Page 17 of 23

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 12:06 pm
by Sarah
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 11:26 am 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.
Well, I think we need to do a better job talking to our kids about sex and the behaviors leading up to it. The counsel to youth fortunately is better than what it was for me. The counsel should be, that any sexual activity, including kissing that arouses those sexual desires, isn't right in the sight of God and is against the Law of Chastity. All sexual behaviors, including kissing, should be kept within marriage. If I had to do it over again, I would have my first kiss be on my wedding day. The only kissing going on should be a kiss on the cheek.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 12:15 pm
by Baurak Ale
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 11:26 am 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 comes it’s all 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.
That was a funny and pertinent story. Thanks for sharing. Here's one from my life:

I was engaged to be married and my fiancé and I were attending a married ward with some other married friends. The ward loved us and thought we were so cute. (Somehow they even assigned us home teachers together, gave us callings like a couple, and asked us to speak as a couple before leaving to be married and move into another ward!) One time the passions ran a little too high and afterward, in a moment of weakness and pain, I handled things personally in the bathroom. I was devastated since I viewed that as a major blow to my desire to be perfectly chaste in preparation for going to the temple to be married. I confessed to my fiancé and she and I worried together whether I had ruined our happy plans for being married in a few weeks. I called my ward executive secretary and set up a time to meet with the bishop to confess. I made my way to his office later with the most broken heart and contrite spirit I could fathom. I just hoped that we could work out it quietly (my friends would wonder why I wasn't partaking of the sacrament, after all) and—most importantly to me—not have to move the wedding date. As I sauntered into the bishop's office, I could see on his face the look of speculative worry that was causing the sweat to bead on his face. I could see that he was expecting the worst, and I was sorry to have to bring up anything at all. He asked me what I came to him for and I told him all frankly. The look on his face was a sermon in itself, as all the anxiety and pressure melted away in the flash of an eye. Almost laughing, yet wanting to respect my strict convictions of virtue, he said, "I see, I see. Well, if that's all then you are good to go from my perspective. God bless you and continue to be careful." He sent me on my way rejoicing, but I also came away knowing that inside he was astonished that I had called him at all.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 12:31 pm
by hyloglyph
Sarah wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 12:06 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 11:26 am 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.
Well, I think we need to do a better job talking to our kids about sex and the behaviors leading up to it. The counsel to youth fortunately is better than what it was for me. The counsel should be, that any sexual activity, including kissing that arouses those sexual desires, isn't right in the sight of God and is against the Law of Chastity. All sexual behaviors, including kissing, should be kept within marriage. If I had to do it over again, I would have my first kiss be on my wedding day. The only kissing going on should be a kiss on the cheek.
Alright then. That would be one way to take your ideas to their logical conclusion yes.

Even kissing is now against the law of chastity for you!

You must have deep thick puritan roots.

Did you ever sew yourself into bag?

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 12:43 pm
by Mangus MacLeod
I really like where this discussion is going, because it is now starting to pit all the “sinfulness” against each other, and before you know it you won’t even be able to get out of bed in the morning without sinning in some way.

The Catholics consider masturbation to be aa “mortal sin,” which means that it will send you to He!! just as easily as adultery, so if you’re going to be committing a mortal sin anyway, why not just go ahead and commit adultery?

Sarah’s statement, which is consistent with Atticus’ is classic:
Any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, including stimulating yourself.
But at least Sarah is married. Those who have paid attention know that in other threads, Bro.Jones, who has been a bishop twice, and LDSPhysician, who is in a stake presidency, would not necessarily agree with this position.

I my case, I do agree. It is arguably carnal and sinful. But what if a wife withholds herself from her husband, for years, possibly even decades? Is that sinful? If the husband takes steps to manage the situation and relieve himself, who has the greater sin? And, Who says? Who makes that call? As the lesser of two evils, is masturbation better than adultery? Versus a wife withholding herself? Again, who makes that call? Sarah? Atticus?

Can anyone else see how plural marriage might fit into the mix? Just wondering?

A little Glue anyone?

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 12:46 pm
by hyloglyph
Baurak Ale wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 12:15 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 11:26 am 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 comes it’s all 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.
That was a funny and pertinent story. Thanks for sharing. Here's one from my life:

I was engaged to be married and my fiancé and I were attending a married ward with some other married friends. The ward loved us and thought we were so cute. (Somehow they even assigned us home teachers together, gave us callings like a couple, and asked us to speak as a couple before leaving to be married and move into another ward!) One time the passions ran a little too high and afterward, in a moment of weakness and pain, I handled things personally in the bathroom. I was devastated since I viewed that as a major blow to my desire to be perfectly chaste in preparation for going to the temple to be married. I confessed to my fiancé and she and I worried together whether I had ruined our happy plans for being married in a few weeks. I called my ward executive secretary and set up a time to meet with the bishop to confess. I made my way to his office later with the most broken heart and contrite spirit I could fathom. I just hoped that we could work out it quietly (my friends would wonder why I wasn't partaking of the sacrament, after all) and—most importantly to me—not have to move the wedding date. As I sauntered into the bishop's office, I could see on his face the look of speculative worry that was causing the sweat to bead on his face. I could see that he was expecting the worst, and I was sorry to have to bring up anything at all. He asked me what I came to him for and I told him all frankly. The look on his face was a sermon in itself, as all the anxiety and pressure melted away in the flash of an eye. Almost laughing, yet wanting to respect my strict convictions of virtue, he said, "I see, I see. Well, if that's all then you are good to go from my perspective. God bless you and continue to be careful." He sent me on my way rejoicing, but I also came away knowing that inside he was astonished that I had called him at all.
Maybe I shouldn’t put this online but my friends and I, actually no. Not us or anyone I know of—

But some young people I heard about were confused as young men because one bishop might be very easy going and not pry too much into personal details, and then the next bishop might pry so much that it was borderline perverted.

