Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Atticus
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3200

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atticus »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:35 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:32 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:23 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:19 pm

No rambling at all. I don't think the scriptures or teachings of Latter-day prophets support the idea that God is in favor of a man expecting a woman to pleasure herself and tell him all about it before he'll consider marrying her. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that God is very much against this. But you are free to believe as you wish.
No citation? Figures

I guess you want the bishops to just be keeping all those details to themselves you unholy bugger
What citation would you like?

Not sure what details you want Bishop's to disclose. You want juicy details of other people's sex lives?
Are you American?

Usually American men are tall enough that every damn thing doesn’t just fly right over their head.

You must be a special case.

I noticed you still didn’t cite anything though. Lol it’s fine don’t bother
Nothing flew over my head.

In my opinion your last few comments are perfect examples of the natural carnal man view of things. I man, too and can completely understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't make it right.

"Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal."

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord"

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 167

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

This is great, and just exactly what I might expect.

As has been abundantly stated, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but can someone, anyone, quote something from the Savior or any prophet from Adam to the present, stating that a woman who pleasures herself, before or after marriage, is unchaste, or that God has said anything at all on this subject.

Please, someone, anyone?

And/or any authority that there is something wrong with talking to her boyfriend, fiancé, or husband about this.

Everyone is entitled to their personal opinions and preferences, but if you’re claiming there is authority for the position(s) stated, please cite the authority. Atticus, you’re an attorney. You should know that.

If you would personally rather see people just roll the dice and not have women discover and understand what their sexual capabilities are and/or discuss it with a prospective husband until after marriage, to the possible great disappointment of themselves and their husbands, that is certainly up to you. But if you are claiming there is some kind of authority to support your position, please cite the authority.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 21st, 2022, 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Atticus
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3200

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atticus »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:54 pm Jeez guys you are cramping my style. It’s no fun if everything has to be spelled out.

Bishops quiz young adults about various things that either are or aren’t going on in their sex lives.

Therefore, asking about something like that is not totally off limits. Or if it is then the bishops are sinning.

A young man in love with a young woman and earnestly looking to get hitched to her for time and all eternity has at least as much right to ask a couple questions as a bishop would.

There doesn’t have to be anything overly scandalous about it. Most people do their research one way or another it’s called courtship.
You don't see the difference between a Bishop discussing things of a sexual nature with someone to try and help them overcome the natural carnal man and master themselves and a man insisting that a prospective wife pleasure herself and tell him if she can orgasm and if she likes, in the hopes of verifying if she will be able to satisfy his sexual desires or not?

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 901

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 10:00 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:35 pm
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:32 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:23 pm

No citation? Figures

I guess you want the bishops to just be keeping all those details to themselves you unholy bugger
What citation would you like?

Not sure what details you want Bishop's to disclose. You want juicy details of other people's sex lives?
Are you American?

Usually American men are tall enough that every damn thing doesn’t just fly right over their head.

You must be a special case.

I noticed you still didn’t cite anything though. Lol it’s fine don’t bother
Nothing flew over my head.

In my opinion your last few comments are perfect examples of the natural carnal man view of things. I man, too and can completely understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't make it right.

"Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal."

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord"
Nothing flew over your head? Lol.

You must be 4 foot tall, you can’t even feel the wind as it flies over.

The whole reason you are even replying to me right now is because you took an obvious joke and replied seriously.

So that’s the first thing that flew over.

And there have been several SEVERAL more things since then.

And your citation is a joke haha. So the angel wakes King Benjamin up from his sleep and tells him guess what— if a young man wants to make sure that his soon to be wife has a good chance of not hating sleeping with him well then that is just the natural man and he is an enemy to god.

Is that your interpretation of what Benjamin is referring to on the Tower?

I wish the part where I told you not to bother didn’t fly over your head because I knew, I just knew you would have nothing but you would still try and twist something and use it haha.

Guess what, I can cite something too.

Jesus wept.

