Sex Rules for Mormons (PG-13)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Subscribe to past Sunday Musings: SundayMusings.org
A 1982 First Presidency letter has a pretty strong statement on certain kinds of sex performed by members. Why was this taught, and is it still binding?
I will admit that I didn’t listen to this episode because when first started to listen and heard it was about “the letter” I just couldn’t continue. That letter did so much damage to my marriage. I was married in 1988 and that letter was STILL being read in young married wards at Ricks (when it was Ricks) even though there was a retraction letter sent.
Because I heard that letter when I was a brand new newlywed it totally damaged my psyche. I developed a severe case of “the good girl syndrome” and religious scrupulosity. I developed a fear of everything sexual being wrong or dirty in the eyes of God. For TWENTY SIX YEARS I struggled and my marriage struggled horribly. 10 years ago when I learned that that letter was quietly redacted not long after it was written I was furious!!! That letter should have NEVER been read to me over the pulpit in 1988. After I heard that I had a mini faith crisis and went on a journey to heal my sexual self and the intimacy in my marriage. I had to throw “leaders” and their opinions out of my bedroom door and I actually asked that God give us the privacy to figure out our sexual relationship on our own. I had too much shame and guilt filled inside of me and having the feeling that God was watching and judging me was too much. I knew that God understood. I learned that my husband and I were adults who were close to the spirit and who loved each other and knew that we would be able to figure out what was good and right together. As we were experimenting and trying things out we learned that if whatever it was brought us closer together then it was good. “By their fruits ye shall know them” and if it was something that fell flat and didn’t serve us as a couple we dropped it with NO shame or guilt.
The church needs to stay out of couple’s bedrooms PERIOD!
I am a firm believer in the saying of Joseph Smith where he said, "I teach them correct principles and let the people govern themselves.
Exactly. The church has moved away from dictating specific behavior, for the most part. We need to seek inspiration of our one after we understand the principles.
correct principles like marrying dozens females behind the wife's back?
@@Pay-It_Forward Do I detect a note of judgement in your comment? Jesus said, Judge not that you be not judged, for with which judgement you judge, so shall you be judged. Are you old enough to know for a fact that Joseph had dozens of wives behind his wife's back? Were you there? If you are were not an eye witness, than you are a false witness and that is against the commandments of God. And so what if he did have other wives? That is none of your business. It does not change the truth of things he said. I have never read a single thing where Joseph said that he was having affairs without his wife's knowledge nor that he ever taught that a man should have affairs without the wives having knowledge of it. In fact, in the revelation on marriage, it teaches that if man wants to take another wife, the first wife must agree to it. If Joseph had other wives, it was with Emma's permission and if she says she never gave him permission, she is lying.
@@josephaney Wow, that was a rant of uneducated nonsense. D&C132 was recorded & first given to Emma on July 12, 1843. Fanny Algar was secretly married in 1835. Emma caught Joseph with Fanny in the barn in April 1836. Joseph claimed after the fact to be married to her by the commandment of God. Oliver vetted about accusing Joseph of lying & called it an affair. Oliver was excommunicated. At Joseph's death 49 women claimed to be his wives. The LDS church now acknowledges that as many as 40 might have been & at least 30 actually were! Emma only approved 3 women. There is Journal testimony of high ranking faithful LDS members that Joseph was already married to all 3 of them & married them a second time to keep Emma in the dark. There is a hand written letter in Joseph Smith's own hand writing setting up a secret meeting with one of his under age wives, where he requests that Emma not be told where he is at, nor about the secret meeting with his other wife. This is an historic document. It's from a time period when Joseph was hiding from the law. Things like this don't make it into JSP. One thing that is in the secret journals of John Solomon Fullmer, which are sealed in the church vault, is that his sister Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith, was a plural wife of Joseph Smith & that Joseph hid at John Solomon Fullmer's place with her in Nauvoo, when he was supposed to have fled Nauvoo due to Governor Boggs order for his arrest. Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith was one of the 49 women claiming to be a wife of Joseph at his death. She was sealed to Joe after death, but had a temporal marriage to Joseph per John Solomon Fullmer who was at the time (1st Trustee & Trust) of the LDS Church. This historical document also didn't make it into the JSP. At the time the Relief Society put out [Times and Seasons (Nauvoo, IL), Oct. 1, 1842, vol. 3, no. 23, p. 940.] at least 2, maybe 3 of these women were already plural wives of Joseph behind Emma's back. These all admitted years later that they lied in the document & were already plural wives of Joseph. John C. Bennett Assistant President of the Church, was claiming that Joseph had hundreds of wives & had sent dozens of pregnant young females to him at Nauvoo hospital for abortions! Maybe a lying slander or maybe not. Joseph Smith had chosen an abortion doctor who owned a brothel to be his first counselor in the First Presidency. So either an extreme lack of discernment or intentional. William Law 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency was accusing Joe of poisoning Bishop Edward Partrage so he could marry his 2 under age daughters & embezzle his estate. Partrage did have a mysterious death. Joe did marry the under age daughters. He did gain control of the estate. Joseph Smith died before William Law's many legal actions could go to court. I think that this is sufficient evidence to claim marriage behind Emma's back as the church admits 30 wives & Emma approved only 3 women!!!