Sounds like your bishop was closer to the former.

So the people I know, who didn’t feel right about bishops being borderline perverted towards underage boys in their line of inquiry while alone with them sort of fought back in their own juvenile way.

The bishop would go above and beyond the required script even though everything was answered correctly for reasons that only he knew. He would be wanting to pry into things that weren’t his business. He would ask things like: “are you having any problems with masterbation?”

To which some of the young men made it a point to reply “Nope no problems with that. Everything is working just fine.”

And if there was some type of further questioning after that then the line is “nope I am 100% good to go in that department and I do not need any help from you but thanks I guess for offering.”

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 12:49 pm
by Baurak Ale
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 12:46 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 12:15 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 11:26 am 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 comes it’s all 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.
That was a funny and pertinent story. Thanks for sharing. Here's one from my life:

I was engaged to be married and my fiancé and I were attending a married ward with some other married friends. The ward loved us and thought we were so cute. (Somehow they even assigned us home teachers together, gave us callings like a couple, and asked us to speak as a couple before leaving to be married and move into another ward!) One time the passions ran a little too high and afterward, in a moment of weakness and pain, I handled things personally in the bathroom. I was devastated since I viewed that as a major blow to my desire to be perfectly chaste in preparation for going to the temple to be married. I confessed to my fiancé and she and I worried together whether I had ruined our happy plans for being married in a few weeks. I called my ward executive secretary and set up a time to meet with the bishop to confess. I made my way to his office later with the most broken heart and contrite spirit I could fathom. I just hoped that we could work out it quietly (my friends would wonder why I wasn't partaking of the sacrament, after all) and—most importantly to me—not have to move the wedding date. As I sauntered into the bishop's office, I could see on his face the look of speculative worry that was causing the sweat to bead on his face. I could see that he was expecting the worst, and I was sorry to have to bring up anything at all. He asked me what I came to him for and I told him all frankly. The look on his face was a sermon in itself, as all the anxiety and pressure melted away in the flash of an eye. Almost laughing, yet wanting to respect my strict convictions of virtue, he said, "I see, I see. Well, if that's all then you are good to go from my perspective. God bless you and continue to be careful." He sent me on my way rejoicing, but I also came away knowing that inside he was astonished that I had called him at all.
Maybe I shouldn’t put this online but my friends and I, actually no. Not us or anyone I know of—

But some young people I heard about were confused as young men because one bishop might be very easy going and not pry too much into personal details, and then the next bishop might pry so much that it was borderline perverted.

Sounds like your bishop was closer to the former.

So the people I know, who didn’t feel right about bishops being borderline perverted towards underage boys in their line of inquiry while alone with them sort of fought back in their own juvenile way.

The bishop would go above and beyond the required script even though everything was answered correctly for reasons that only he knew. He would be wanting to pry into things that weren’t his business. He would ask things like: “are you having any problems with masterbation?”

To which some of the young men made it a point to reply “Nope no problems with that. Everything is working just fine.”

And if there was some type of further questioning after that then the line is “nope I am 100% good to go in that department and I do not need any help from you but thanks I guess for offering.”
:lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 1:33 pm
by Sarah
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 12:43 pm I really like where this discussion is going, because it is now starting to pit all the “sinfulness” against each other, and before you know it you won’t even be able to get out of bed in the morning without sinning in some way.

The Catholics consider masturbation to be aa “mortal sin,” which means that it will send you to He!! just as easily as adultery, so if you’re going to be committing a mortal sin anyway, why not just go ahead and commit adultery?

Sarah’s statement, which is consistent with Atticus’ is classic:
Any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, including stimulating yourself.
But at least Sarah is married. Those who have paid attention know that in other threads, Bro.Jones, who has been a bishop twice, and LDSPhysician, who is in a stake presidency, both disagree with this position.

I my case, I do agree. It is arguably carnal and sinful. But what if a wife withholds herself from her husband, for years, possibly even decades? Is that sinful? If the husband takes steps to manage the situation and relieve himself, who has the greater sin? And, Who says? Who makes that call? As the lesser of two evils, is masturbation better than adultery? Versus a wife withholding herself? Again, who makes that call? Sarah? Atticus?

Can anyone else see how plural marriage might fit into the mix? Just wondering?

A little Glue anyone?
There are degrees of sin of course. Getting angry and being unkind to someone is sinful, but we don't say you can't go to the temple or take the sacrament if that happens. It's just a wise thing to do that is acting in the spirit of the Law.

As far as "relieving himself," I'm not against a man or woman who occasionally feels burdened by pressure or tension, waking up at night for example, relieving him or herself with a simple touch. But if it is intentional stimulation, simply because a person wants to build the tension inside of him or herself on purpose - that's where it becomes selfish and is taking the person away from God.

A wife who "withholds" sex has a right to refuse to receive sex for herself if she doesn't want a husband touching her. If he wants sex for his own sake, he should simply ask his wife to touch him so he can receive "sex," and not touch her, so she doesn't have to receive something he wants to force upon her. Most wives are willing to make a sacrifice to bring forth children, and if they do that, then that's going to be serving the purpose of sex. If a wife doesn't want any children and the sex that would make that happen, than yes, I think that's wrong for her to not be willing to make that sacrifice to obey the command to multiply, but let God be her judge. You don't know what she has gone through our what she is enduring. If all you're worried about is that she is not giving you something, that's feeling entitled to a gift just for yourself when it is meant to be shared and enjoyed together.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 1:49 pm
by FrankOne
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).

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?

The above is an interesting topic. I had read something a few months ago in regards to this topic, so I just looked it up to post a comment.

"study reveals 92% of women regularly take time out to masturbate, a huge jump from the findings of previous studies (74% in 1979 and 62% in 1953).