Therefore I am Christlike because I am sad right now that everything flies way over your head
Last edited by hyloglyph on September 21st, 2022, 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 645

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by FrankOne »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:54 pm Jeez guys you are cramping my style. It’s no fun if everything has to be spelled out.

Bishops quiz young adults about various things that either are or aren’t going on in their sex lives.

Therefore, asking about something like that is not totally off limits. Or if it is then the bishops are sinning.

A young man in love with a young woman and earnestly looking to get hitched to her for time and all eternity has at least as much right to ask a couple questions as a bishop would.

There doesn’t have to be anything overly scandalous about it. Most people do their research one way or another it’s called courtship.
I was referring to that which goes over peoples heads....
i wasn't lost on your posts, I was lost on the way he avoided your request and instead turned it into something else. I call it going sideways in a discussion. I was going to relate this to a gender, but that's in the other thread.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 901

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

FrankOne wrote: September 21st, 2022, 10:11 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:54 pm Jeez guys you are cramping my style. It’s no fun if everything has to be spelled out.

Bishops quiz young adults about various things that either are or aren’t going on in their sex lives.

Therefore, asking about something like that is not totally off limits. Or if it is then the bishops are sinning.

A young man in love with a young woman and earnestly looking to get hitched to her for time and all eternity has at least as much right to ask a couple questions as a bishop would.

There doesn’t have to be anything overly scandalous about it. Most people do their research one way or another it’s called courtship.
I was referring to that which goes over peoples heads....
i wasn't lost on your posts, I was lost on the way he avoided your request and instead turned it into something else. I call it going sideways in a discussion. I was going to relate this to a gender, but that's in the other thread.

Yes. I am off to bed before I get him even more sideways.

Peace be unto you

Atticus
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3200

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atticus »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 21st, 2022, 10:07 pm This is great, and just exactly what I might expect.

As has been abundantly stated, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but can someone, anyone, quote something from the Savior or any prophet from Adam to the present, stating that a woman who pleasures herself, before or after marriage, is unchaste, or that God has said anything at all on this subject.

Please, someone, anyone?

And/or any authority that there is something wrong with talking to her boyfriend, fiancé, or husband about this.

Everyone is entitled to their personal opinions and preferences, but if you’re claiming there is authority for the position(s) stated, please cite the authority. Atticus, you’re an attorney. You should know that.

If you would personally rather see people just roll the dice and not have women discover and understand what their sexual capabilities are and/or discuss it with a prospective husband until after marriage, to the possible great disappointment of themselves and their husbands, that is certainly up to you. But if you are claiming there is some kind of authority to support your position, please cite the authority.
Surely you are aware that apostles have plainly taught that all forms of sex, including masturbation, outside of marriage are sinful.

President Kimball was very outspoken about this for example.

Chapter 17: The Law of Chastity

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 7?lang=eng

The scriptures are also rife with statements about avoiding carnal thoughts, actions, and behavior and letting virtue garnish our thoughts unceasingly.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 901

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Actually I’ll add one thing which I am sure people know about but I find it relevant to this discussion for reasons that may be above some folks heads.
Attachments
AC15D0EE-9998-4DE3-BEB4-38E0B1C3C178.jpeg
AC15D0EE-9998-4DE3-BEB4-38E0B1C3C178.jpeg (998.7 KiB) Viewed 275 times

Atticus
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3200

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atticus »

Here are a few earlier statements by apostles regarding masturbation:

18 June,1870 – First Counselor George A. Smith tells Salt Lake School of Prophets about “the evil of masturbation” among Utah Mormons. Apostle Lorenzo Snow says that “plural marriage would tend to diminish the evil of self pollution and the indulgence on the part of men was less in plural marriage than in monogamy.”

— ibid

The following year, the 1871 School of the Prophets minutes recorded Apostle Daniel Wells as stating, “a great many of our young men [are] abusing themselves by the habit of self pollution.” He regarded this as “one great cause of why so many of our young men were not married, and it was a great sin, and would lead to insanity and a premature grave” (p. 767).

