LDS Freedom Forum

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 11:24 am

I DON'T NEED TO "specify a very good definition of what actually is appropriate sexual behavior in a marriage"
because the scriptures, and even church leaders have already done that,
but you, like many here,
don't really care that much about the scriptures and what they say, and don't want to hear it.

Again, all I can find in the scriptures in regards to sexual sin between two married people is if they have intercourse when she is on her menstruating. That is pretty serious. In Judaism it is not even supposed to be mentioned, instead a woman should hint at it with her husband. In Islam a woman is not allowed to pray or even hold the Koran during that time of month. So yes, pretty serious in the Abrahamic religions.

Of course modern prophets have also said it is a grave sin to limit the size of your family for reasons other than health. So I suppose you agree that this also should be avoided.

------------
incredible.
you know this reminds me of so many members that think that the warnings
in the scriptures for the Gentiles are not meant for them simply because they are members. (MARRIED)
get it !
All these scriptures about the carnal man - the natural man is an enemy to God
lust of the flesh, sensuality, etc... etc.... APPLY TO EVERYONE !
EVEN WHEN YOU"RE MARRIED !

what could I compare it to.
It's kinda like, saying "gossip" is wrong,
but it's okay to do with my wife.
Gossip is gossip - and it's wrong even when it's with your wife.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/gossi ... g&letter=G

incredible.
you know this reminds me of so many members that think that the warnings
in the scriptures for the Gentiles are not meant for them simply because they are members. (MARRIED)
get it !
All these scriptures about the carnal man - the natural man is an enemy to God
lust of the flesh, sensuality, etc... etc.... APPLY TO EVERYONE !
EVEN WHEN YOU"RE MARRIED !

Did you ever see the original version of the movie "Carrie" in regards to the mother? Just get images of her reading your posts in this thread.

So by your logic if your wife gets out of the shower and doesn't bother to get dressed for a while, the husband looking at her is akin to a guy watching a porn video? That is odd, I just listened to a talk from Elder Holland where he said that in marriage a couple's sexual relationship was akin to a sacrament. If a husband or wife thinks about their spouse in a sexual sense (and we label that as bad) then that implies there should be guilt...guilt about desire that can lead to a husband and wife becoming one in a deep spiritual sense.

Maybe instead of asking you to define lust, which you have not done in any satisfactory manner, you can tell us how a husband and wife should behave and think towards each other in a Godly way.

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 12:22 pm

incredible.
you know this reminds me of so many members that think that the warnings
in the scriptures for the Gentiles are not meant for them simply because they are members. (MARRIED)
get it !
All these scriptures about the carnal man - the natural man is an enemy to God
lust of the flesh, sensuality, etc... etc.... APPLY TO EVERYONE !
EVEN WHEN YOU"RE MARRIED !

Did you ever see the original version of the movie "Carrie" in regards to the mother? Just get images of her reading your posts in this thread.

So by your logic if your wife gets out of the shower and doesn't bother to get dressed for a while, the husband looking at her is akin to a guy watching a porn video? That is odd, I just listened to a talk from Elder Holland where he said that in marriage a couple's sexual relationship was akin to a sacrament. If a husband or wife thinks about their spouse in a sexual sense (and we label that as bad) then that implies there should be guilt...guilt about desire that can lead to a husband and wife becoming one in a deep spiritual sense.

Maybe instead of asking you to define lust, which you have not done in any satisfactory manner, you can tell us how a husband and wife should behave and think towards each other in a Godly way.

It seems your taking this too far and equating everything between a man and wife as lust, which its not.
Appropriate attraction and sexual desire are both good and right, not considered lust.
If your LUSTING your wife after shes out of the shower then yeah, she just may shut the door on you. The point is to not objectify your spouse similar to how one objectifies people while watching porn or similar things.

This really is not a difficult thing to grasp. DONT TURN YOUR SPOUSE INTO PORN, keep her as your spouse and enjoy her for who she is as a woman and wife and not just because she is a woman. A deeper connection and a meaningful connection, no one wants to simply be porn to their spouse or someone to “exercise” on.

Proper sexuality is exactly that...proper and fitting for marriage. Being attracted to your spouse is not lust.

So after looking at both sides and the scriptures involved, am gonna go on the side that lust is still lust and will always be a sin even within marriage. True sexual fulfillment will never come from lust. Call me a prudish peter priesthood but that’s what the spirit has confirmed to me.

It’s rare for lustless lovers to live happily ever after in platonic bliss. Invariably, one person isn’t happy in a sexless marriage and ends up either leaving or having an affair.

A relationship stripped of the intimacy and physical closeness which sex provides feels hollow: the person who is supposed to find you attractive, sexy and desirable doesn’t.

Who wants to live with that?

¨

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... y-Cox.html

Again, some will say there is a difference between love and lust, but then again, we may love our parents, but we don't want to have sex with them. Our marriage partners should be different. And this thread (at least the people who say it is a sin to lust at anyone) has failed to note what is positive attraction. I suspect there are those who would say any "I really want my spouse" feelings is lust. Am I wrong? Tell me what is appropriate in regards to thoughts and actions. I am waiting.

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 2:16 pm

It’s rare for lustless lovers to live happily ever after in platonic bliss. Invariably, one person isn’t happy in a sexless marriage and ends up either leaving or having an affair.

A relationship stripped of the intimacy and physical closeness which sex provides feels hollow: the person who is supposed to find you attractive, sexy and desirable doesn’t.

Who wants to live with that?