The Gossard Big M Survey interviewed 1,000 women, ages 18-30, and their answers indicate that not only do 9 out of 10 women play with themselves, two-thirds do it three times a week"
++++++++++++++

If you look up the male stats, the percentage that do this is about the same, but the frequency is less. I was on another forum months ago which is more about world news and somebody posted the statistic on women and asked women to come out and deny it. The thread lasted for days, and about a 100 men posted with their knowledge of wives, girlfriends etc doing this. A few women did post and gave reasons for why they do. But not a single woman denied how common and how often this occurs.

Suffice it to say, it is very common and my intuition on this is that it has always been the case but was always an extremely taboo subject. The earlier data is likely quite inaccurate due to women not wishing to admit it. Taboo.

It has been fine to address this in regards to men, but women.... no..! don't talk about it! .

Try asking your wives and see what response you get. If you don't know already, you will likely be surprised...if...she tells the truth. :)

This may sound new to the average reader, but there is a physiological difference between men and women and the results of masturbation. This practice does diminish the vitality within a man and is depleting. but...this also occurs by overindulging in sexual intercourse. This problem was mentioned by Brigham Young in regards to men and polygamy. I've never noted that this result is the same for females.

Since there are no scriptural citations that treat this subject, I believe that common sense needs to dictate. My common sense will differ from others', so...I'm not motivated to elaborate.

Hermes Trismegistus circa 2500bc said:

"Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law"

my addition which is for those that do not glean what he means:

"but be careful, Karma is a beach" . "use wisdom and realize that actions bring consequences in this life and your next".

The woman's experience is completely different, but I can't say that I understand it.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 1:51 pm
by Atticus
This thread is really going sideways now.

Everyone knows that the Latter-day prophets have consistently taught that sex outside of marriage, including masturbation, is a sin. Everyone knows this and several sources have been provided. If people are still curious about how the church defines "sex" than I suggest starting with the lesson in the Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball manual I shared earlier.

And not that it's anyone's business, I'm married and there are no issues when it comes to sexual intimacy.

These bizarre insinuations are really quite comical. Gotta love the LDSFF twilight zone.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 2:00 pm
by Sarah
FrankOne wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 1:49 pm
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).

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?

The above is an interesting topic. I had read something a few months ago in regards to this topic, so I just looked it up to post a comment.

"study reveals 92% of women regularly take time out to masturbate, a huge jump from the findings of previous studies (74% in 1979 and 62% in 1953).

The Gossard Big M Survey interviewed 1,000 women, ages 18-30, and their answers indicate that not only do 9 out of 10 women play with themselves, two-thirds do it three times a week"
++++++++++++++

If you look up the male stats, the percentage that do this is about the same, but the frequency is less. I was on another forum months ago which is more about world news and somebody posted the statistic on women and asked women to come out and deny it. The thread lasted for days, and about a 100 men posted with their knowledge of wives, girlfriends etc doing this. A few women did post and gave reasons for why they do. But not a single woman denied how common and how often this occurs.

Suffice it to say, it is very common and my intuition on this is that it has always been the case but was always an extremely taboo subject. The earlier data is likely quite inaccurate due to women not wishing to admit it. Taboo.

It has been fine to address this in regards to men, but women.... no..! don't talk about it! .

Try asking your wives and see what response you get. If you don't know already, you will likely be surprised...if...she tells the truth. :)

This may sound new to the average reader, but there is a physiological difference between men and women and the results of masturbation. This practice does diminish the vitality within a man and is depleting. but...this also occurs by overindulging in sexual intercourse. This problem was mentioned by Brigham Young in regards to men and polygamy. I've never noted that this result is the same for females.

Since there are no scriptural citations that treat this subject, I believe that common sense needs to dictate. My common sense will differ from others', so...I'm not motivated to elaborate.

Hermes Trismegistus circa 2500bc said:

"Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law"

my addition which is for those that do not glean what he means:

"but be careful, Karma is a beach" . "use wisdom and realize that actions bring consequences in this life and your next".

The woman's experience is completely different, but I can't say that I understand it.
Social science is never going to be very accurate because you can't control the factors, like how people will interpret the terms and the question. But if you type this question into google, I'm seeing percentages all over the place.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 2:10 pm
by FrankOne
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 1:51 pm This thread is really going sideways now.

Everyone knows that the Latter-day prophets have consistently taught that sex outside of marriage, including masturbation, is a sin. Everyone knows this and several sources have been provided. If people are still curious about how the church defines "sex" than I suggest starting with the lesson in the Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball manual I shared earlier.

And not that it's anyone's business, I'm married and there are no issues when it comes to sexual intimacy.

These bizarre insinuations are really quite comical. Gotta love the LDSFF twilight zone.
the "sideways" was the use of men's counsel rather than scriptural citation. It's been repeated back to you many times now.
Since you were unable to find anything scriptural, you turned to quotations of men. ...then...it went sideways.

Draw a parabolic curve of the shape of the IQ mean for the world. They call it a bell curve. Counsel is given by both God and Man to assist those that need it.These are found in the bulk center of the bell curve.

If a man today , that is highly lucid and conscious, were to have lived in the days when the laws found in Leviticus were practiced, he would simply have understood them to be ritualistic and nonsensical. Others would have condemned him for not participating in the "group think". Back then, the group think organization was found in the bulk center of the bell curve of the day. On the left side of the bell curve, at the low point, the barbarians disregarded the law and were regarded as barbarians.

On the right side of the bell curve, where the numbers taper off again, were those that understood that these laws were unnecessary. The foregoing group was considered arrogant . These were known as heretics. These welcomed the arrival of Christ.

The bulk of the bell curve crucified him.

same today.
History is repeating and will repeat.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm
by hyloglyph
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 1:51 pm This thread is really going sideways now.