–ibid (Sourced from D. Michael Quinn’s extensions of power)

1883 meeting of the LDS First Presidency with stake presidents who received special instructions about “Masturbation … self-pollution of both sexes and excessive indulgence in the married relation” (p. 782).

In 1886, the polygamous leader of Salt Lake City’s Fourteenth Ward, Bishop Thomas Taylor, “was excommunicated for masturbating with several young men in southern Utah” (O’Donovan, 1994, p.135).

“The practice of masturbation was indulged in by many young people in church schools. Pres. Smith remarked that this was a most damnable and pernicious practice, and the face of every apostle, president of a stake, and high council should be set as flint against it. The priesthood should be called together at the stake conferences and the brethren and parents should be instructed and warned in relation to this matter” (Mormon Apostle Rudger Clawson, 1902).

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 167

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 10:58 pm Here are a few earlier statements by apostles regarding masturbation:

18 June,1870 – First Counselor George A. Smith tells Salt Lake School of Prophets about “the evil of masturbation” among Utah Mormons. Apostle Lorenzo Snow says that “plural marriage would tend to diminish the evil of self pollution and the indulgence on the part of men was less in plural marriage than in monogamy.”

— ibid

The following year, the 1871 School of the Prophets minutes recorded Apostle Daniel Wells as stating, “a great many of our young men [are] abusing themselves by the habit of self pollution.” He regarded this as “one great cause of why so many of our young men were not married, and it was a great sin, and would lead to insanity and a premature grave” (p. 767).

–ibid (Sourced from D. Michael Quinn’s extensions of power)

1883 meeting of the LDS First Presidency with stake presidents who received special instructions about “Masturbation … self-pollution of both sexes and excessive indulgence in the married relation” (p. 782).

In 1886, the polygamous leader of Salt Lake City’s Fourteenth Ward, Bishop Thomas Taylor, “was excommunicated for masturbating with several young men in southern Utah” (O’Donovan, 1994, p.135).

“The practice of masturbation was indulged in by many young people in church schools. Pres. Smith remarked that this was a most damnable and pernicious practice, and the face of every apostle, president of a stake, and high council should be set as flint against it. The priesthood should be called together at the stake conferences and the brethren and parents should be instructed and warned in relation to this matter” (Mormon Apostle Rudger Clawson, 1902).
Atticus, I acknowledge that you have cited a bunch of personal opinions of early church leaders, mostly directed towards men, but nothing from the Savior or any prophet, and you have dodged and failed to answer the most basic, fundamental questions: is it morally wrong for a woman to experience orgasm and sexual climax? And, is a woman who pleasures herself, before or after marriage, unchaste?

What has the Savior ever said or taught on this subject?

And here’s the thing, there is no possible way this particular subject — female stimulation and masturbation — can be as simple and black and white as you are attempting to make it out to be.

As Baurak mentioned, human females are unique among all species in the sense that they were designed and created with an extra body part that has no other function except to give them sexual pleasure, but there is virtually no way that can happen just by having intercourse and/or without manual stimulation — i.e., some form of masturbation.

So, are you saying that it is wrong for a woman to experience orgasm and sexual climax? Because it is virtually impossible, in most cases, for women to experience orgasm without some form of manual stimulation — i.e., masturbation. But if masturbation and manual stimulation is always wrong, then it is just as wrong after marriage as it is before, right?

What are you trying to say Atticus? — that it is morally wrong for a woman to orgasm, and that she is unchaste if she does?

You do know that the current position and policy of the Church is that what goes on between a husband and wife in their bedroom is between them and the Lord, right? It has nothing to do with the Church, their bishop or stake president, and it definitely has nothing to do with you. You do know that, right?

Do you also know that although it has been a practice in the past for bishops to talk to young men about masturbation, that has never been the case with young women? Bishops have never been instructed, advised or authorized to ask women about masturbation. You do know that, right?

But with such over-confident attitudes such as yours it is no wonder the Church and a large percentage of its members are so confused and frustrated when it comes to sex. Everything you have said so far, without any actual authority, and without ever answering the fundamental questions, only serves to feed the confusion and frustration.