@@josephaney The church acknowledges that at least 30 of the 49 women who claimed to be Joseph Smith's wives were his wives! Emma only approved 3 of them according to Brigham Young. Emma in her formation of the Reorganized church now called Church of Christ, denied all of them. Even if you believe Brigham Young, that's a minimum of 26 marriages behind Emma's back.
I read a book about a near death experience called "My Decent into Death" by Howard Storm.
While dead he was interviewed by Jesus and did a life review. During the review he was very ashamed of his behavior with women prior to getting married but he then made a statement of clarification that forever changed my thinking. He said:
"God is not particularly interested in human sexual expression. God is interested in how we love each other and he does not want us to exploit one another"
I've never understood why members are so uncomfortable talking about sex I think we should be mature enough to talk about it plainly
In general, it seems the Mormon culture does not allow members to fully mature into adults
I had a coworker who was married to a man who was in an accident and wheelchair bound. She shared with me that she had to do "unholy and impure" things to get the deed done. Another elderly woman who was unmarried took out her endowment and never returned again thinking that the five points of fellowship was vulgar. I think when the brethren gets too specific they get in trouble real easy. I had my recommend in 1982 and I never would've known about the oral edition without this podcast.
You're correct. Paralyzed men generally can't have Intercourse. I don't think the Lord's going to condemn a married couple in that case.
The sexual activity between two married consenting adults is their own business and not a sin. The Church has no business therein.
!!!!!!!
If those adults are a man and a woman. If those adults are of the same gender, that is a sin. Redefining marriage doesn't change God's law against homosexual behavior
Where does it talk about homosexuality in the Book of Mormon and D&C?
@brandonwilson4949 it doesn't have to, it's covered in the Bible. Stop trying to play Satan's tricks.
@@BrianTerrillwhere does the Book of Mormon or D&C talk about eating shell fish or wearing clothes of both linen and wool?
The biggest issue here is, if it is open to interpretation, then anything a person doesn't feel awkward about is okay. That can get really crazy really fast, depending on what an individual interpret.
When you got uncomfortable and awkward it made me chuckle 🤣
Did anyone else think it was kind of funny that the second letter was 9 months (human pregnancy length) after the first?
I confess.
@@l7846 😄
Here's the easy answer to this question... It all depends on the spirit of the act. If one is doing so in the spirit of, "This is wrong and forbidden, so I'm excited, hahaha, YES, YES, YES." That may not necessarily be healthy between spouses and their eternal progression. I believe If it's in the spirit of pleasuring your spouse out of love and feeling close to your spouse in your own way, then that sounds perfectly healthy for a husband and wife. Better questions to ask: Do you think of someone else while making love to your spouse? I believe this to be a more serious problem that no one else can resolve; except for themselves. I can see the fine line as to why the church stays out of the bedroom. There is no clear-cut answer as to what is acceptable and unacceptable. All individuals (husband and wife) should only know the answers to these questions themselves. The Lord is the judge. He knows our hearts. Who cares what other brethren outside of our marriage have to say. I don't care. I does not matter. My marriage is between me, my wife, and the Lord (period). Btw, excellent video. Conner, you posed an excellent question that is on a lot of members minds--Thank you!