Everyone knows that the Latter-day prophets have consistently taught that sex outside of marriage, including masturbation, is a sin. Everyone knows this and several sources have been provided. If people are still curious about how the church defines "sex" than I suggest starting with the lesson in the Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball manual I shared earlier.

And not that it's anyone's business, I'm married and there are no issues when it comes to sexual intimacy.

These bizarre insinuations are really quite comical. Gotta love the LDSFF twilight zone.
Okay, so then is Spencer W. Kimball your best citation for your interpretations? That’s a main source of information that your opinions are resting on?

I like him. And I have a lot of respect for him. My family knew him personally as some people on this forum know.

So if you are mentioning him as your most authoritative source, then what do you make of the document I cited not just a quote from but showed a signed photocopy of?

President Kimball signed it himself along with his counselors.

Is that doctrine that you still stand by? Or have you backed off of President Kimballs teachings on the subject and now you just pick and choose which of his quotes suit you or do you consider everything he published to be Gods word to you?

What would your comment be? You probably don’t even realize but you are in a place of logical inconsistency no matter what you say. And if you say nothing you remain there still. So it’s like in chess where you can get yourself into a position where you aren’t in mate yet but you will soon be no matter what you do. You are there now with your line of reasoning whether you see it or not and whether I extrapolate it all out for you or not. You are there either way.

Sarah actually did have an out and took it. She was in check but had some outs. She chose to concede that though the wife may not be required to have sex with her husband she is required to at least lend a helping hand from time to time. One of her other outs would have been conceding to polygamy. In her case polygamy would have been the more reproductively oriented choice. But she values something above that it seems.

Of course, I am not saying I agree with any of this. My thoughts are more just with the scriptures just as they are, and don’t like to mingle in scriptural commentary or additions or deletions by men (or women). But I find it interesting to see which mental pathways people go down as they try and line up all the things they think they know into one coherent route. However impossible that may be in some cases and however winding and twisted it may be in others.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 3:10 pm
by hyloglyph
So I believe what we are seeing is three separate value systems collide.

One mainly values Mormon style production and reproduction

One mainly values Mormon style austerity and Puritanism and purity

One mainly values obedience to the LDS church at all costs

And we are starting to see which value sets are more consistent and useful for handling life’s many predicaments and we are seeing which ones break down and become contradictory or impossible when confronted with normal life situations.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 5:13 pm
by Atticus
FrankOne wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 2:10 pm
the "sideways" was the use of men's counsel rather than scriptural citation. It's been repeated back to you many times now.
Since you were unable to find anything scriptural, you turned to quotations of men. ...then...it went sideways.
This is completely untrue. I cited several scriptures, including one which showed that the statements by apostles should also be considered God's word, provided that they spoke under the power of the Holy Ghost.

All scripture comes through man. God speaks to his servants, usually by the Holy Ghost, and then they speak or write his words.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 5:44 pm
by FrankOne
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 12:43 pm I really like where this discussion is going, because it is now starting to pit all the “sinfulness” against each other, and before you know it you won’t even be able to get out of bed in the morning without sinning in some way.

The Catholics consider masturbation to be aa “mortal sin,” which means that it will send you to He!! just as easily as adultery, so if you’re going to be committing a mortal sin anyway, why not just go ahead and commit adultery?

Sarah’s statement, which is consistent with Atticus’ is classic:
Any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, including stimulating yourself.
But at least Sarah is married. Those who have paid attention know that in other threads, Bro.Jones, who has been a bishop twice, and LDSPhysician, who is in a stake presidency, would not necessarily agree with this position.

I my case, I do agree. It is arguably carnal and sinful. But what if a wife withholds herself from her husband, for years, possibly even decades? Is that sinful? If the husband takes steps to manage the situation and relieve himself, who has the greater sin? And, Who says? Who makes that call? As the lesser of two evils, is masturbation better than adultery? Versus a wife withholding herself? Again, who makes that call? Sarah? Atticus?

Can anyone else see how plural marriage might fit into the mix? Just wondering?

A little Glue anyone?
On the question of a woman that withholds sex for years. I have a brother and a friend that went through that. When I was 16, my brother was recently married and he would tell me, as we worked, that his wife would withhold sex for various reasons. I simply said to him to tell her that "every woman down the street (where they lived) has exactly the same thing as you and I'll just go get it elsewhere". Now..of course, his wife knew that he wouldn't and that she held the "power" due to his covenants. Yah...that's messed up but it happens quite a bit.

but..did she know? No, she didn't. He had multiple affairs over many years. He stayed with her for the children's sake. This is how real life plays out. This is what happens folks.

As far as a man relieving himself because his wife is withholding, .... it doesn't even matter! Catholic bishops have tried celibacy and asceticism for a millennia , how's that worked for them? Common sense over-rides any outsider's advice every time.

Me? If my wife started doing that, I'd first blame myself and try everything possible to remedy the situation. If she was merely doing it to "punish" me... then I would tell her that we need a divorce. I would do this because if a couple isn't intimate then they aren't intimate. They have separated. In the case of a woman losing her desire for sex in older age, I'm not sure what to think about that. I know it happens, but as far as I understand, many , if not the majority of women want sex more after 40. I think these that want it more have learned about themselves enough to really enjoy it without reservations.

Polygamy certainly solves some of these conditions. but... a woman that is older , being the first wife with all of her set ways isn't likely going to very willing to do this. I know it does happen though, due to people I've met that have proceeded on that path.

