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

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2017-01-16 at 5:57 AM, kllindley said:

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. 

I´m married, have been for 8 years. I think I know what you mean by increasing focus, although I think it is vague. However, how does one increase fidelity? That to me is just nice sounding words without any real import. Please don´t give examples of infidelity, since in your sentence above you talk about 100% sexual purity. Is there more than 100%? If you´re at 100%, how does one increase fidelity?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

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?

I didn't recognize that answer because you didn't respond to a couple of posts I directed at you in the first 3 pages when the discussion was more general, but when masturbation became a topic of discussion, and has been since page 4 and most of it generated by you, and I piped in on it, then you replied my comments.

As I've pointed out (for the third time now), the language used in the teaching of spiritual guidance for human sexuality has changed according to the audience's language and the issues faced at large. Lust, adultery and fornication was the language used in Jesus' day, and more specific behaviors covering  "anything like unto it" (such as masturbation, heavy petting and so forth) were introduced in a later day when people obviously wanted specifics, and got a response; other/additional terms sch as those in the publications used today. When lust and behavior are associated, the meanings of the the words are not conflated just because there is a mental context to the outward expression of behavior. So the context of how the word masturbation is used is important, and this is offered in any of the publications that might have been mentioned. Sexual activity outside of marriage involves a form of lust when it entails wanting something that is not rightly yours by way of covenant.

There are three chapters in Matthew (5, 6 and 7) covering the Sermon on the Mount. The Lord taught many things there. in Chapter 5 alone we have The Beatitudes, conscience, harmony, forgiveness, marriage, honesty, mercy, generosity, charity, tolerance; an aversion to anger, lust, ill-will; etc.-- all good associations to involve with sexuality, and they are all to be integrated. Lust is addressed in 5:27-28. Perfection is addressed in 5:48.

[Calm]

"Lust, adultery and fornication was the language used in Jesus' day"

More like the words used in the translation's time period.

[cinepro]

On 1/14/2017 at 4:16 PM, senjustindiaz said:

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

Make-up sex.  It's worth fighting for.

[kllindley]

10 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I´m married, have been for 8 years. I think I know what you mean by increasing focus, although I think it is vague. However, how does one increase fidelity? That to me is just nice sounding words without any real import. Please don´t give examples of infidelity, since in your sentence above you talk about 100% sexual purity. Is there more than 100%? If you´re at 100%, how does one increase fidelity?

I don't think there is more than 100%.  But I don't think anyone is at 100%.  Maybe they are close to 100% of their current capacity.  But as growing developing people it would seem that our capacity is always subject to enlargement and enhancement.  You say "please don't give examples of infidelity," but I don't have any idea how else to describe or explain the idea.  If someone thinks that it is possible to be at 100% then I can't answer what they can do to increase fidelity without pointing out the ways that they are not actually at 100%. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Lust, adultery and fornication was the language used in Jesus' day"

More like the words used in the translation's time period.

That's what I meant... "Jesus'" is the translators' word too LOL

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

but I don't have any idea how else to describe or explain the idea.  If someone thinks that it is possible to be at 100% then I can't answer what they can do to increase fidelity without pointing out the ways that they are not actually at 100%. 

One can be less interested, involved, committed to one's spouse without a orresponding interesr, etc. in someone or something else.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

One can be less interested, involved, committed to one's spouse without a orresponding interesr, etc. in someone or something else.

Yes, this is the idea I was trying to convey, but I would consider that a degree of infidelity - so I didn't dare mention it.  

[BlueDreams]

On 1/16/2017 at 0:55 PM, CV75 said:

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.

Charity (ie the pure love of Christ) can and does. Romantic love, doesn't. On an individual basis that can still take a lifetime to alter. On a societal basis it takes literally generations. In the parameters you're mentioning I still disagree a bit but can also agree, I think. I can be as equally stubborn . 

And I really don't think that professional therapy and prophetic observations are bellwethers for a societies overall impact on the individual. I think the main reason I'm disagreeing is because I think we're seeing social influences in 2 very different ways. I see social influences as somewhat like the atmosphere we breath in. You can do things that can have some effect on the air quality, but it is extremely difficult to change overarching patterns and we're all basically swimming in our own atmospheres. There's not being outside of it. From what I get with you it feels like colors of paint that an artist is using. You can choose how those colors come together to at least some degree and with proper help can learn to paint in a way that's good. 

I'm confused with your use of the proclamation again.. If a sex therapist isn't using it (in a church presentation. I never meant therapy). The bishop isn't using it. Then it's utility seems pretty weak when addressing sexuality. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

On 1/17/2017 at 7:45 AM, CV75 said:

I didn't recognize that answer because you didn't respond to a couple of posts I directed at you in the first 3 pages when the discussion was more general, but when masturbation became a topic of discussion, and has been since page 4 and most of it generated by you, and I piped in on it, then you replied my comments.