The LDS church should publish a Kama Sutra with red x's over the no-nos and green check marks on the acceptable positions
Hahahaha..... you probably are fairly serious about this, but I think it is hilarious, and would make interesting 5th Sunday combined class lessons. Hahahaha. I would so hate to be bishop....
@@davehahn8767 not really serious, the " at the end was to indicate sarcasm. So, mostly for laughs, but a good joke has a germ of truth.
I just want to add that everything that is done in the kingdom of God is done by covenant and agreement with God. If it is not in the contract, you do not have to live it. The celestial law of chastity is only for those who want eternal life. If you do not want eternal life, do not make the covenant. The covenant is chastity is very simple. There is a time and place for everything. before marriage, chastity is to deny yourself sexually and abstain for intercourse until you get married. In marriage, monogamy is the rule until sanctification. Divorce is adultery. The one who does the divorce is the sinner, The leaders of the church who do the divorce, are also sinners as Jesus said, "That which God has joined together, let no man divide asunder." After sanctification, if God calls one to polygamy, who is man to deny God? Sad to say, too many of the leaders of the early church jumped onboard with polygamy without being sanctified and we can see the problems that caused. The blessing for fulfilling the law of chastity is having your wife and children sealed to you forever and eternal increase
Some cultures engage in "weird" sexual rituals. The Isle of Man residents (UK) circa 1800s were ultra conservative (perhaps Amish are the same today): intercourse was permitted only for pregnancy ... and only fully dressed! And, never say the word "intercourse".
On the other hand, the 20th century inhabitants of Pitcarine Island (Fletcher Christian's etal descendants post Bounty burning) used sexual intercourse as entertainment. No girl over the age of 12 was a virgin. The men and boys wound up in British court about 2010 for unlawful sexual encounters with minors. (The prosecution claimed that British Law applied to Pitcarine Island which is located somewhere between Hawaii and Bora Bora).
On the other hand, in some societies, the Father-of-the-Bride had the duty to deflorate his daughter prior to the wedding.
On the other hand, some / many male dominate societies (read that as Muslim) dictate that women are property of the man, so the man can do whatever ... as in whatever ... he wants to the woman.
When Apostles state opposition to "cultural practices not in keeping with the Gospel", I believe they are speaking about these circumstances; NOT about the warm-up sex between equal-balance-of-power married couples.
And, just exactly what constitutes a 'married' couple. Does a Zuma Beach wedding 'officiated' by a surfer dude qualify as "legally and lawfully married"? Or, does a personal agreement ... a meeting of the minds ... count? Afterall, a 'relationship' aka marriage is really just a meeting of the minds, right?
Odd that something would apply for only people who happen to ask...
This is a great conversation. As a bishop I see areas where there is so much confusion created around these issues. If church leaders don’t want us to get into specifics with members, then they should be very careful with the counsel they provide. I’ve had members reach out to the first presidency, which then ultimately gets worked back to the stake president and then back to me. In matters related to gender and sexuality, I think a simple statement of be sensitive to individual circumstances, but the church stands by it’s position as stated in the family proclamation would suffice.
What about a new member in the past 30 years or so who has never heard of that Jan. 82 letter? If they hold a high position, are they apostaste if they don't follow that rule? There is no clarity on this issue, along with many other policy issues.
Good point. I am sure tons of members haven’t even heard about this.
For that reason alone, I would say this is not doctrine.
The animal instinct in humans is to seek females that are ready to conceive. For this reason, we as males are always looking and in most cases, if an opportunity comes along to to mate more than one woman, most men seize the opportunity. The animal instinct in females is to seek a big strong powerful male to be protector and provider for her and her offspring. It may be the male who chases, but it is the females who choose who they want to mate with. A woman is content to be monogamous as long as her male lives up to her expectations of him.
The problem is, when humans follow their natural instincts instead of conscience, it destroys society.
I think you might be wrong. Even if a woman loves her husband with all of her heart and doesn't want to be married to any other man, she still might have a natural instinct to get aroused at the prospect of having sex with another attractive man. We should be careful in judging women for feeling that way. It may be a natural God-given instinct.
In the celestial kingdom there are three degrees of glory and marriage is required for enter the highest (D&C 131). I think there will be very few, if any ,women in the two lower degrees because women are hypergamous. The men in the two lower degrees will never be fathers, they will be sterile but if they never get to feel the touch of a woman, it wouldn't be heaven for them.
