Is sex sacred?

[I.J. Reilly]

Doctrinally speaking, I think that adultery is next to murder (and I guess fornication is up there somewhere close to adultery), but I don't know how much distance there is between muder and those two sins. I suspect you are saying the same thing. (Are you?) Also speaking doctrinally, there certainly is everything right about teaching that sexual sin doesn't put the sinner beyond a point of no return.

The one teaching I am still trying to get my mind around (and probably will be trying for some time) is something I heard Elder Holland teach once: that the procreative power is the one power that we mortals share with God. That's an interesting way of looking at the matter (and I think it's true). To me that tells me how "the procreative act" is inherently sacred, even if hymns aren't playing in our heads when we're engaged in it.

I think that you are conflating two different things here (perhaps intentionally). You say here you think that adultery is the sin next to murder. However, as far as I can tell, what Corianton did was not adultery, as he doesn't seem to be married, but instead fornication. So, either you equate adultery with fornication (which I would argue are different things), or fornication is worse than adultery, or what Alma was talking about was more than the fornication that happened.

Besides that, Alma is known to expound on things in his scriptures that may not be 100% doctrinal, saying so himself. I'm not saying that you can exactly pick and choose what you like from Alma, but more as a side note that is contextually significant, imo.

(Sorry to sidetrack this discussion a little. Alma 39 has always been intriguing to me.)

[LA Ute]

It's sacred because it is something that a couple shares with each other and no one else. How they share it is their perogative, and definitely not the business of nosy, puritanical church leaders.

Yup.

[LA Ute]

I think that you are conflating two different things here (perhaps intentionally). You say here you think that adultery is the sin next to murder. However, as far as I can tell, what Corianton did was not adultery, as he doesn't seem to be married, but instead fornication. So, either you equate adultery with fornication (which I would argue are different things), or fornication is worse than adultery, or what Alma was talking about was more than the fornication that happened.

Besides that, Alma is known to expound on things in his scriptures that may not be 100% doctrinal, saying so himself. I'm not saying that you can exactly pick and choose what you like from Alma, but more as a side note that is contextually significant, imo.

(Sorry to sidetrack this discussion a little. Alma 39 has always been intriguing to me.)

But haven't you read the comments of Elder Brigham Woodruff Pratt, who's quoted in the Journal of Discourses saying that Corianton was in fact married to three women at the time he went on his mission . . . oh, never mind.

You're right, Corianton didn't commit adultery, he may have been a mere fornicator. But there was a reason that Mormon, sifting through thousands of pages (plates?) of material, chose to include Alma's letter to Corianton in his abridgement. I think most of us can agree that avoiding sexual relations outside of marriage is a big, big deal in our faith. To say otherwise is to be kidding ourselves. I can't say adultery or fornication are three inches from murder (I personally don't think they are), but there is a reason that refraining from sex outside of marriage is among the major temple covenants. We can't blame that one on Masonry!

[Pheidippides]

It's sacred because it is something that a couple shares with each other and no one else. How they share it is their perogative, and definitely not the business of nosy, puritanical church leaders.

What she said.

I'm not anxious to get into the ins and outs of what I personally do in my marriage, precisely because it is private. But I will share a story and I hope you will all forgive me if it is TMI (which it certainly is). I only ask for your sensitivity.

The day after my daughter died was a messy day. We were trying to somehow deal with all of our emotions, but more than anything I remember being exhausted. At the hospital, it had just been my wife and I with no other family or friends around, and our relationship grew closer in those 24 hours than it had over the previous 10 years. We were aware of this.

We started back on the road towards New Jersey, empty. We stopped for the night and got a hotel. And then we had probably the most meaningful sex of our marriage. I can't explain why it was so necessary or so needed, but we both needed it from an emotional standpoint. There was nothing special or mindblowing about the physical aspect, as I recall it, and I think a good deal of crying was done afterwards, but at that time, in that place, it was more sacred than just about anything else could have been, precisely for the reasons marsupial lists I think. We had just shared an experience - a horrible experience - together and needed to communicate on a level beyond words in order to deal with our emotions.

You may now feel free to parse that as you will, as I'm not even sure what it means. As an epilogue, our son was born 9 months later and we're pretty sure it was from that night.

[DU Ute]

I can't think of too many things that could ruin the sacredness and intimacy of sex with my wife more than being in the act and thinking "I wonder if Bishop Smith would be OK with this?"

[UtahDan]

I looked her in the eyes and said, "I'm aware of that teaching, but that is not the doctrine of the Church; that is not what we teach in the Church today. Have you ever heard the Brethren teach it in conference? Is it in the standard works, the auricular materials, or the handbooks of the Church? Is it a part of an official declaration or proclamation?" I watched as a five-hundred-pound weight seemed to come off her shoulders, as tears came into her eyes, and she simply said, "Thank you, Brother Millet."