I am an optimist at heart and I do believe that women of any age all would like to be sexually active with their husbands, but fear and resentment changes them. As fear or resentment increases, their sexual drive decreases. I have seen this happen myself. I'm not a sex counselor , but psychology plays a heavy role in the loss of sexual desire.

on another note:

I recall a woman on some video giving sex advice on youtube many years ago. It made me bust a gut listening to her. She was an old school woman from Boston with a heavy accent who wasn't afraid to tell it like it is. She said with much energy and certainty "IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR MAN LOOKING AT OTHER WOMEN, YOU GOTTA KEEP HIS PIPES EMPTY" "YOU MAKE SURE THEY STAY DRAINED!" . It was priceless.

edit to add: For the judges out there, my brother eventually was exed and then rebaptized a few years later. He and his wife got a good counselor in these later years and they've got a functional marriage now. So..he's going to heaven again and pardoned by God.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 6:34 pm
by hyloglyph
FrankOne wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 5:44 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 12:43 pm I really like where this discussion is going, because it is now starting to pit all the “sinfulness” against each other, and before you know it you won’t even be able to get out of bed in the morning without sinning in some way.

The Catholics consider masturbation to be aa “mortal sin,” which means that it will send you to He!! just as easily as adultery, so if you’re going to be committing a mortal sin anyway, why not just go ahead and commit adultery?

Sarah’s statement, which is consistent with Atticus’ is classic:
Any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, including stimulating yourself.
But at least Sarah is married. Those who have paid attention know that in other threads, Bro.Jones, who has been a bishop twice, and LDSPhysician, who is in a stake presidency, would not necessarily agree with this position.

I my case, I do agree. It is arguably carnal and sinful. But what if a wife withholds herself from her husband, for years, possibly even decades? Is that sinful? If the husband takes steps to manage the situation and relieve himself, who has the greater sin? And, Who says? Who makes that call? As the lesser of two evils, is masturbation better than adultery? Versus a wife withholding herself? Again, who makes that call? Sarah? Atticus?

Can anyone else see how plural marriage might fit into the mix? Just wondering?

A little Glue anyone?
On the question of a woman that withholds sex for years. I have a brother and a friend that went through that. When I was 16, my brother was recently married and he would tell me, as we worked, that his wife would withhold sex for various reasons. I simply said to him to tell her that "every woman down the street (where they lived) has exactly the same thing as you and I'll just go get it elsewhere". Now..of course, his wife knew that he wouldn't and that she held the "power" due to his covenants. Yah...that's messed up but it happens quite a bit.

but..did she know? No, she didn't. He had multiple affairs over many years. He stayed with her for the children's sake. This is how real life plays out. This is what happens folks.

As far as a man relieving himself because his wife is withholding, .... it doesn't even matter! Catholic bishops have tried celibacy and asceticism for a millennia , how's that worked for them? Common sense over-rides any outsider's advice every time.

Me? If my wife started doing that, I'd first blame myself and try everything possible to remedy the situation. If she was merely doing it to "punish" me... then I would tell her that we need a divorce. I would do this because if a couple isn't intimate then they aren't intimate. They have separated. In the case of a woman losing her desire for sex in older age, I'm not sure what to think about that. I know it happens, but as far as I understand, many , if not the majority of women want sex more after 40. I think these that want it more have learned about themselves enough to really enjoy it without reservations.

Polygamy certainly solves some of these conditions. but... a woman that is older , being the first wife with all of her set ways isn't likely going to very willing to do this. I know it does happen though, due to people I've met that have proceeded on that path.

I am an optimist at heart and I do believe that women of any age all would like to be sexually active with their husbands, but fear and resentment changes them. As fear or resentment increases, their sexual drive decreases. I have seen this happen myself. I'm not a sex counselor , but psychology plays a heavy role in the loss of sexual desire.

on another note:

I recall a woman on some video giving sex advice on youtube many years ago. It made me bust a gut listening to her. She was an old school woman from Boston with a heavy accent who wasn't afraid to tell it like it is. She said with much energy and certainty "IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR MAN LOOKING AT OTHER WOMEN, YOU GOTTA KEEP HIS PIPES EMPTY" "YOU MAKE SURE THEY STAY DRAINED!" . It was priceless.

edit to add: For the judges out there, my brother eventually was exed and then rebaptized a few years later. He and his wife got a good counselor in these later years and they've got a functional marriage now. So..he's going to heaven again and pardoned by God.

Atticus’ comments aside (are we really still discussing whether or not the first chapter of the Doctrine and Covenants gives blanket infallibility to church leaders and declares all their statements as equal to scripture? How absolutely boring, repetitive, small minded can we be? This website had already hashed that subject out ad naseum before he even hit puberty and was allowed online unchaperoned. I actually have been happy to see that the Creator of this site has finally just recently allowed his views to evolve on that subject. Come to think of it, Martin Luther already hashed the whole argument out 500 years ago. The church at that time didn’t use D&C 1, they used Matthew 16– Peter has the keys and the church is built on that and the gates of hell won’t prevail against it therefore Martin Luther is heretical for taking issue with anything the church does was the argument. So everything in the past 500 years after that has gone over Atticus’ head I guess.)

I am just chiming in to say that I wouldn’t be married to someone who was using sex as a bargaining chip either. I would divorce. I also wouldn’t stay married to someone who didn’t like sleeping with me. I would divorce. To me sex in marriage is like wheels on a car at a dealership. It’s included. As soon as we sit down and the salesman says that if I want 4 wheels and a spare then I’ll have to pay extra I walk. No wheels no car. No sex no marriage.

Another way to look at it could be horses. Sure you could find a problem horse and work with it for many years just to get it to function like a normal horse would after 30 days but why? Too many good horses out there to spend a lot of time on one that hates you and doesn’t want to get along.