On that score, it appears that you are continuing a long-established practice in the Church of spreading personal opinion-based misinformation as if it were doctrine — opinions and philosophies of men, sometimes mingled with scripture — and doing a great disservice in the process.

But, just curious Atticus, are you married? Is your wife blessed to be able to experience orgasm? How does she do it? What method(s) does she use?

I know that you often try to play Kirton McConkie on here and do your best to advocate for the Church, and always attempt to portray it in the best possible light, etc., as if there is no room for any debate, but I’m afraid you may be attempting to get in over your head here in this discussion.

If you really want to be a big boy and try to talk about this grown-up stuff, then don’t attempt to dodge the hard questions.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 22nd, 2022, 7:02 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 167

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 8:24 pm And the unexpected turn that you left out is that Sarah is actually Mangus’ wife.
Damm!t, we’ve been outed!

I’ve been afraid this would happen. But I just want everyone to know that at this point Sarah is a fantastic, satisfying wife. She is such a blessing. But having both a retired lawyer and a wannabe lawyer in the same family can be a real challenge. And I won’t disclose exactly where and how she fits into the whole plural order of things. But I will say that in order to avoid contention and never-ending debates and arguments, the only verbal interactions and exchanges we ever dare have are either here on LDSFF, or in the bedroom. That helps to keep things more calm and simple at home.

Atticus
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3200

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atticus »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 6:02 am
Atticus wrote: September 21st, 2022, 10:58 pm Here are a few earlier statements by apostles regarding masturbation:

18 June,1870 – First Counselor George A. Smith tells Salt Lake School of Prophets about “the evil of masturbation” among Utah Mormons. Apostle Lorenzo Snow says that “plural marriage would tend to diminish the evil of self pollution and the indulgence on the part of men was less in plural marriage than in monogamy.”

— ibid

The following year, the 1871 School of the Prophets minutes recorded Apostle Daniel Wells as stating, “a great many of our young men [are] abusing themselves by the habit of self pollution.” He regarded this as “one great cause of why so many of our young men were not married, and it was a great sin, and would lead to insanity and a premature grave” (p. 767).

–ibid (Sourced from D. Michael Quinn’s extensions of power)

1883 meeting of the LDS First Presidency with stake presidents who received special instructions about “Masturbation … self-pollution of both sexes and excessive indulgence in the married relation” (p. 782).

In 1886, the polygamous leader of Salt Lake City’s Fourteenth Ward, Bishop Thomas Taylor, “was excommunicated for masturbating with several young men in southern Utah” (O’Donovan, 1994, p.135).

“The practice of masturbation was indulged in by many young people in church schools. Pres. Smith remarked that this was a most damnable and pernicious practice, and the face of every apostle, president of a stake, and high council should be set as flint against it. The priesthood should be called together at the stake conferences and the brethren and parents should be instructed and warned in relation to this matter” (Mormon Apostle Rudger Clawson, 1902).
Atticus, I acknowledge that you have cited a bunch of personal opinions of early church leaders, mostly directed towards men, but nothing from the Savior or any prophet, and you have dodged and failed to answer the most basic, fundamental questions: is it morally wrong for a woman to experience orgasm and sexual climax? And, is a woman who pleasures herself, before or after marriage, unchaste?

What has the Savior ever said or taught on this subject?

And here’s the thing, there is no possible way this particular subject — female stimulation and masturbation — can be as simple and black and white as you are attempting to make it out to be.

As Baurak mentioned, human females are unique among all species in the sense that they were designed and created with an extra body part that has no other function except to give them sexual pleasure, but there is virtually no way that can happen just by having intercourse and/or without manual stimulation — i.e., some form of masturbation.

So, are you saying that it is wrong for a woman to experience orgasm and sexual climax? Because it is virtually impossible, in most cases, for women to experience orgasm without some form of manual stimulation — i.e., masturbation. But if masturbation and manual stimulation is always wrong, then it is just as wrong after marriage as it is before, right?