I don't know if that's 100% accurate. Canard asked me a specific question and a follow up, but the bulk of the conversation post that is from me, Halcenero, you, Scott, Duncan, and Bluebell. Stevo also asked me a question, it just didn't foster the same amount of dialogue beyond the answer.

Quote

As I've pointed out (for the third time now), the language used in the teaching of spiritual guidance for human sexuality has changed according to the audience's language and the issues faced at large. Lust, adultery and fornication was the language used in Jesus' day, and more specific behaviors covering  "anything like unto it" (such as masturbation, heavy petting and so forth) were introduced in a later day when people obviously wanted specifics, and got a response; other/additional terms sch as those in the publications used today. When lust and behavior are associated, the meanings of the the words are not conflated just because there is a mental context to the outward expression of behavior. So the context of how the word masturbation is used is important, and this is offered in any of the publications that might have been mentioned. Sexual activity outside of marriage involves a form of lust when it entails wanting something that is not rightly yours by way of covenant.

We have very different outlooks to the development of words and their use. This is a bit of a pet topic for me and I'm intrigued by how are social circumstances color our perception of phrases and terms in the scriptures. To me the development isn't as linear as that. From scriptural references/study. Lust and adultery (a little less so fornication) were never meant to solely talk about sexual or even basic marital fidelity. The word lust, for example is as you mentioned, wanting something that isn't what God gave you. But that means, scripturally, just about everything, including marital partners. I see the atmosphere of their time as coloring our understanding of scripture. Specifically, it pigeonholed terms to focus on sexuality and then generalized to commonly assumed sins of their day. You get some very strong reactionary language around the same time the sexual revolution is happening as well.  Taping down on both marital and individual sexuality that felt too out there. And that dissipated in the last few decades because of growing knowledge about healthy variations on sexual practice. 

That said, the context of masturbation is important BUT the publications mentioned pigeonhole it in such a way that there is little versatility to it in or out of marriage. That's the problem I personally have. It gets swamped into a form of lust, selfish behaviors, or being generally unchaste. I mean at one point it was called "self-abuse," as you pointed it out. There's not a lot of flexibility shown in such terminology. It also follows the assumption that arousal is a barometer for lust. The contexts of these publications are a concern to me. And they also have more mobility to change. Because they have. And continue to do so. They're not scripture nor are they likely to ever be such. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if that's 100% accurate. Canard asked me a specific question and a follow up, but the bulk of the conversation post that is from me, Halcenero, you, Scott, Duncan, and Bluebell. Stevo also asked me a question, it just didn't foster the same amount of dialogue beyond the answer.

We have very different outlooks to the development of words and their use. This is a bit of a pet topic for me and I'm intrigued by how are social circumstances color our perception of phrases and terms in the scriptures. To me the development isn't as linear as that. From scriptural references/study. Lust and adultery (a little less so fornication) were never meant to solely talk about sexual or even basic marital fidelity. The word lust, for example is as you mentioned, wanting something that isn't what God gave you. But that means, scripturally, just about everything, including marital partners. I see the atmosphere of their time as coloring our understanding of scripture. Specifically, it pigeonholed terms to focus on sexuality and then generalized to commonly assumed sins of their day. You get some very strong reactionary language around the same time the sexual revolution is happening as well.  Taping down on both marital and individual sexuality that felt too out there. And that dissipated in the last few decades because of growing knowledge about healthy variations on sexual practice. 

That said, the context of masturbation is important BUT the publications mentioned pigeonhole it in such a way that there is little versatility to it in or out of marriage. That's the problem I personally have. It gets swamped into a form of lust, selfish behaviors, or being generally unchaste. I mean at one point it was called "self-abuse," as you pointed it out. There's not a lot of flexibility shown in such terminology. It also follows the assumption that arousal is a barometer for lust. The contexts of these publications are a concern to me. And they also have more mobility to change. Because they have. And continue to do so. They're not scripture nor are they likely to ever be such. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I have wondered how masturbation for those that are single could be wrong, when it supposedly helps you physically. Just heard sex is good for the neurons from a TED Talk the other day, but not the first time I've heard this. In fact a polygamist leader has said having more wives keeps the men young, not in those words. So I'm thinking that would mean more sex does that. Okay, the end of that sex is orgasm. So when you compare that, it is sad that single LDS men and women are told they must not have that too. It's sad that many wives don't even have that if their partner is selfish and doesn't help her achieve it. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Tacenda

[rodheadlee]

On 1/17/2017 at 1:22 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

I´m married, have been for 8 years. I think I know what you mean by increasing focus, although I think it is vague. However, how does one increase fidelity? That to me is just nice sounding words without any real import. Please don´t give examples of infidelity, since in your sentence above you talk about 100% sexual purity. Is there more than 100%? If you´re at 100%, how does one increase fidelity?