All this is supposed to be figured out early on though. In the case of a mature marriage with children that turns frigid— I can’t say. I would have no idea what to do. I would definitely be considering every possible option and I would definitely be looking to get creative in any way possible but I have no idea what the solution might be. Polygamy would definitely not be out of the question. In fact, to take a new wife who loves me but to keep providing for the old wife as if she loved me would be the most honorable possible thing to do probably. And I think that is scriptural. I would be making sure to basically put my cards on the table with the kids as much as is appropriate before I did that would be one thought. That was part of my own years long dispute that I had going. I knew that if there was a break up that my kids would want to know why. And my wife knew that I am an honest person and would eventually tell the kids everything rather than let them wonder their whole lives about what happened and why. My gamble was that they would see that I was trying to do what was right. My wife reluctantly came to that same conclusion. And she knew I wasn’t bluffing and would just be totally honest with them. That helped put things into perspective for her. She didn’t want to leave a legacy of being difficult and masculine, she wanted to be an example of being loving and sweet for the family and children and for her husband too.

And when it comes down to it that is the female nature anyhow. Women are gods greatest creation. But they are really shitty at being men.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 7:33 pm
by Atticus
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 1:51 pm This thread is really going sideways now.

Everyone knows that the Latter-day prophets have consistently taught that sex outside of marriage, including masturbation, is a sin. Everyone knows this and several sources have been provided. If people are still curious about how the church defines "sex" than I suggest starting with the lesson in the Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball manual I shared earlier.

And not that it's anyone's business, I'm married and there are no issues when it comes to sexual intimacy.

These bizarre insinuations are really quite comical. Gotta love the LDSFF twilight zone.
Okay, so then is Spencer W. Kimball your best citation for your interpretations? That’s a main source of information that your opinions are resting on?

I like him. And I have a lot of respect for him. My family knew him personally as some people on this forum know.

So if you are mentioning him as your most authoritative source, then what do you make of the document I cited not just a quote from but showed a signed photocopy of?

President Kimball signed it himself along with his counselors.

Is that doctrine that you still stand by? Or have you backed off of President Kimballs teachings on the subject and now you just pick and choose which of his quotes suit you or do you consider everything he published to be Gods word to you?

What would your comment be? You probably don’t even realize but you are in a place of logical inconsistency no matter what you say. And if you say nothing you remain there still. So it’s like in chess where you can get yourself into a position where you aren’t in mate yet but you will soon be no matter what you do. You are there now with your line of reasoning whether you see it or not and whether I extrapolate it all out for you or not. You are there either way.

Sarah actually did have an out and took it. She was in check but had some outs. She chose to concede that though the wife may not be required to have sex with her husband she is required to at least lend a helping hand from time to time. One of her other outs would have been conceding to polygamy. In her case polygamy would have been the more reproductively oriented choice. But she values something above that it seems.

Of course, I am not saying I agree with any of this. My thoughts are more just with the scriptures just as they are, and don’t like to mingle in scriptural commentary or additions or deletions by men (or women). But I find it interesting to see which mental pathways people go down as they try and line up all the things they think they know into one coherent route. However impossible that may be in some cases and however winding and twisted it may be in others.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the Spencer W. Kimball link is my best citation. It was just the first one I found on the gospel library app. There's plenty more besides this one.

And I wouldn't call it my interpretation on masturbation. This has been the standard interpretation for ages in the church. Not only in the church but in Christianity at large. And rightfully so I might add as the scriptures clearly tell us to avoid carnal lusts in thought and behavior and never at any point justify sex outside of marriage in any form.

I think Kimball was right about oral sex being an unnatural perversion, but I also think that it's fine to leave that one up to each individual couple. We don't need to be governed in all things.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 7:39 pm
by hyloglyph
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:33 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 1:51 pm This thread is really going sideways now.

Everyone knows that the Latter-day prophets have consistently taught that sex outside of marriage, including masturbation, is a sin. Everyone knows this and several sources have been provided. If people are still curious about how the church defines "sex" than I suggest starting with the lesson in the Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball manual I shared earlier.

And not that it's anyone's business, I'm married and there are no issues when it comes to sexual intimacy.

These bizarre insinuations are really quite comical. Gotta love the LDSFF twilight zone.
Okay, so then is Spencer W. Kimball your best citation for your interpretations? That’s a main source of information that your opinions are resting on?

I like him. And I have a lot of respect for him. My family knew him personally as some people on this forum know.

So if you are mentioning him as your most authoritative source, then what do you make of the document I cited not just a quote from but showed a signed photocopy of?

President Kimball signed it himself along with his counselors.

Is that doctrine that you still stand by? Or have you backed off of President Kimballs teachings on the subject and now you just pick and choose which of his quotes suit you or do you consider everything he published to be Gods word to you?

What would your comment be? You probably don’t even realize but you are in a place of logical inconsistency no matter what you say. And if you say nothing you remain there still. So it’s like in chess where you can get yourself into a position where you aren’t in mate yet but you will soon be no matter what you do. You are there now with your line of reasoning whether you see it or not and whether I extrapolate it all out for you or not. You are there either way.

Sarah actually did have an out and took it. She was in check but had some outs. She chose to concede that though the wife may not be required to have sex with her husband she is required to at least lend a helping hand from time to time. One of her other outs would have been conceding to polygamy. In her case polygamy would have been the more reproductively oriented choice. But she values something above that it seems.

Of course, I am not saying I agree with any of this. My thoughts are more just with the scriptures just as they are, and don’t like to mingle in scriptural commentary or additions or deletions by men (or women). But I find it interesting to see which mental pathways people go down as they try and line up all the things they think they know into one coherent route. However impossible that may be in some cases and however winding and twisted it may be in others.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the Spencer W. Kimball link is my best citation. It was just the first one I found on the gospel library app. There's plenty more besides this one.

And I wouldn't call it my interpretation on masturbation. This has been the standard interpretation for ages in the church. Not only in the church but in Christianity at large. And rightfully so I might add as the scriptures clearly tell us to avoid carnal lusts in thought and behavior and never at any point justify sex outside of marriage in any form.

I think Kimball was right about oral sex being an unnatural perversion, but I also think that it's fine to leave that one up to each individual couple. We don't need to be governed in all things.
Okay so you are picking and choosing which Kimball teachings to agree with.