What are you trying to say Atticus? — that it is morally wrong for a woman to orgasm, and that she is unchaste if she does?

You do know that the current position and policy of the Church is that what goes on between a husband and wife in their bedroom is between them and the Lord, right? It has nothing to do with the Church, their bishop or stake president, and it definitely has nothing to do with you. You do know that, right?

Do you also know that although it has been a practice in the past for bishops to talk to young men about masturbation, that has never been the case with young women? Bishops have never been instructed, advised or authorized to ask women about masturbation. You do know that, right?

But with such over-confident attitudes such as yours it is no wonder the Church and a large percentage of its members are so confused and frustrated when it comes to sex. Everything you have said so far, without any actual authority, and without ever answering the fundamental questions, only serves to feed the confusion and frustration.

On that score, it appears that you are continuing a long-established practice in the Church of spreading personal opinion-based misinformation as if it were doctrine — opinions and philosophies of men, sometimes mingled with scripture — and doing a great disservice in the process.

But, just curious Atticus, are you married? Is your wife blessed to be able to experience orgasm? How does she do it? What method(s) does she use?

I know that you often try to play Kirton McConkie on here and do your best to advocate for the Church, and always attempt to portray it in the best possible light, etc., as if there is no room for any debate, but I’m afraid you may be attempting to get in over your head here in this discussion.

If you really want to be a big boy and try to talk about this grown-up stuff, then don’t attempt to dodge the hard questions.
Oh I haven't dodged any hard questions Mangus. And your condescending tone towards me is really quite juvenile for an old retired judge such as yourself.

As for your utter dismissal of the authoritative statements by apostles I have shared, including those in the early years of the church before your beloved polygamy was done away with, you are aware of what the Savior said about how his words are delivered and received, right?

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

If you don't consider apostles to be prophets, that's cool. If you don't consider what they have authoritatively said about all sex, including masturbation, before marriage being wrong to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, that's cool, too.

I also never said that a woman who has an orgasm is unchaste. So please don't put words in my mouth.

We're talking about your insistence that you know if a woman can have an orgasm and if she enjoys it before you marry her. The only way you would be able to find that out is if you have sex with her, she tells you about previous sexual encounters with another man, or she pleasures herself and tells you all about it. Or I suppose you could just have faith that your prospective wife will enjoy sex like most women do.

Obviously, you can't possibly defend the first two options, so you're making it all about option 3. Of course we both know that you can't find any support in the scriptures or teachings of any prophet or apostles to support that God would be pleased with option 3 . And to make matters worse for for your position, there have been many statements by apostles which clearly state that God does not approve of any sex, including masturbation, outside of marriage for men or women.

It should also be pointed out here that a prospective wife pleasuring herself, having an orgasm, and telling her prospective husband all about it, doesn't mean that she will enjoy sex with him or that he will be able to bring her to orgasm does it?

And would it be appropriate for a woman to insist that she know know for certain that her prospective husband can perform and bring her to orgasm before she marries him? If the answer is yes, how do you propose this be done without the law of chastity being broken?

User avatar
Cruiserdude
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3429
Location: Wasatch front

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Cruiserdude »

hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 10:12 pm
FrankOne wrote: September 21st, 2022, 10:11 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 21st, 2022, 9:54 pm Jeez guys you are cramping my style. It’s no fun if everything has to be spelled out.

Bishops quiz young adults about various things that either are or aren’t going on in their sex lives.

Therefore, asking about something like that is not totally off limits. Or if it is then the bishops are sinning.

A young man in love with a young woman and earnestly looking to get hitched to her for time and all eternity has at least as much right to ask a couple questions as a bishop would.

There doesn’t have to be anything overly scandalous about it. Most people do their research one way or another it’s called courtship.
I was referring to that which goes over peoples heads....
i wasn't lost on your posts, I was lost on the way he avoided your request and instead turned it into something else. I call it going sideways in a discussion. I was going to relate this to a gender, but that's in the other thread.