Likewise if a man has many wives, would it be heaven for the women if they have to share one husband and suffer from inadequate attention and affection from men?
@@alexblake5743 Do you want to have a conversation about this or are you just saying? I agree that the devil will tempt a woman in spite of her love for her husband and a woman is easily aroused by other men, but that is not to say she will seek their attention if she is getting what she needs from her male. I have been married to two women. The first one loved me and for years we had a good relationship until she hit menopause. That is when her instinct kicked in and she stated looking for a bigger, stronger and richer man then me. and divorced me for another man. The same thing happened to the second wife. The only way to keep a menopausal wife happy is with money. After menopause, sex mean nothing to a woman and money is everything.
But to answer your question about a woman's happiness in heaven if she is one of many wives married to a polygamous male. Happiness in the Celestial kingdom has nothing to do with sexual pleasure. The only way for women to get to the Celestial kingdom is by being sealed to a sanctified male. Do the math. 1 in a billion men ever get sanctified but for a female to get sanctified, all she has to do is be sealed to a sanctified male. If there are the same number of males and females and only one in billion males is sanctified and yet a billion available females, if the woman wants celestial happiness, She is going to have to share.
Wrong! The only way to be exalted is for a man and a woman to be sealed together… as in a man also cannot be exalted without a wife, just as a woman cannot be exalted without a husband. But that is not at all required for the celestial kingdom. Only if you want to be exalted
@@TheHappyNarwhals You are right, but sanctification is one thing, Exaltation is another. A man can be sanctified without a woman, but he needs a woman to be exalted. A woman needs a man to be sanctified and exalted. Men and women are not automatically exalted just because they have a temple marriage. They must both be sanctified before they can be exalted. Justification before sanctification and sanctification before exaltation. If you have not been born again and justified, it does not matter if your are married or not, you will not have eternal life and exaltation. Repent and ask forgiveness so Jesus can justify you. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. The sooner you know Jesus, the sooner you will know the truth of all things.
Sex at the human level is all about man's rules and control. I could go on and on about how men in power use sex to control people with all their rules but suffice it to say, your sexual activity is not the business of government nor leaders of churches.
unless your sexual activity is harming other people
@@michaelangeloevans2722 You are right. I agree that if we are talking about rape and pedophilia then, yeah
*"men in power use sex to control people with all their rules", like Joe!*
How come no one is questioning the source of the thought to engage in these acts? Is it a natural progression, or would the adversary merely have one think so?
evolutionary behavior probably for 3 million years, as gorillas, chimps & bonobos also do it. especially bonobos our closest evolutionary relative.
This explains why in the 1980s the young marriages were completely falling apart. I dated many young, divorced girls during that time. More and more young divorced women were coming to young adults dances.
This was excellent.
In all things, as a saint in the fulness of times, we have the responsibility and the privilege to interpret the 'voice of God' to ourselves, whatever the source. One commenter recalls the phrase of Joseph Smith that 'I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.' Surely, anything in the intimacy department that is based on 'coercion', or literally threatening to good health, should be clearly understood to violate basic priesthood principles (D&C 121:36-42). Yet, the beauty of married intimacy is an ideal environment wherein "love" is held and fostered, which includes curiosity, exploration, sharing, learning, enjoying, refraining when appropriate, etc. etc. God created all our senses, and orgasms, and the deep feelings of connection when both body and soul are brought together in naked honesty and loving connection. Yes, it is pure gospel principles that a husband and wife should be open and communicative and gracious towards and with one another, in the 'bedroom' as also in sharing all aspects of their stewardships. The Church has raised a number of wrong-spirited, ignorant, misleading, incomplete, guilt & shame promoting maxims and opinions that are contrary to the Spirit of the Lord, which I will not go into here, because, again, as saints whe have the responsibility and privilege to feel these things out and get inspiration. As if God, who created the penis and clitoris, is "embarrassed" to convey light upon these subjects!? We should not rely upon the darkness of avoidant ingorance, on the one hand, or the unbridled spirit-less corruptions of the likes of Freud or Kinsey, on the other hand, to give us no or bad advice! Truly, as relayed in some comments below, there has been horrific hardships and pain caused in people's married lives because of wrong-ideas. Lord have mercy upon us and help us to trust in and look to and include you in ALL aspects of our lives, (especially) the gifts of sexuality that have a lot to do with defining us / In the image of God, male and female created He them!