If you still feel the same about your wife after 28 years, 38 years etc.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I have wondered how masturbation for those that are single could be wrong, when it supposedly helps you physically. Just heard sex is good for the neurons from a TED Talk the other day, but not the first time I've heard this. In fact a polygamist leader has said having more wives keeps the men young, not in those words. So I'm thinking that would mean more sex does that. Okay, the end of that sex is orgasm. So when you compare that, it is sad that single LDS men and women are told they must not have that too. It's sad that many wives don't even have that if their partner is selfish and doesn't help her achieve it. 

How one gets to the orgasm matters though for health.

Iirc, in young men it can be negatively correlated with health problems, in older men it has a positive correlation.  That was a bit ago though, don't know the current state.

[Bobbieaware]

On 1/17/2017 at 4:22 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

I´m married, have been for 8 years. I think I know what you mean by increasing focus, although I think it is vague. However, how does one increase fidelity? That to me is just nice sounding words without any real import. Please don´t give examples of infidelity, since in your sentence above you talk about 100% sexual purity. Is there more than 100%? If you´re at 100%, how does one increase fidelity?

There's much more to marital fidelity than simply not having sexual relations with someone other than one's spouse. Emotional and spiritual fidelity are at least equally important to not having intimate relations with someone other that one's spouse. In fact, emotional and spirituall fidelity are essential components of sexual purity, as each of these cannot exist without the other. Dreaming or fantasizing about someone other than your spouse isn't complete fidelity. And a marriage, no matter it's length in duration of years, always has room for the couple to increase in their love and devotion to each other. An increase in marital love and devotion most definitely represents an increase in sexual fidelity and loyalty because they are all inextricably intertwined.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[CV75]

22 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Charity (ie the pure love of Christ) can and does. Romantic love, doesn't. On an individual basis that can still take a lifetime to alter. On a societal basis it takes literally generations. In the parameters you're mentioning I still disagree a bit but can also agree, I think. I can be as equally stubborn . 

And I really don't think that professional therapy and prophetic observations are bellwethers for a societies overall impact on the individual. I think the main reason I'm disagreeing is because I think we're seeing social influences in 2 very different ways. I see social influences as somewhat like the atmosphere we breath in. You can do things that can have some effect on the air quality, but it is extremely difficult to change overarching patterns and we're all basically swimming in our own atmospheres. There's not being outside of it. From what I get with you it feels like colors of paint that an artist is using. You can choose how those colors come together to at least some degree and with proper help can learn to paint in a way that's good. 

I'm confused with your use of the proclamation again.. If a sex therapist isn't using it (in a church presentation. I never meant therapy). The bishop isn't using it. Then it's utility seems pretty weak when addressing sexuality. 

 

With luv,

BD

I’m talking about charity, of course, which how I choose to apply the stories!

Where you describe society’s effect on people’s mental and sexual health as a result of breathing the atmosphere, I described it earlier as osmosis, which I think are very similar conceptualizations. That is why I take the demand for your services and the description of some of your patients’ problems as a bellwether for society’s negative impact on individuals. I think the prophets’ observations of an increasingly affective society, where it and the Gospel are moving further apart from each other, is another bellwether. Inasmuch as therapy is as much an art as a science, I think your painting analogy works also but for how individuals in therapy can learn to better handle their societal, home and other environments.

I see how my wording is confusing. I believe the Proclamation is an appropriate resource for a bishop to use in spiritual counseling, but I would not recommend he provide clinical counseling (with or without it). I see the Proclamation as primarily preventative counsel, a framework for developing healthy attitudes rather than a clinical resource for treating unhealthy attitudes, especially when the unhealthy attitudes involve religion.

21 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if that's 100% accurate. Canard asked me a specific question and a follow up, but the bulk of the conversation post that is from me, Halcenero, you, Scott, Duncan, and Bluebell. Stevo also asked me a question, it just didn't foster the same amount of dialogue beyond the answer.

We have very different outlooks to the development of words and their use. This is a bit of a pet topic for me and I'm intrigued by how are social circumstances color our perception of phrases and terms in the scriptures. To me the development isn't as linear as that. From scriptural references/study. Lust and adultery (a little less so fornication) were never meant to solely talk about sexual or even basic marital fidelity. The word lust, for example is as you mentioned, wanting something that isn't what God gave you. But that means, scripturally, just about everything, including marital partners. I see the atmosphere of their time as coloring our understanding of scripture. Specifically, it pigeonholed terms to focus on sexuality and then generalized to commonly assumed sins of their day. You get some very strong reactionary language around the same time the sexual revolution is happening as well.  Taping down on both marital and individual sexuality that felt too out there. And that dissipated in the last few decades because of growing knowledge about healthy variations on sexual practice. 