Yes. I am off to bed before I get him even more sideways.

Peace be unto you
Oh now I remember you, nephew of railroad thread guy! From this current thread I could tell that I knew I liked you, I just couldn't memba from which other threads😎👍.....and what a shame we lost that railroad thread, I was anxious for him to continue that one.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2478
Location: Reality

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by tmac »

In my view, this current discussion is now very representative of the current dysfunctional positions and discussions on both this issue, and the question of productive-orientation, as MacLeod attempted to discuss before. Although sex is obviously the more popular topic, they are essentially on even par in terms of general understanding and functional practice.

But since Atticus keeps bringing up the "Law of Chastity," I would genuinely appreciate if he (or anyone) would clearly define exactly that that law is and what it means, ideally using the words of God Himself, as found wherever they can be found, so as to avoid the whole personal opinion debate. I think that would be very helpful to the whole discussion.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 167

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Oh I haven't dodged any hard questions Mangus. And your condescending tone towards me is really quite juvenile for an old retired judge such as yourself.
I apologize, Atticus, if you feel like I have abused you. But your defensiveness is quite revealing. It is true that at this point in my life I have less tolerance for the endless pontifications, wordsmything, and intentional obsfucation of attorneys than ever. Having said that, if you don't like the heat, it might be best to get out of the kitchen. All you are attempting to do here is continue to muddy the already murky water, without bringing any actual clarity to the equation. That is what an old, experienced judge might say to anyone in this situation.

Beyond that, we both know that attorneys are paid to advocate positions. In the process, they very often attempt to make arguments that make absolutely no sense. And it is starting to feel like that is what you are doing here.

Something else a crusty old judge will tell you is that when a lawyer has the facts on his side, he will pound the facts. When he has the law on his side, he will pound the law. But when neither the facts nor the law are on his side, he will pound the table. What are you pounding here?

If you genuinely believe the Law of Chastity is on your side, please thoroughly define and document it before attempting to pound it.

And by the way, I know how the Law of Chastity was defined when I first went through the temple and made my own covenants, and I know how it is articulated today, and they are not the same. But that might be a starting place for a useful discussion.

On that basis, my position is that the Law of Chasity is (and was and has been for centuries, even millennia) that “A person will not have sexual intercourse except with a legally and lawfully wedded spouse.” According to my understanding and judgment, that is the long-established Law of Chastity. Despite all assertions to the contrary, it is actually that simple.

But I will acknowledge, there are a few things that modern Church leadership have been quite obsessed with: Sex, WoW, and Tithing. Going back 50-100 years, those seem to be serious obsessions, with no corresponding, new modern revelations on those subjects. It is interesting.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 22nd, 2022, 9:54 am, edited 3 times in total.

Atticus
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3200

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atticus »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:04 am
Oh I haven't dodged any hard questions Mangus. And your condescending tone towards me is really quite juvenile for an old retired judge such as yourself.
I apologize, Atticus, if you feel like I have abused you. But your defensiveness is quite revealing. It is true that at this point in my life I have less tolerance for the endless pontifications, wordsmything, and intentional obsfucation of attorneys. Having said that, if you don't like the heat, it might be best to get out of the kitchen. All you are attempting to do is continue to muddy the already murky water, without bringing any actual clarity to the equation. That is what an old, experienced judge might say to anyone in this situation.

Beyond that, we both know that attorneys are paid to advocate positions. In the process, they very often attempt to make arguments that make absolutely no sense. And it is starting to feel like that is what you are doing here.

Something else a crusty old judge will tell you is that when a lawyer has the facts on his side, he will pound the facts. When he has the law on his side, he will pond the law. But when neither the facts nor the law are on his side, he will pound the table. What are you pounding here?

If you genuinely believe the Law of Chastity is on your side, please thoroughly define and document it before attempting to pound it.
I can handle the heat just fine.