I think that’s great. I do too.

But now you just threw your whole D&C 1 argument under the bus by disagreeing with a First Presidency requirement to bar couples that engage in oral sex from the temple signed and delivered on official letterhead.

You totally just 180ed and abandoned your whole argument.

Which I think is great because it was a dumb argument.

So. I’m glad we could figure that out. All the best in your continued growth.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 8:29 pm
by Atticus
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:39 pm
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:33 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 1:51 pm This thread is really going sideways now.

Everyone knows that the Latter-day prophets have consistently taught that sex outside of marriage, including masturbation, is a sin. Everyone knows this and several sources have been provided. If people are still curious about how the church defines "sex" than I suggest starting with the lesson in the Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball manual I shared earlier.

And not that it's anyone's business, I'm married and there are no issues when it comes to sexual intimacy.

These bizarre insinuations are really quite comical. Gotta love the LDSFF twilight zone.
Okay, so then is Spencer W. Kimball your best citation for your interpretations? That’s a main source of information that your opinions are resting on?

I like him. And I have a lot of respect for him. My family knew him personally as some people on this forum know.

So if you are mentioning him as your most authoritative source, then what do you make of the document I cited not just a quote from but showed a signed photocopy of?

President Kimball signed it himself along with his counselors.

Is that doctrine that you still stand by? Or have you backed off of President Kimballs teachings on the subject and now you just pick and choose which of his quotes suit you or do you consider everything he published to be Gods word to you?

What would your comment be? You probably don’t even realize but you are in a place of logical inconsistency no matter what you say. And if you say nothing you remain there still. So it’s like in chess where you can get yourself into a position where you aren’t in mate yet but you will soon be no matter what you do. You are there now with your line of reasoning whether you see it or not and whether I extrapolate it all out for you or not. You are there either way.

Sarah actually did have an out and took it. She was in check but had some outs. She chose to concede that though the wife may not be required to have sex with her husband she is required to at least lend a helping hand from time to time. One of her other outs would have been conceding to polygamy. In her case polygamy would have been the more reproductively oriented choice. But she values something above that it seems.

Of course, I am not saying I agree with any of this. My thoughts are more just with the scriptures just as they are, and don’t like to mingle in scriptural commentary or additions or deletions by men (or women). But I find it interesting to see which mental pathways people go down as they try and line up all the things they think they know into one coherent route. However impossible that may be in some cases and however winding and twisted it may be in others.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the Spencer W. Kimball link is my best citation. It was just the first one I found on the gospel library app. There's plenty more besides this one.

And I wouldn't call it my interpretation on masturbation. This has been the standard interpretation for ages in the church. Not only in the church but in Christianity at large. And rightfully so I might add as the scriptures clearly tell us to avoid carnal lusts in thought and behavior and never at any point justify sex outside of marriage in any form.

I think Kimball was right about oral sex being an unnatural perversion, but I also think that it's fine to leave that one up to each individual couple. We don't need to be governed in all things.
Okay so you are picking and choosing which Kimball teachings to agree with.

I think that’s great. I do too.

But now you just threw your whole D&C 1 argument under the bus by disagreeing with a First Presidency requirement to bar couples that engage in oral sex from the temple signed and delivered on official letterhead.

You totally just 180ed and abandoned your whole argument.

Which I think is great because it was a dumb argument.

So. I’m glad we could figure that out. All the best in your continued growth.
What a completely nonsensical response.

Me: I agree with Kimball and my argument doesn't solely rest on him.

You: See you disagree with Kimball! You're entire argument just fell apart!!!

Me: LOL this forum really is the twilight zone.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 8:37 pm
by hyloglyph
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:29 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:39 pm
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:33 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm

Okay, so then is Spencer W. Kimball your best citation for your interpretations? That’s a main source of information that your opinions are resting on?

I like him. And I have a lot of respect for him. My family knew him personally as some people on this forum know.

So if you are mentioning him as your most authoritative source, then what do you make of the document I cited not just a quote from but showed a signed photocopy of?

President Kimball signed it himself along with his counselors.

Is that doctrine that you still stand by? Or have you backed off of President Kimballs teachings on the subject and now you just pick and choose which of his quotes suit you or do you consider everything he published to be Gods word to you?

What would your comment be? You probably don’t even realize but you are in a place of logical inconsistency no matter what you say. And if you say nothing you remain there still. So it’s like in chess where you can get yourself into a position where you aren’t in mate yet but you will soon be no matter what you do. You are there now with your line of reasoning whether you see it or not and whether I extrapolate it all out for you or not. You are there either way.

Sarah actually did have an out and took it. She was in check but had some outs. She chose to concede that though the wife may not be required to have sex with her husband she is required to at least lend a helping hand from time to time. One of her other outs would have been conceding to polygamy. In her case polygamy would have been the more reproductively oriented choice. But she values something above that it seems.

Of course, I am not saying I agree with any of this. My thoughts are more just with the scriptures just as they are, and don’t like to mingle in scriptural commentary or additions or deletions by men (or women). But I find it interesting to see which mental pathways people go down as they try and line up all the things they think they know into one coherent route. However impossible that may be in some cases and however winding and twisted it may be in others.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the Spencer W. Kimball link is my best citation. It was just the first one I found on the gospel library app. There's plenty more besides this one.

And I wouldn't call it my interpretation on masturbation. This has been the standard interpretation for ages in the church. Not only in the church but in Christianity at large. And rightfully so I might add as the scriptures clearly tell us to avoid carnal lusts in thought and behavior and never at any point justify sex outside of marriage in any form.

I think Kimball was right about oral sex being an unnatural perversion, but I also think that it's fine to leave that one up to each individual couple. We don't need to be governed in all things.
Okay so you are picking and choosing which Kimball teachings to agree with.

I think that’s great. I do too.

