LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **April 24th, 2019, 3:51 pm**

If a prophet, scripture, or the Lord informs me that sex is an ordinance requiring prayer before and/or after, then I'll definitely comply. Otherwise, this seems pretty fringe to me.

Posted: **April 24th, 2019, 4:16 pm**

Ancient cultures and practises the world over held sexual union (particularly that of the royals) as being the absolute most crucial rite there is. The union of the King and Queen being the source of all life and fertility. As suggested earlier, Mormons really don’t seem to know much at all when it comes to the symbolism and archetype of sex. I would call it an ordinance.

Posted: **April 25th, 2019, 6:29 pm**

Sex between a husband and wife is beautiful and not an ordinance. I can't think of a better way to kill the mood than to pray before engaging in the act with the one you love. My wife and I usually enjoy the spontaneity of it more than anything and neither of us have ever felt dirty or wrongdoing by engaging in certain acts. It's a private expression of love and attraction to and with your spouse and is no one's business but their own and no couple should ever feel guilty for sex acts committed with each other as long as both are fine with it. This whole thread is rather amusing in terms of silliness.

Posted: **April 25th, 2019, 8:30 pm**

"Elder Holland taught that we are never closer to Gods in this life than when we are engaging in sex. "

Great! To be closer to God, forget church and temple and have more sex!!!

And if sex is some sacred ordinance, why not do it in church or the temple?

Posted: **April 25th, 2019, 9:50 pm**

djinwa wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 8:30 pm "Elder Holland taught that we are never closer to Gods in this life than when we are engaging in sex. "

Great! To be closer to God, forget church and temple and have more sex!!!

And if sex is some sacred ordinance, why not do it in church or the temple?

If Mormon couples were given a green light to try harder to find time to have sex it might solve the too-low birthrate as well as decrease the divorce rate, which, I might add would increase the birthrate.

And people would be happier, there would be less porn consumption, it would decrease obesity, decrease prostate cancers, and help women stay younger. It would also increase religious connections for men.

Posted: **April 25th, 2019, 11:34 pm**

The important reference relating to the thread in Elder Holland's talk is at 26 minutes.

Posted: **April 25th, 2019, 11:43 pm**

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:50 pm
djinwa wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 8:30 pm "Elder Holland taught that we are never closer to Gods in this life than when we are engaging in sex. "

Great! To be closer to God, forget church and temple and have more sex!!!

And if sex is some sacred ordinance, why not do it in church or the temple?
If Mormon couples were given a green light to try harder to find time to have sex it might solve the too-low birthrate as well as decrease the divorce rate, which, I might add would increase the birthrate.

And people would be happier, there would be less porn consumption, it would decrease obesity, decrease prostate cancers, and help women stay younger. It would also increase religious connections for men.

The church (which I assume would be giving the green light) does not have that kind of power, it cant change these things.

Posted: **April 26th, 2019, 12:14 am**

The church (which I assume would be giving the green light) does not have that kind of power, it cant change these things.

If the leaders of the Church were to ask members to all drink a cup of coffee tomorrow at lunch what do you think most would do?

Posted: **April 26th, 2019, 7:51 am**

Head to McDonald's or Starbucks of course.

Posted: **April 26th, 2019, 7:58 am**

djinwa wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 8:30 pm "Elder Holland taught that we are never closer to Gods in this life than when we are engaging in sex. "

Great! To be closer to God, forget church and temple and have more sex!!!

And if sex is some sacred ordinance, why not do it in church or the temple?

Well...our homes are supposed to be holy places, second only to the temple in holiness. I doubt the bedroom is exempt.

I don't know why this is some big thing for so many to accept that sex is a sacred rite, or as Elder Holland put it, "a sacrament." Sex with my husband has a crazy spiritual element to it, and has resulted in some of our most sacred experiences together. Probably TMI, but when we are having regular "great" sex, the kind that we are both into and that we are climaxing together, I feel closer to the Spirit. A feeling of love rather than contention exists in our home. It's like the energy involved spreads to and blesses our whole family. It's hard to explain if you haven't experienced it. I don't sense the same benefits from just doing it to get it over with, if you know what I mean.