That said, the context of masturbation is important BUT the publications mentioned pigeonhole it in such a way that there is little versatility to it in or out of marriage. That's the problem I personally have. It gets swamped into a form of lust, selfish behaviors, or being generally unchaste. I mean at one point it was called "self-abuse," as you pointed it out. There's not a lot of flexibility shown in such terminology. It also follows the assumption that arousal is a barometer for lust. The contexts of these publications are a concern to me. And they also have more mobility to change. Because they have. And continue to do so. They're not scripture nor are they likely to ever be such. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Granted, my perceptions may not be accurate at all!

But the issue seemed to be whether things such as masturbation and sexual arousal are sinful. Considering LDS teachings on accountability (the capacity to sin and to recognize it, and by policy the age of eight) and temptation (which is not sin), according to the publications actions and feelings are sinful when they are harnessed with an intent leading to sexual transgression and/or disregard to the Spirit’s promptings. This is where I think the counsel in these manuals hearkens back to the Proclamation, principles help people develop healthy self-image, intention or determination, and sensitivity to the Spirit.

[Duncan]

22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I have wondered how masturbation for those that are single could be wrong, when it supposedly helps you physically. Just heard sex is good for the neurons from a TED Talk the other day, but not the first time I've heard this. In fact a polygamist leader has said having more wives keeps the men young, not in those words. So I'm thinking that would mean more sex does that. Okay, the end of that sex is orgasm. So when you compare that, it is sad that single LDS men and women are told they must not have that too. It's sad that many wives don't even have that if their partner is selfish and doesn't help her achieve it. 

Hawkeye on MASH told Radar that sex was good for your cardiovascular system and those people from Maine know everything!!!

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2017-01-18 at 8:36 AM, rodheadlee said:

If you still feel the same about your wife after 28 years, 38 years etc.

Well, time will certainly tell. I was married to my first wife for 21 years and then she did the most unacceptable thing of dying. That is the ultimate rejection. I'm 71 now. I hope I have 13 years more of marraige. 

[Calm]

My dad made it.  Can't be that hard.   

63 years total, ending his 84th year.

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Well, time will certainly tell. I was married to my first wife for 21 years and then she did the most unacceptable thing of dying. That is the ultimate rejection. I'm 71 now. I hope I have 13 years more of marraige. 

Yeah well when my wife dies I won't be remarrying I'll be faithful to her until we meet again.

[bcuzbcuz]

16 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah well when my wife dies I won't be remarrying I'll be faithful to her until we meet again.

I understand your thinking perfectly. It makes sense to me

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2017-01-18 at 10:10 AM, Bobbieaware said:

There's much more to marital fidelity than simply not having sexual relations with someone other than one's spouse. Emotional and spiritual fidelity are at least equally important to not having intimate relations with someone other that one's spouse. In fact, emotional and spirituall fidelity are essential components of sexual purity, as each of these cannot exist without the other. Dreaming or fantasizing about someone other than your spouse isn't complete fidelity. And a marriage, no matter it's length in duration of years, always has room for the couple to increase in their love and devotion to each other. An increase in marital love and devotion most definitely represents an increase in sexual fidelity and loyalty because they are all inextricably intertwined.

I agree with your points except on one point. You talk about fidelity and divide it into emotional and spiritual fidelity. I don't. You're either fidel or not. I know some people differentiate between sexual fidelity and visual senses. In plain language they defend looking at pornography or carrying on a long distance relationship on-line with the argument "Well, I haven't inappropriately touched anyone" and think they've got their bases covered.

I say fidelity isn't divided into parts. Fidelity isn't different shades of grey. It goes from white to black with one action, one thought, one word. Fidelity, like trust can be re-built, or rather, one can start over again. But it doesn't shift through varying degrees of commitment, you're either in or you're out. 

[Revenant Angel]

Best sex I ever had was outside my marriage... Maybe we should stop manufacturing bland prudes and letting females become attractive to males. Total suppression of one of the most natural human NEEDS is not healthy.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Revenant Angel said:

Best sex I ever had was outside my marriage... Maybe we should stop manufacturing bland prudes and letting females become attractive to males. Total suppression of one of the most natural human NEEDS is not healthy.

OK. What did you do for the rest of that 59 minutes and 59 seconds "relationship"?