If I understand what you are saying, and the letter , although official, was not intended to reach the public, and leadership was instructed not to discuss "intimate" detail.. how on earth are the people supposed to know it was a sin unless they are SUPER in tune with the spirit.. it sounds like even you having this info wasn't necessarily intended.. You are right, it's messy and murky but not just now, it was back then too.. if God has, in fact, drawn a line in the sad, then why wouldn't it be commanded directly of us? I also understand that we shouldn't have to be commanded in all things, but when its that specific, we probably need to be commanded..thats also more of a "be proactive" type statement..If it truly is "up to the discernment of the couple, why on earth would they pick a firm line..I would be the worst father if I was giving my kid instruction on something, told them it's up to them how they do it..... Buuuuttt, if you do it wrong you're grounded... I don't get it.
Do you want the Church to determine your sexual activity in your own bedroom with your own spouse?
I just started listening to Connor so am laughing a little about this. We were married in june of '83. The bishop made sure to talk to us moments before he performed the ceremony in order to inform us that we were not to be "kissing below the waist" in our relations. That was it. Absolutely mortifying! We have often wondered why he would do that. ANSWERED.
Isn't it the whole purpose of the Come Follow Me program that we learn to hear and follow the Spirit? Hasn't the church grown into this program through the years? Do we need to be commanded and reminded in all things? Increasingly we are being held responsible for ourselves and our decisions. If we are out of line, if we are open to learning and being taught by the Spirit, we will hear and change.
I think the update means that the old stuff is obsolete. I don’t think it applies. I also think a lot revelation is meant for our time and is subject to change as new prophets come around
I have tried to comment on your videos in the past but they never seem to get posted. I am wondering why.
I'm seeing (and liking) your comments now. ❤️
@@jasonsellers56 Thank you
*CLICK on "SORT" then "NEWEST" if it doesn't show it was shadow banned, flagged or deleted. Comments can disappear & reappear. they can be visible to 1 person & not another.*
sometimes youtube fails to post comments. It's really annoying but it's just bad programming, it doesn't have anything to do with the video creator or the content of the comment.
As a child of the 80s, I believe the policy was reflecting the things we kids were doing. Oral sex was being used as an end run on not having sex. Unfortunately some Bishops didn't understand. The Church just generalized it to eliminate some confusion.
In about 1982 some of the deacons were subjected to an incredibly detailed discussion about self pleasure. He actually wrote the word out in caps on the chalkboard. To say the least it was a very awkward lesson.
I find it odd that the church hasn't said anything that I know of on that particular facet. You would think that if it were a problem it would have been listed right along with what they did mention.
They've mentioned the use of pornography but not that aspect without the p***.
I don’t remember when the For the Strength of Youth handbook first came out, but it phrased it very similarly to the current version as follows:
Keep sex and sexual feelings sacred. They should not be the subject of jokes or entertainment. Outside of marriage between a man and a woman, it is wrong to touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body even if clothed. In your choices about what you do, look at, read, listen to, think about, post, or text, avoid anything that purposely arouses lustful emotions in others or yourself. This includes pornography in any form. If you find that situations or activities make temptations stronger, avoid them. You know what those situations and activities are. And if you aren’t sure, the Spirit, your parents, and your leaders can help you know. Show your Father in Heaven that you honor and respect the sacred power to create life.
Note where it states, “avoid anything that purposely arouses lustful emotions in others or yourself.”
Looks to me like self pleasure easily fits under that umbrella.
@@i2rtw Yeah I agree. They do also mention porn addiction alot, which is essentially the same thing.
Look, if your looking to throw a wild party in the B room, don't go asking pointers from +80-year-olds. Instead, get some ice cubes, blindfolds, and someone to take the kids away from the house. Also... invest in some proper lingerie ;). The G's are passion killers for sure.