(Emphasis added.) Now, I hope I haven't commited a threadjack by bringing up that doctrinal issue (virgin birth) but I like Millet's test for deciding what is doctrine. As much as I love Arch, I don't think his analysis of sexual sin passes that test.

Responsible and reasonable persons may disagree with me. They would be wrong, of course.

By this test there must be one hundred teachings that are no longer the doctrine of the church because they do not appear in the standard works or haven't been mentioned in conference in the last 20 years. If the average member wants to know what doctrine is, must they really start with the pronouncement of a prophet then do a search of lesson manuals and conference talks to see whether it is still being mentioned? What would the cut off be in terms of years? Would one mention be enough?

The problem I have with Millet's test, then, is that it is nearly impossible for the average person to apply and the results of that application end up being very subjective.

I agree that a pure stare decisis approach is also problematic for the church because the authorities are not always in agreement or clear on what they mean. There is a lot of divergent authority out there for a great many propositions. It is also very difficult for a church that makes the claim of having a prophet to "overturn" some previous "ruling," but we have done it and could do it again.

I just bridle ( ) against Millet's approach because I think it is a dodge. It is often accompanied or followed by the the other classic dodge (my perception) where we say that it may well just be the opinion of the man. We must always follow the prophet but anything he says is potentially his opinion. That is a bottomless pit of a paradox that allows virtually anything to be doctrine or not doctrine depending on the objective of the speaker.

Why do we do this? One reason is to avoid uncomfortable teachings of the past. Another is avoid simply saying "we don't know." The first I have less tolerance for because if it is an important issue and we don't like what Brigham or someone else said about, the prophet can inquire of the Lord and get clarification. SWK did exactly this and it result in the lifting of the ban. The second I am much more comfortable with because I think it is perfectly fine for even the one true church to have huge gaps in its understanding. That is the nature of this world. Saying that something is not important enough to waste the effort of prophetic inquiry on is, to me, another perfectly acceptable way of saying "we don't know. "

I think if Millet were being more honest, he have simply said to the woman "I am aware of the teaching, but I don't agree with it. "

I don't mean to be overly negative on this, my perspective is that of a member/believer. I just think we can do better than the nebulous approach Millet seems to advocate.

(Way to jack the thread!)

[LA Ute]

By this test there must be one hundred teachings that are no longer the doctrine of the church because they do not appear in the standard works or haven't been mentioned in conference in the last 20 years. If the average member wants to know what doctrine is, must they really start with the pronouncement of a prophet then do a search of lesson manuals and conference talks to see whether it is still being mentioned? What would the cut off be in terms of years? Would one mention be enough?

The problem I have with Millet's test, then, is that it is nearly impossible for the average person to apply and the results of that application end up being very subjective.

I agree that a pure stare decisis approach is also problematic for the church because the authorities are not always in agreement or clear on what they mean. There is a lot of divergent authority out there for a great many propositions. It is also very difficult for a church that makes the claim of having a prophet to "overturn" some previous "ruling," but we have done it and could do it again.

I just bridle ( ) against Millet's approach because I think it is a dodge. It is often accompanied or followed by the the other classic dodge (my perception) where we say that it may well just be the opinion of the man. We must always follow the prophet but anything he says is potentially his opinion. That is a bottomless pit of a paradox that allows virtually anything to be doctrine or not doctrine depending on the objective of the speaker.

Why do we do this? One reason is to avoid uncomfortable teachings of the past. Another is avoid simply saying "we don't know." The first I have less tolerance for because if it is an important issue and we don't like what Brigham or someone else said about, the prophet can inquire of the Lord and get clarification. SWK did exactly this and it result in the lifting of the ban. The second I am much more comfortable with because I think it is perfectly fine for even the one true church to have huge gaps in its understanding. That is the nature of this world. Saying that something is not important enough to waste the effort of prophetic inquiry on is, to me, another perfectly acceptable way of saying "we don't know. "

I think if Millet were being more honest, he have simply said to the woman "I am aware of the teaching, but I don't agree with it. "

I don't mean to be overly negative on this, my perspective is that of a member/believer. I just think we can do better than the nebulous approach Millet seems to advocate.

(Way to jack the thread!)

Our doctrine is not neat and tidy, and it does evolve or clarify, particularly at the outer edges (non-essential doctrines?). Anyway, I don't think Millet's test is perfect, but it is useful. Do you have a better one? (Not a challenge - a serious question.)

But back to the thread: Whatever else might be said about vague or evolving doctrines, I don't think the cores doctrines on sexual sin are vague or evolving much. Millet's test is useful in considering Arch's views on the significance in our faith of fornication/adultery.

[beefytee]

I went and looked up the definition of Sacred which really is all over the place.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacred

I think some of the definitions definitely apply to sex.