But now you just threw your whole D&C 1 argument under the bus by disagreeing with a First Presidency requirement to bar couples that engage in oral sex from the temple signed and delivered on official letterhead.

You totally just 180ed and abandoned your whole argument.

Which I think is great because it was a dumb argument.

So. I’m glad we could figure that out. All the best in your continued growth.
What a completely nonsensical response.

Me: I agree with Kimball

You: See you disagree with Kimball! You're entire argument just fell apart!!!

Me: LOL this forum really is the twilight zone.

Ahh shoot. Don’t backslide on me man!

You were doing so good!

You had my hopes up :(


(The disagreement you have with Kimball is his instruction was to deny the people temple recommends whereas you mentioned that you thought that they should not have to be commanded in all things. Simple to understand. Wake up bud! That shouldn’t be over your head! Get a little reading comprehension! Your twilight zone comment is idiotic. You are literally the only person reading this forum who doesn’t understand)

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 8:40 pm
by hyloglyph
And you can’t go back and change your comments I already quoted them.

You did plainly disagree with the good President Kimball.

Your only hope would be to appeal to the moderators for a bunch of deletions if you want to cover your tracks.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 8:44 pm
by Atticus
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:37 pm
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:29 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:39 pm
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:33 pm

I wouldn't necessarily say that the Spencer W. Kimball link is my best citation. It was just the first one I found on the gospel library app. There's plenty more besides this one.

And I wouldn't call it my interpretation on masturbation. This has been the standard interpretation for ages in the church. Not only in the church but in Christianity at large. And rightfully so I might add as the scriptures clearly tell us to avoid carnal lusts in thought and behavior and never at any point justify sex outside of marriage in any form.

I think Kimball was right about oral sex being an unnatural perversion, but I also think that it's fine to leave that one up to each individual couple. We don't need to be governed in all things.
Okay so you are picking and choosing which Kimball teachings to agree with.

I think that’s great. I do too.

But now you just threw your whole D&C 1 argument under the bus by disagreeing with a First Presidency requirement to bar couples that engage in oral sex from the temple signed and delivered on official letterhead.

You totally just 180ed and abandoned your whole argument.

Which I think is great because it was a dumb argument.

So. I’m glad we could figure that out. All the best in your continued growth.
What a completely nonsensical response.

Me: I agree with Kimball

You: See you disagree with Kimball! You're entire argument just fell apart!!!

Me: LOL this forum really is the twilight zone.

Ahh shoot. Don’t backslide on me man!

You were doing so good!

You had my hopes up :(


(The disagreement you have with Kimball is his instruction was to deny the people temple recommends whereas you mentioned that you thought that they should not have to be commanded in all things. Simple to understand. Wake up bud! That shouldn’t be over your head! Get a little reading comprehension! Your twilight zone comment is idiotic. You are literally the only person reading this forum who doesn’t understand)
Oh, I completely understand. You're clutching at straws. My argument doesn't rest on Kimball's every word. And I agree with his take on oral sex being an unnatural perversion. Yet somehow in the LDSFF twilight zone this means my argument completely fell apart. Crazy!

Come back when you have an actual rebuttal to my argument.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 8:47 pm
by Atticus
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:40 pm And you can’t go back and change your comments I already quoted them.

You did plainly disagree with the good President Kimball.

Your only hope would be to appeal to the moderators for a bunch of deletions if you want to cover your tracks.
There are no tracks to cover. I didn't "plainly disagree with the good President Kimball." I agreed with him. And he's hardly my only source. Plus we're talking about masturbation, not oral sex, so this is all just a red herring anyway.

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 8:53 pm
by hyloglyph
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:44 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:37 pm
Atticus wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 8:29 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 22nd, 2022, 7:39 pm

Okay so you are picking and choosing which Kimball teachings to agree with.

I think that’s great. I do too.

But now you just threw your whole D&C 1 argument under the bus by disagreeing with a First Presidency requirement to bar couples that engage in oral sex from the temple signed and delivered on official letterhead.

You totally just 180ed and abandoned your whole argument.

Which I think is great because it was a dumb argument.

So. I’m glad we could figure that out. All the best in your continued growth.
What a completely nonsensical response.

Me: I agree with Kimball

You: See you disagree with Kimball! You're entire argument just fell apart!!!

Me: LOL this forum really is the twilight zone.

Ahh shoot. Don’t backslide on me man!

You were doing so good!

You had my hopes up :(


(The disagreement you have with Kimball is his instruction was to deny the people temple recommends whereas you mentioned that you thought that they should not have to be commanded in all things. Simple to understand. Wake up bud! That shouldn’t be over your head! Get a little reading comprehension! Your twilight zone comment is idiotic. You are literally the only person reading this forum who doesn’t understand)
Oh, I completely understand. You're clutching at straws. My argument doesn't rest on Kimball's every word. And I agree with his take on oral sex being an unnatural perversion. Yet somehow in the LDSFF twilight zone this means my argument completely fell apart. Crazy!

Come back when you have an actual rebuttal to my argument.
Once again over your head still?

Let’s see if you can see where this leads. If you can’t, then just humor me and answer the one question at the end.

The whole reason for that part of the official signed memo was was to notify the bishops to withhold temple recommends from married couples who tell them that they engage in oral sex.

The purpose of the memo was not just to teach the bishops what is and what isn’t unholy and impure just as an FYI to them. The purpose was to specifically tell them to not allow married couples who engage in oral sex into the temple.

Clutching at straws? Let’s see if that’s true (it’s not)

Answer one question:

Do you believe that married couples who engage in oral sex should be denied access to the temple? Yes or no?

(My guess is that you will not be able to even answer that question. A normal person could answer it. But you most likely won’t)

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

Posted: September 22nd, 2022, 9:02 pm
by hyloglyph
***WARNING***

Non-answer inbound!