As for having sex in the temple...like I said earlier, our homes can be temples in their own way so there is no need, but if there were a reason to have sex in the temple, I wouldn't feel guilty about it like I had desecrated it or something. That attitude that sex is dirty or the equivalent of using the bathroom will prevent someone from experiencing sex for what it really is. But even if someone can't see that, I believe a couple can still benefit from the blessings of a righteous sexual relationship unintentionally. It's all about unselfish, unconditional love for one another.

Another thought is that if sex is really that sacred (it is), that means all the people in the world having sex with people they aren't married to, producing and viewing porn (hardcore and "mainstream"), making crude jokes, etc. are literally mocking God and blaspheming against very sacred things.

Posted: **April 26th, 2019, 8:22 am**

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 12:14 am
The church (which I assume would be giving the green light) does not have that kind of power, it cant change these things.
If the leaders of the Church were to ask members to all drink a cup of coffee tomorrow at lunch what do you think most would do?

Now thats dumb, coffee is a no-no.

The church tells people to stop sinning, do people listen?
They simply do not have that kind of power you speak of.

The church doesnt have the power to increase libido. Lol, sounds funny put that way.

Posted: **April 26th, 2019, 11:30 am**

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 8:22 am
Fiannan wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 12:14 am
The church (which I assume would be giving the green light) does not have that kind of power, it cant change these things.
If the leaders of the Church were to ask members to all drink a cup of coffee tomorrow at lunch what do you think most would do?
Now thats dumb, coffee is a no-no.

The church tells people to stop sinning, do people listen?
They simply do not have that kind of power you speak of.

The church doesnt have the power to increase libido. Lol, sounds funny put that way.

The Church has the power of persuasion. You know as well as I do that there are couples in which either the man or woman sees sex as some sort of necessary evil. If the Church emphasized the importance of bonding and such and yes, made it clear that they were talking more than some sort of gesture like holding hands, then people might make more an attempt. Now we just hear messages that more than imply that in couples with unequal passion levels the one with the stronger levels should strive to be more like the one who does not like sex that much.

Posted: **April 26th, 2019, 12:35 pm**

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 11:30 am
MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 8:22 am
Fiannan wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 12:14 am
The church (which I assume would be giving the green light) does not have that kind of power, it cant change these things.
If the leaders of the Church were to ask members to all drink a cup of coffee tomorrow at lunch what do you think most would do?
Now thats dumb, coffee is a no-no.

The church tells people to stop sinning, do people listen?
They simply do not have that kind of power you speak of.

The church doesnt have the power to increase libido. Lol, sounds funny put that way.
The Church has the power of persuasion. You know as well as I do that there are couples in which either the man or woman sees sex as some sort of necessary evil. If the Church emphasized the importance of bonding and such and yes, made it clear that they were talking more than some sort of gesture like holding hands, then people might make more an attempt. Now we just hear messages that more than imply that in couples with unequal passion levels the one with the stronger levels should strive to be more like the one who does not like sex that much.

I really dont think the church telling people to have more sex will do anything positive. It has already been implied and stated that sex is to be enjoyed and used to bond. If people still think its a necessary evil and avoid it, then thats on them and their personal choice. The church will never persuade otherwise. Agency, agency, agency....dont take away others right to decide for themselves, give them information and let them decide.

Its also very possible that if the church started to focus on sex and that we should be having lots of it and how its an ordinance and the righteous deed between two people, etc etc we might start looking even more weird and cultish. IF human beings in our church do not like sex then the church telling them to like it could drive them out. Not everyone likes sex or enjoys it or sees the point of it (all kinds of people in the world, and church). If someone doesnt like it then its more their personal feelings than the churches feelings/teachings. Most people have the opposite problem of trying to keep their sexuality within the proper realm of expression, especially as teenagers and young adults. If someone doesnt like it then I tend to believe its just who they are as a person.

Do you honestly think that the church saying sex is good (already implied) will make those who naturally dont like it as much turn around and all of a sudden like it and do it often? I dont.
The church lays out standards (law of chastity) to help tame the sexual feelings humans should naturally have, they dont ever say sex is bad or that people need only do it for children.
Once married, people should feel free to finally express their sexuality. This is normal.

The church really has no power to get wives (or husbands) to have more sex with their spouse, IMO.
Unless you think “the church” coming down on the less sexuals will guilt them into complying to follow the prophet and leaders to have lots of sex so they dont run the risk of being damned...