The ones that bring in the religious aspect of things, maybe not.

Maybe a good distinguishing question is:

Is Sex Holy?

(Not that way sickos!)

[UtahDan]

Our doctrine is not neat and tidy, and it does evolve or clarify, particularly at the outer edges (non-essential doctrines?). Anyway, I don't think Millet's test is perfect, but it is useful. Do you have a better one? (Not a challenge - a serious question.)

I'm on record as saying that Oman's test is the one the correctly describes how we determine what doctrine is. But as for what it should be, doctrine is that which is found in the standard works and spoken by the prophets. If current leaders don't like what Brigham said on virgin birth or what Joseph said at King Follets funeral, I believe the onus to be on them to tell members what the correct teaching is. The whole idea of the restoration is to restore the world from error to truth. What is a prophet for if not to teach us what is correct. I can scarcely think of any more important task they have. So stare decisis ought to be the test, and if the authorities are unreliable they should be "cleaned up." Maybe that is idealistic or simplistic, but it is just very hard for me to reconcile the idea of prophets with the idea that the church is ignorant on anything that approaches an important issue. Joseph asked all kinds of random questions and the answers are in the D&C. I'm rambling.

But back to the thread: Whatever else might be said about vague or evolving doctrines, I don't think the cores doctrines on sexual sin are vague or evolving much. Millet's test is useful in considering Arch's views on the significance in our faith of fornication/adultery.

I don't think core doctrines on this point are evolving (fornication/adultery are still wrong!), but would you say that whether a particular sin comes in second, third or fiftieth is a core doctrine? I don't think it is, and I actually believe it works both a misunderstanding and a harm in this case. Keep in mind though, LA, I haven't had the time you have had to realize how little I know. Give me another 20 years and I will surely get more philosophical on some of this.

Also, did you like my "bridle" reference. I thought for sure that would get me a pat on the head.

[Babs]

can think of a whole lot of sins that I'd consider more damaging, both to sinner and victim, than adultery. I don't know what purpose it serves to think in terms of a hierarchy of sins anyway.

Besides, what was it Jesus said? For anyone who looks upon Ute4ever's avatars is guilty of the same?

lol.

[LA Ute]

Also, did you like my "bridle" reference. I thought for sure that would get me a pat on the head.

I did notice that. Well done.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It's sacred because it is something that a couple shares with each other and no one else. How they share it is their perogative, and definitely not the business of nosy, puritanical church leaders.

There's already been a chorus of amens to this paragraph, but I think it really does nail down why I found sections of the original talk I posted in the other thread so offensive. The one thing I find more objectionable than anything else in the church are the busybodies that seek to dictate minutae. In my last stake, a directive came down from the Stake Presidency that women's clothes in the stake were "too revealing." I'm not sure what planet these guys were one and I hope that they weren't projecting their own personal weaknesses onto the population of the stake.

Ratchet that up to an experience that is supposed to be supremely private between a married couple and couple it with a completely personally inexperienced woman giving advice that is wholly out of the professional mainstream that basically tells a married couple to limit their "lust" for each other- and I find it very offensive and potentially damaging. It's offensive because she was sticking her nose where it didn't belong and she was projecting views that were neither based on professional experience nor personal experience. How many marriage counselors out there would ever tell any married couple to put constraints on how lustful they are to eachother (I'm distinguishing between lust (e.g. oral sex, hand jobs, etc) and violence of course)? It's damaging because if the advice was heeded, it very well could damage a couple's sex life and potentially lead to a dissolution of their marriage.

But back to the orginal point of this thread, I think any self-reflective individual knows that their sex life with their spouse suffers if they're carrying burdens or have something amiss in his or her life. Realizing this isn't rocket science, it's just the execution that is difficult and sometimes impossible. Simply put, if you're a believer in God, being right with God will certainly allow you to have a more fulfilling sex life.

[JohnnyLingo]

I watched as a five-hundred-pound weight seemed to come off her shoulders, as tears came into her eyes, and she simply said, "Thank you, Brother Millet."

Some people really get hung up on stuff that doesn't matter. Dag.

[UtahDan]

Besides, what was it Jesus said? For anyone who looks upon Ute4ever's avatars is guilty of the same?

lol.

I think the way Jesus dealt with adultery in John 8 is very interesting on many, many fronts:

[3] And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
[4] They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
[5] Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
[6] This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
[8] And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
[9] And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
[10] When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
[11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[Babs]

I think the way Jesus dealt with adultery in John 8 is very interesting on many, many fronts:

You ever wonder what happened to that girl? In some traditions they say it was Mary Magdalene, but there's not a lot of evidence of that.

I mean it's a nice story and all, but the girl's been publically convicted of adultery. Her husband's not going to take her. Neither is anyone else. Realistically, in that culture, she was doomed to a life of prostitution or worse.