The letter had to be super confusing to leaders because it says to (paraphrasing) ‘scrupulously avoid inquiring into delicate matters between married couples’. So how were leaders supposed to find out about couples practicing oral sex? Were they supposed to just ask couples outright? That wouldn’t jive at all with the ‘scrupulously avoiding delicate matters’. Man, I can imaging this caused a lot of confusion for bishops and stake presidents lol.
oral sex has nothing to do with the covenant I made concerning the law of chastity. I went through the temple pre changes in 1990 when the explanation of chastity dealt solely with sexual intercourse. After the change, it was sexual relations.
The notion of unholy and impure arises in the Telestial Room. Elohim instructs Jehovah to have PJ&J go back to earth in their true character, as apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the man Adam and his posterity in the telestial world and to cast Satan out of their midst. Instruct them to give unto Adam and his posterity the law of the gospel as contained in the Book of Mormon and the Bible; also, a charge to avoid all lightmindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, the taking of the name of God in vain, and every other unholy and impure practice; and cause these to be received by covenant.
The covenant is to keep the Law of the Gospel. The rest is simply a charge or equally stated, encouragement.
It was not a covenant, nor a commandment nor by some prohibition or restraint.
It isn’t until the messengers visit in the Terrestrial world where the law of Chastity is explained and made a covenant.
Will you let me know if you see this message?
You know what? Years ago I went to a dentist appointment where they were doing an oral exam that I hadn't experienced before maybe sampling the tissue, etc. I asked about what they were doing and why and their response was that oral cancer has risen to an epidemic and they implicated the rising popularity of oral sex as the culprit. Now, I don't know if this would involve the state of disease in one of the partners from venereal disease or not. But it does make me wonder about the counterindication of oral sex being purely about physical health.
Wow. Oral sex more likely to cause cancer or other disease. Great point!
What about a deck of cards? There are members of the church who believe it is sinful to play games with face cards. At one point it was a very clear teaching by some of the brethren to avoid them. And then we get silence and things aren’t retracted so people are left confused 50 years later. If it’s important, it needs to be repeated. I’m okay with church policy changing with times. Society changes and the needs of the members change. Lots of members with tattoos now, can they go to the celestial kingdom? I would argue yes. We have moved away from a more pharisaical model to a more Christ-centered/grace model. I’m pretty sure a woman can go to the celestial kingdom with two earrings in an ear. superficial things cannot become central doctrinal issues. It would be nice if doctrine taught, commandments given, and then maybe some recommendations, but let the people take it from there. Caffeine anyone?
Yes do I have to wear pantyhose to church or can my legs go bare? Give me a break. I think it was Pres Hinkley who said no bare legs at church.
Let the Holy Spirit guide.
I remember asking a mature couple in the church how the church felt about oral sex? They seemed so embarrassed to be ask. I asked because i had been one of Jehovah's Witnesses before and it was considered homosexual behavior. I wanted to know the doctrine on that issue so i could comply. Also, i was sexually abused extensive as a child and forced to do this often to males and females. It made me sick to even think of it. They said that that was too private of a question for me to ask them. All they says was that that was between a husband and wife. I never did get an answer.
I think you did! It’s between a husband and a wife! I love that answer.
The JWs are probably right. There's a reason abusers engage in that behavior. Mormons choose to not think about it.
HPV mouth cancer is skyrocketing because of this. Something to consider.
What if you can't have kids!!!?.
Well in the endowment it is stated all things are to be done in the bounds the Lord has set. If the first Presidency put out a statement it was because they had letters of those hearts that were being broken because their companion was asking it of them. These men whom the Lord has chosen go before him when they are presented with questions because they love and care about all Gods children. one partner may be questioning and the other is not and one partner may not want to give up a certain act. Any sexual acts that are homosexual as in oral or anus would be considered not in the bounds the Lord has set. But Satan is the great stirrer. So I guess the question is, if you don’t want to take counsel from the mouth piece of the Lord and those acts you are wrapping your sexual happiness in, then that may be the problem. And I am old enough to have heard it from men whose wives want to have this in their lives and men who want it. If two people come to an agreement and they don’t feel there is any wrong then as you were told govern your self. Leaders don’t want anyone crying from the dust that they didn’t know or hadn’t been told.
That was a funny joke, almost makes me wish Inhadnt renounces my republican party membership
Are you saying Bill Clinton was out of line!😃😃😃
If my understanding is correct, doctrine is unchanging, like God. So if we're changing doctrine, then it wasn't Doctrine to begin with... And why would God's source of truth on Earth, his "mouthpiece", be claiming doctrine that isn't doctrine...? 🤔
Because men are mortal,.and having good intentions, bit temporal filters, they err.