Posted: **April 26th, 2019, 12:57 pm**

“I have no objection to anyone’s sex life as long as they don’t practice it in the street and frighten the horses.”
― Oscar Wilde

Posted: **April 26th, 2019, 1:09 pm**

IF human beings in our church do not like sex then the church telling them to like it could drive them out. Not everyone likes sex or enjoys it or sees the point of it (all kinds of people in the world, and church).

That may very well be true, and in an ideal world such people would not marry. However, a woman who fits your description might really like the idea of having a celestial family. And as most LDS couples don't talk about sex as much as they should before marriage then a few years down the road, when she has her three or four kids, then she lets the husband know that sex time is expired in their marriage. So the man is left miserable and, if he gets caught looking at porn because he wants to avoid and actual affair, he's out on his ear, she has her kids and child support.

I remember having a job during my student days and there was an LDS coed who worked at the same place. One day a conversation after work started and the topic of sex came up. She was about 20 and she let everyone know she had never masturbated in her entire life. I have no idea why she had to tell everyone this but afterwards I told a couple of the guys I would be really worried dating someone like her. They were non-members, sure, but they all agreed.

Do you honestly think that the church saying sex is good (already implied) will make those who naturally dont like it as much turn around and all of a sudden like it and do it often? I dont.

If it were mixed with a message dealing with the positive benefits to health, relationships and spirituality, then maybe people might think, "You know, maybe we need to spend more time with each other."

This brings to mind an old Woody Allen movie I saw, I think as a kid. He and his wife, girlfriend, whatever are asked separately how their sex life was. He says a number and says they don't have it enough. She says the same number and feels like it is excessive, if I remember the scene correctly.

Unless you think “the church” coming down on the less sexuals will guilt them into complying to follow the prophet and leaders to have lots of sex so they dont run the risk of being damned...

I have noted on here before that I believe guilt, for however one defines it, is a negative emotion. I have tried to teach my children not to be burdened by it. I have one daughter who says she doesn't experience guilt and she is the one with the best grades, most friends in Church and if she sets a goal she reaches it. We should really strive to strengthen our kids against guilt. That said, you must realize that I don't think laying a guilt trip on people works. If it did, the home-teaching and visiting teaching program would have been so successful we would not have had to get rid of it. The best strategy is to emphasize positive outcomes of sex and sexuality. It is like the word of wisdom, if you are out-of-shape you cannot get as deep with spiritual insights as if you are. A marriage with a vibrant sex life is one that will be more bonded but also one that the man connects to the spiritual powers of the woman and the woman gains the spiritual powers of the man. We can't go to the temple on a frequent basis but a married couple can certainly reach higher spirituality within the confines of their homes.

Posted: **April 27th, 2019, 3:21 pm**

"I really dont think the church telling people to have more sex will do anything positive. It has already been implied and stated that sex is to be enjoyed and used to bond. If people still think its a necessary evil and avoid it, then thats on them and their personal choice. The church will never persuade otherwise. Agency, agency, agency....dont take away others right to decide for themselves, give them information and let them decide.

Its also very possible that if the church started to focus on sex and that we should be having lots of it and how its an ordinance and the righteous deed between two people, etc etc we might start looking even more weird and cultish. IF human beings in our church do not like sex then the church telling them to like it could drive them out."

I agree. We shouldn't ask people to avoid alcohol either, because it might drive members out, and we need to let them use their agency....

So it is implied to have sex, but apparently not required in marriage. So if a spouse doesn't want to do it, how does their spouse exercise their agency to do it? They get celibacy or divorce, both can be hell.

Let me post the story below one more time. Please explain how the wife gets away with this, and if it is okay, and what is the husband to do? Because she apparently did not get the implied message that sex is good, or doesn't care. What would happen to her husband if he looked at porn?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28709&start=30

There are cases where this is not an option because one partner or the other refuses. Case in point: I know a couple where the wife has steadfastly refused sex for over ten years. One day, the husband was watching her bend over in her pajamas while she was picking something up off the floor, and he looked down her top. She immediately stood up and yelled at him for being a dirty old man for looking at his own wife’s nakedness. When this man came to me and a friend who is a bishop (not the husband’s bishop) for advice, we recommended the books “And They Were Not Ashamed” by Sr. Laura Brotherson and “The Purity and the Passion” by Wendy Watson. When he recommended either book to his wife, he again got yelled at because he only wanted her to read those books so he could convince her to let him “work off his lustful desires” on her. I recognize that this is a woman in serious need of professional counseling (which she’s never going to get) but it’s not an isolated case. Their marriage continues along, and the husband, now in his 18th year of enforced celibacy honors his marriage through a sense of duty rather than desire. The woman is a prominent member of ward leadership offices because of her “holy” nature. It’s a sad case of satan using something beautiful to destroy love. It’s sad. I would hope that appropriate discussions in church meetings could help turn some of this tide.