As for the rest, you are clearly projecting. I have pointed to facts, which you have dismissed out of hand as unspired opinions, without presenting any facts to justify this. You have also dodged most of my points and questions. Until you stop dodging my points and questions, there's no point for me to present any more facts is there. As they would obviously be falling on deaf ears.

So come on Mangus, be a big boy and actually address my points if you can. Tell us on what grounds you claim that God would smile upon a prospective husband insisting that his wife pleasure herself and then tell him all about it so he can verify whether or not he thinks she will be able to satisfy his sexual desires to the fullest on their wedding night and beyond before going through with the marriage.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 167

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Fair enough. I will be very direct: What prospective spouses discuss is none of our business. It is none of your business. What I said before was that if “I” were in that situation that is what I would do. Frankly, in that situation I think God might think that any man who wouldn’t have that discussion might be an idiot. But it is entirely possible that we don’t view God exactly the same way. The bottom line, however, is that whatever I might say to my prospective spouse is absolutely none of your business. What I don’t understand is why you think it is or should be.

If you want to say, “I would never, ever do that . . . I would never ask that question. . . That thought would never cross my virtuous mind,” that’s fair. But at that point in time, I couldn’t help but ask, as I am asking now: Are you married? And please do not say another word until you answer that simple question.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 22nd, 2022, 9:17 am, edited 3 times in total.

Atticus
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3200

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atticus »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:47 am Fair enough. I will be very direct: What prospective spouses discuss is none of our business. It is none of your business. What I said before was that if “I” were in that situation that is what I would do. Frankly, in that situation I think God might think that any man who wouldn’t have that discussion might be an idiot. But it is entirely possible that we don’t view God exactly the same way. The bottom line, however, is that whatever I might say to my prospective spouse is absolutely none of your business. What I don’t understand is why you think it is or should be.
I never said that what you and your prospective wife discuss is any of my business. However, I think we can both agree that it is God’s business. And since you would be insisting that your prospective wife do what Latter-day prophets have clearly repeatedly denounced as sinful, to satisfy your own curiosity or lusts, I think that's problematic.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 167

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Please clarify: Exactly what is it that you are claiming to be “sinful”? Is it sinful for a woman to orgasm? Please define exactly what you are claiming to be sinful and why you are making such assertions.

And, again, please answer this simple question: Are you married?

Atticus
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3200

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atticus »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 9:10 am Please clarify: Exactly what is it that you are claiming to be “sinful”? Is it sinful for a woman to orgasm? Please define exactly what you are claiming to be sinful and why you are making such assertions.
All forms of sex outside of marriage, including masturbation/pleasuring one's self, have been defined as sinful for both men and women by Latter-day prophets.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 167

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Please cite your sources. Chapter and verse. How is “sex” defined? Is “necking” a form of sex? Is talking about sex a form of sex? Is it sinful for a prospective couple to discuss sex before they are married?

But once you’re married, it’s all fair game? No due diligence of any kind prior to the wedding night?

Once again: Are you married?

It is highly relevant to this discussion, where you appear to be talking pure theory, without any substance to back anything up, and completely failing to acknowledge the huge gaps between theory and reality.

When I took Preparation for Marriage in Institute 40 years ago, the CES instructor was also a stake president. I can see that the two of you would be having a huge argument about this subject. But he was married, had married children, and had counseled a lot of couples both before and after marriage. He knew. He understood.

Do you? Are you married?

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 901

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Incoming!

Impending non-answer on its way shortly!

(Is Atticus looking to grow up to be a White House press secretary?)

