and learn to work in their cultural influences. When these have been particularly constricting around sex, they often don't melt away but are maintained in things like low desire, finding sex "gross," rigid boundaries around positions or sexual touch, ticklishness.....everywhere (like head to toe), skitishness, etc. They till love their partner, but just as love doesn't pay the bills, love doesn't fix all sexual problems. Which is why in the first 10 years, sexual issues are the second reason for divorce. And in the first 3 years, the number one reason.  

"Off guard" is just not a word I would use around anything sexual. I get your reasoning, but I've got to think in terms of larger scale implications. And though this isn't what you implied, it's still a part of the backbone that maintains crazier sexual conversations such as the one I mentioned. Ones that go to an audience of YSA's. Sexual feelings should be integrated with the finest of our other human feelings, but there are some strong trends that indicate a strong number of us are somewhat missing the boat. Language can be important in redefining how we think about sex and hopefully fewer of these problems that are heavily socially constructed.

As for the proclamaion, I think I get what you're saying....are you talking about this part:

If so, this only is talking about one specific role for sex/sexuallity in marriage. If I used this to discuss sex, I would have it somewhere near the beginning as a really basic intro and spend a part of the time also using it to explain that sex isn't procreation. Or this clean in the actual act. For me and what  I'm doing, I still don't find it particularly useful. I don't mind it, just doesn't have much utility when teaching about sex. It's too broad, too sterile in language, and falls into the procreation language, which bottlenecks sex into one specific utility. It still feels like a stretch to me when discussing sexual concerns with children. I think it gives a basic format for how families should be created and interact, but not necessarily the needed advice for how sex is discussed. In someways it may unintentionally hamstring the dialogue for some. Because it's focused heavily on sacred terminology. Extremely sacred things in LDS contexts aren't discussed (as a cultural and somewhat doctrinal stance). And if they are, it's in very vague concepts. That is not how I would hope parents would talk to their kids about sex or their bodies. 

 

With luv,

BD

I’ll be stubborn and say the stories still highlight the ideal that love (the better part of humanity) transcends and sets the stage for overcoming the social, cultural, interpersonal and personal obstacles created by fallen humanity. This to me is a very powerful Gospel message or principle (e.g. the Atonement, building Zion).

I think both the demand for professional therapy and prophetic observations serve as bellwethers for the state of a society’s overall impact on individuals’ well-being.

With regards to sexuality, I think both charity in practice and sex therapy (when needed) help individuals and couples overcome their particular obstacles to happiness. Sexual mores may change over time, and the prevailing customs and practices can improve or disrupt the happiness of rising and / or setting generations. While some will misapply both therapy and religion to their detriment, those who are able to remain true to themselves (and with couples, to each other as well) are sure to find happiness in their decisions concerning their sexuality.

I would not recommend that a sex therapist use the Proclamation in therapy. The same for a bishop; I don’t think he should be providing sex therapy except to make a referral. I view the Proclamation as a whole, and find an application to human sexuality in every paragraph (not that it is what it is only about), articulating correct principles that helps develop the capacity to handle specific challenges through a strong spiritual foundation in God’s, Adam and Eve’s and one’s own immediate family.

Edited January 16, 2017 by CV75

[canard78]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Can you explain what the focus on masturbation is all about, as there are many erogenous zones, many of which are common to most people but many of which can also vary from person to person? I think the general instruction applies to them all and to all methods of stimulation, and is rooted in Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. At the end of the sermon (textually at least), He speaks of being perfect or whole, and I take this to mean having all the principles He taught “symphonized,” just as (zeroing in sexuality for the moment) sexuality is integrated with all our other capacities for psychic and bodily feeling and function, whether we recognize it or not.

 

Each generation learns differently through the techniques and technologies prevailing in their social structure. Families are pretty much a constant, hence the genius of applying the principles of the Proclamation in teaching each generation living under the roof and otherwise associated. From my observation, the application of Jesus’ teachings have been framed over the centuries by whatever might have become the question of the day for the overall society, so lust then self-abuse then masturbation then pornography and now virtual reality. All grounded of course in what Jesus first taught.

So I would comfortably say that lust is “clearly and unequivocally prohibited in Mormon standards/doctrine,” and always has been. In general, that could involve masturbation if you want to focus on that one sliver of an application, but I’m asking, “Why the focus?”

 

Your post is a bit rambling. I'm trying to work out what your point. 

As to your specific question... what focus?

I've opened the thread with a very broad topic, have discussed several strands of the topic and happen to be asking about a specific sub-topic of it. 

You ask how or why masturbation is any different to stimulating other erogenous zones? What do you even mean by the question? Do you need a technical explanation? Or are you simply saying that any act that is sexually stimulating is of equal concern in Mormon doctrine?

I'm sad to see the "self-abuse" euphemism still showing up in the vernacular. Such a negative message about something that is in no way an abuse of your body.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Your post is a bit rambling. I'm trying to work out what your point. 

As to your specific question... what focus?

I've opened the thread with a very broad topic, have discussed several strands of the topic and happen to be asking about a specific sub-topic of it. 

You ask how or why masturbation is any different to stimulating other erogenous zones? What do you even mean by the question? Do you need a technical explanation? Or are you simply saying that any act that is sexually stimulating is of equal concern in Mormon doctrine?

I'm sad to see the "self-abuse" euphemism still showing up in the vernacular. Such a negative message about something that is in no way an abuse of your body.

The term "self-abuse" (doesn't sound very euphemistic to me), is an outdated term, as I tried to convey.

Yes, I am asking about the reason for the focus on the specific sub-topic, "masturbation."

If you don't understand the question, don't worry about it ; just focus on the line above this one.

At any rate, I would still comfortably say that lust is “clearly and unequivocally prohibited in Mormon standards/doctrine,” and always has been. In general, that could involve some forms of and purposes for masturbation if you want to focus on that narrow application.

[canard78]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

The term "self-abuse" (doesn't sound very euphemistic to me), is an outdated term, as I tried to convey.

Yes, I am asking about the reason for the focus on the specific sub-topic, "masturbation."

If you don't understand the question, don't worry about it ; just focus on the line above this one.

At any rate, I would still comfortably say that lust is “clearly and unequivocally prohibited in Mormon standards/doctrine,” and always has been. In general, that could involve some forms of and purposes for masturbation if you want to focus on that narrow application.

I already answered the question. You seem to be drawing the focus onto masturbation; I'd been discussing a range of topics and this was just one of them.

Conflating masturbation with lust is odd. One isn't synonymous with the other.

I mean to ask, you referenced the sermon on the mount but didn't quote it. What verse did you specifically have in mind?