¨

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... y-Cox.html

Again, some will say there is a difference between love and lust, but then again, we may love our parents, but we don't want to have sex with them. Our marriage partners should be different. And this thread (at least the people who say it is a sin to lust at anyone) has failed to note what is positive attraction. I suspect there are those who would say any "I really want my spouse" feelings is lust. Am I wrong? Tell me what is appropriate in regards to thoughts and actions. I am waiting.

If you know the difference between how you feel viewing porn and how you feel when your with your wife (and realize they are different feelings) then you know the answer already.
If you want to be a piece of meat then I suppose your okay with treating your wife the same way? Dont we want to be more important than that?

If your with your wife (in the dark) but she literally could be any random woman and you would behave the same, then your definitely in the wrong! But if you hold her special and dear to you and respect her and have those feelings just for and with her then whats the problem?

Dont over complicate it.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 4:37 pm

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 2:16 pm

It’s rare for lustless lovers to live happily ever after in platonic bliss. Invariably, one person isn’t happy in a sexless marriage and ends up either leaving or having an affair.

A relationship stripped of the intimacy and physical closeness which sex provides feels hollow: the person who is supposed to find you attractive, sexy and desirable doesn’t.

Who wants to live with that?

¨

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... y-Cox.html

Again, some will say there is a difference between love and lust, but then again, we may love our parents, but we don't want to have sex with them. Our marriage partners should be different. And this thread (at least the people who say it is a sin to lust at anyone) has failed to note what is positive attraction. I suspect there are those who would say any "I really want my spouse" feelings is lust. Am I wrong? Tell me what is appropriate in regards to thoughts and actions. I am waiting.

If you know the difference between how you feel viewing porn and how you feel when your with your wife (and realize they are different feelings) then you know the answer already.
If you want to be a piece of meat then I suppose your okay with treating your wife the same way? Dont we want to be more important than that?

If your with your wife (in the dark) but she literally could be any random woman and you would behave the same, then your definitely in the wrong! But if you hold her special and dear to you and respect her and have those feelings just for and with her then whats the problem?

Dont over complicate it.

We have agreed on this subject. There are those participating though who have not made known the differences in their minds.

I don't think there are many people (if any) here (in this thread) that are saying it is impossible to have sinful thoughts regarding your spouse.

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I believe:

• There is such a thing as inappropriate (sinful) thoughts one can have regarding their spouse. As many would put it, "lust".
• Regarding intimacy, there is such a thing as inappropriate (sinful) actions one can do with their spouse.
• One's attitude towards intimacy with their spouse can be either inappropriate (sinful), or righteous. Desire towards one's spouse can be either good/righteous, or inappropriate/sinful.

That said, I don't think the scriptures define what lust is. As stated elsewhere by someone else on this forum, words mean what people as a group think they mean, not what any one person wants them to mean. "Lust" had a certain meaning at the time the Bible was translated into English. Perhaps the word "lust" has changed slightly, maybe gaining some additional meanings. What "lust" means isn't the point I'm trying to make - my point is that "Lust" probably had a certain meaning back then to the translators of the Bible. And, a lot of that meaning can be picked up by contextual clues. But "lust" is NOT properly defined in the Bible, IMO. This is why it's important that we use the Holy Ghost to determine what behavior should be avoided/stopped, and what behavior should be encouraged.

Mosiah chapter 4, verse 29
And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

If there are those here that believe all sexual desire towards one's spouse is inappropriate or sinful, that would be a point of disagreement that I would have with them. But that is their prerogative.

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

My grandparents were this way, and no they weren't prudish or repressed whatsoever. They actually "had" to get married and were adults when they converted with three children in tow. It is just that upon going through the temple for the first time( when they were in their 50's!), they came out believing they were never supposed to remove their garments and must always be covered when in each others' presence. I know for a fact that my grandmother wore her garments in the bathtub, removing them only partially as bathing necessitated and both of them would wear their garments in their own private backyard swimming pool with swimming suits pulled over them. too.

I, too, find this to be an extreme interpretation. To each their own, I guess. My grandparents believed that if they wanted protection from Satan, they had to take the wearing of the garment and the endowment story VERY seriously.

passionflower wrote: ↑April 28th, 2019, 9:11 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

My grandparents were this way, and no they weren't prudish or repressed whatsoever. They actually "had" to get married and were adults when they converted with three children in tow. It is just that upon going through the temple for the first time( when they were in their 50's!), they came out believing they were never supposed to remove their garments and must always be covered when in each others' presence. I know for a fact that my grandmother wore her garments in the bathtub, removing them only partially as bathing necessitated and both of them would wear their garments in their own private backyard swimming pool with swimming suits pulled over them. too.

I, too, find this to be an extreme interpretation. To each their own, I guess. My grandparents believed that if they wanted protection from Satan, they had to take the wearing of the garment and the endowment story VERY seriously.

This is interesting and though extreme perhaps we have lost a little bit of the devotion and respect over time for our covenants and practices.

Humans are visual, both men and women but within different contexts. Men can basically get turned on by a statue of a nude woman while women tend to be turned on by seeing people, or mammals in general, being intimate. Still, it is visual. Our brains are designed to pick up clues about a mate (or potential mate) from the testosterone from the man's saliva when she ingests it during kissing, to the expansion of a person's iris, to the increase in lip size to...well, other things. Point is, we communicate both at the conscious and sub-conscious level. We were designed to be this way. So for someone to think that seeing your wife or husband naked is a sin is preposterous.