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6314

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Sarah »

Any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, including stimulating yourself. Why? Because is a purely selfish activity, and you are degrading and abusing a physical endowment that has strict rules around it's use. It's purpose is to only be activated and shared between husband and wife, for the exchanging of love gifts ("expression of love"), and for procreation. You can argue that God allows all sorts of activities that appear to be in the category of selfish, but that's where some common sense and the spirit need to come into play when deciding what actions you will engage in. Most pleasurable activities are appointed to be done with others and not alone, like "feasting" or celebrating with rich food or dancing, playing games etc. If it's not building a relationship, then the activity becomes self-indulgent, can easily be abused, and become addictive.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 901

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Sarah wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 10:03 am Any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, including stimulating yourself. Why? Because is a purely selfish activity, and you are degrading and abusing a physical endowment that has strict rules around it's use. It's purpose is to only be activated and shared between husband and wife, for the exchanging of love gifts ("expression of love"), and for procreation. You can argue that God allows all sorts of activities that appear to be in the category of selfish, but that's where some common sense and the spirit need to come into play when deciding what actions you will engage in. Most pleasurable activities are appointed to be done with others and not alone, like "feasting" or celebrating with rich food or dancing, playing games etc. If it's not building a relationship, then the activity becomes self-indulgent, can easily be abused, and become addictive.
That is a nice opinion. But it’s just an opinion. And should someone be inclined to, they could poke a lot of holes in the masterbation is selfish and selfish is sinful argument but there’s really no need since it’s just your opinion.

Interesting opinion though.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 901

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Okay I do not want to step on the toes of the fair judge, as this is his thread and he skillfully cornered the whole discussion into FINALLY possibly getting some folks to either offer an authoritative citation OR admit that their whole view and opinion of the subject is resting upon assumptions and personal interpretations that aren’t necessarily rock solid.

When cornered by the fair judge with the options being either put up (citation) or shut up, it appears that they have chosen to shut up.

Of course their out will be that they were just clocking in for work, and still have many things that they could cite etc etc but the reality is— we are most all of us already familiar with the scriptures and the official declarations of church leaders and so we already know that there are no clear statements on the subject outside of the law of chastity which has only been cited in this thread as being: “A person will not have sexual intercourse except with a legally and lawfully wedded spouse.”

People are fast and loose with the accusations and the finger pointing and the judging and the posts are stacking up pages at a time but when the time comes to cite an authoritative source it’s then all of the sudden crickets? Gee I wonder why.

So just to get things moving I will spell a couple things out.

These are the things that I am spelling out:

1. Atticus is in a position where he has to acknowledge the official internal Memo I provided that oral sex even within marriage was interpreted as unclean unholy and impure and then that interpretation was SIGNED by President Spencer Kimball and his counselors in the 1980s and distributed to local leadership.

Does Atticus acknowledge this as binding? It is more recent and more official than most everything that he cited, many of his citations going back to side comments made by peripheral leaders around the turn of the century.

What I provided was official signed document from the the 1980s.

That subject of that type of sex within marriage is not something we need to get into but I’d like to know if Atticus considers it binding.

2. Sarah has been artfully allowed to reveal over the course of this thread that she has no qualms whatsoever about repeatedly cold shouldering and denying a husband intimacy which is not unheard of but now she also revealed that she ALSO considers it sinful and selfish for the married man to take care of himself. So she has the poor fellow up a creek without a paddle and strict instructions to not try and swim it alone. And then on TOP OF THAT she also goes on to complain that the fellow is acting a little impatient and entitled. WOW!


So, no hard feelings to anyone, I am just spelling out, for clarity’s sake, what we have just read.

And I will now go on to provide a small humorous and true anecdote so that the conversation doesn’t get too heavy:

There once upon a time was a chaste young man and a chaste young woman who were courting.

They were in love and were considering marriage.

One night they stayed up till midnight holding hands and talking and kissing on the sofa. Before long there was more and more kissing and less and less talking. This went on for maybe an hour, at which point the clock struck 12 and the young man got up, said goodbye see you tomorrow and headed home.

On his way home black bricks started building up in front of his eyes. He pulled his truck over to the side of the road and passed out for a second lol.

The kissing had sent a signal to his body to muster the troops but when the troops were not then deployed, him being 21 years old and at the peak of his virility, it caused so much pressure to build up behind the gates that a huge amount of pain ensued, so much that he found himself on the side of the road in and out of consciousness lol.

But to his credit, he was chaste and appropriate with the young woman even though that was going on behind the scenes.

I think that all of the above is relevant.

Post Reply