Posted: **April 27th, 2019, 4:08 pm**

we recommended the books “And They Were Not Ashamed” by Sr. Laura Brotherson and “The Purity and the Passion” by Wendy Watson.

Well, there it is - on the most convincing authority!

https://www.mormonwiki.com/Wendy_Watson ... _Therapist

Posted: **April 27th, 2019, 5:39 pm**

Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2019, 12:34 am
brianj wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2019, 11:29 am I’m sorry if this damages testimonies, but I found it. It’s not exactly what I recall but the point is the same:
For true marital intimacy, the Holy Ghost needs to be involved. It is simply not possible to have the kind of intimate experiences outside of marriage that you can have within because the Spirit will not be present.
Wendy Nelson, Love and Marriage, January 2017
Maybe it's just me, but I get a really uneasy feeling about that woman.
I suspect she has undue influence.

She teaches some dark doctrines:
https://rationalfaiths.com/satans-plan- ... k-edition/

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ ... e?lang=eng

When we’re desperate to have more money, we eagerly follow the Lord’s law of finances—which is, of course, tithing!

Consider President George Q. Cannon’s approach to tithing when he was an impoverished young man. When his bishop commented on the large amount of tithing poor young George was paying, George said something like: “Oh bishop, I’m not paying tithing on what I make. I’m paying tithing on what I want to make.” And the very next year George earned exactly the amount of money he had paid tithing on the year before!

Posted: **April 28th, 2019, 11:57 am**

gkearney wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2019, 3:15 pm
Great8 wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2019, 2:26 pm I pray before so that my wife gets in the mood and then I pray afterwards that she's not pregnant! Six is enough!
There are more effective methods of birth control than prayer.

Pretty sure those Worldly options were and have been talked about by early leaders and how we should NOT use them. But then again the leaders change their minds all the time over the years. So it’s possible it’s totally ok now.

Posted: **April 28th, 2019, 11:59 am**

Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2019, 12:34 am
brianj wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2019, 11:29 am I’m sorry if this damages testimonies, but I found it. It’s not exactly what I recall but the point is the same:
For true marital intimacy, the Holy Ghost needs to be involved. It is simply not possible to have the kind of intimate experiences outside of marriage that you can have within because the Spirit will not be present.
Wendy Nelson, Love and Marriage, January 2017
Maybe it's just me, but I get a really uneasy feeling about that woman.
I suspect she has undue influence.

Guarantee she is a feminist and is hard at work to destroy patriarchy and the role of men

Posted: **April 28th, 2019, 12:12 pm**

sandman45 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2019, 11:59 am
Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2019, 12:34 amMaybe it's just me, but I get a really uneasy feeling about that woman.
I suspect she has undue influence.
Guarantee she is a feminist and is hard at work to destroy patriarchy and the role of men

She gave off a weird vibe when she visited my mission as well. It was kind of strange, some missionaries loved her, others felt “off”.

Posted: **April 28th, 2019, 1:16 pm**

sandman45 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2019, 11:59 am
Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2019, 12:34 am
brianj wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2019, 11:29 am I’m sorry if this damages testimonies, but I found it. It’s not exactly what I recall but the point is the same:
For true marital intimacy, the Holy Ghost needs to be involved. It is simply not possible to have the kind of intimate experiences outside of marriage that you can have within because the Spirit will not be present.
Wendy Nelson, Love and Marriage, January 2017
Maybe it's just me, but I get a really uneasy feeling about that woman.
I suspect she has undue influence.
Guarantee she is a feminist and is hard at work to destroy patriarchy and the role of men

Not saying you are wrong, but do you have some examples?

LDS Freedom Forum

Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex

Re: Church fireside mention of prayer before sex