@@l7846 The "Prophets are men, and he was acting as a man..." trope is so stupid. It is a poor excuse for the behavior of so-called prophets.
It's nice that the church is sending more positive messages about sex. They should also say a man that who cheats on his wife is the equivalent of a woman who doesn't have regular sex with her husband.
Nope! She's not being unfaithful. Something else is going on in the relationship or maybe with her physically. You can't put infrequent sex at rhe foot of the wife only. Way different than a man breaking his covenants. You don't covenant to have what ever he decides is frequent enough sex in the temple.
I remember a woman saying on facebook that her husband only rarely felt like having sex with her, like twice a year. :(
the problem is "oral sex" is not defined.
and for that matter "sex" is not defined.
kissing my wife throughout the day (to get her in the "mood", or not) is two things.
oral, and sexual.
What are the correct principles upon which human sexual relationships will be judged. Let's start at the beginning. As humans, we have three natures, animal, human and divine nature. The animal nature is governed by instinct. Th human nature is governed by reason and as humans, we have the distinct ability to override instinct to either do worse than the animal, equal to the animals or better than the animals. The divine nature is to do things holy to the Lord. Where we end up in Heaven has a lot to do with our sexual activity. Let's say for minute that there was no such thing as marriage, what is right an wrong for the animals. It is right for animals to have sex and bear offspring, to be fruitful and to multiply. If humans choose to live at the animal level there is no sin in not being married as long as they are being sexually responsible. The animals take care of their offspring until the offspring are capable of taking care of themselves. There are sexual sins, however, that humans commit that are not part of human instinct. There sins are homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, forced intercourse, prostitution. and irresponsibility. Those who choose to live their lives at this level, the best they can hope for is the terrestrial kingdom.
*If the divine nature of a man is marrying dozens of females behind a wife's back, isn't such deceitfulness worse than the animals???*
Now we come to the divine nature. In God's kingdom, he instituted marriage. marriage in the kingdom of God has two purposes, 1. to form families of God forever and 2. to sanctify females. In the kingdom of God, the only marriage that is valid is a marriage initiated by the power of God by one having that authority to preform the marriage and is finalized by Jesus when Jesus makes one's calling and election sure. The covenants of these marriages are the covenants of priesthood receive in the endowment in the temple. The commandments that pertain to marriage specifically is that the man will not steal other men's wives and a woman sealed to man in the new and everlasting covenant will not give herself to other men and that she will abide the same laws of the priesthood and her husband. Another commandments is to not divorce. Another is to not lust after women. If a man expects for his marriage to last forever, he must keep these commandments
What does “To sanctify females” mean? And what is your reference for your comment?
I’m not a feminist but that is such a weird comment so I am curious as to it’s meaning.
@@emw99 Thank you for your question. My reference is Jesus. He has been my teacher since I was 12 and I am going on 74 now so that is almost 62 of communication with Jesus. To understand the comment we have to go back to our first estate before we were created spiritually or physically. In our first estate we existed as single cell, self aware, intelligent light beings and existed at the highest spectrums of light. The nucleus of our being has three photons. The highest frequency of light in the universe is blue, then yellow, then red, then blue, yellow, red, etc. Males have a blue photon at the highest spectrum, then the yellow and then the Red. Females start with the red at the same spectrum as the male red, but her blue and yellow are in the next lower spectrum. Now, there are the three godly powers we can receive for God. First is the gift of the holy Ghost. The power of the holy ghost is a red light which males and females share. The power of the Son of God, or in other words, the priesthood, is a yellow light. The power of the Father, which is the sealing power is a blue light. In order to be sanctified, one must have the priesthood, the yellow light. How shall a female be sanctified since she cannot receive the light of the priesthood? This is where sealing power comes into play. When a man and woman are sealed together by the holy spirit of promise,, they share in each other's powers. Whatever miracles the husband can do, so can the wife, and whatever powers the wife has from the other spectrum of light the husband can share in.
Need reference where the red, yellow n blue light information came from - the source... please
@@bettescott950 Jesus gave me a vision.