The Mormon Therapist on Sex Talk

June 9, 2010
By

Natasha Helfer Parker is a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist and a member of the Church with 13 years of experience working with LDS members. Here she shares with us representative cases from her practice and insights she has gained from her work as a therapist.  She blogs at mormontherapist.blogspot.com.

My husband and I don’t really talk during sex. What’s there to talk about? I’m certainly not going to talk about something other than sex because then I get distracted and the mood totally dies. Or we can talk about sex, but talking about sex while you’re actually doing it seems stupid it me. And saying stuff like, “Do you like that? How about that?” just seems like silly porn talk to me. I would laugh out loud if my husband said that during sex. So what the heck are we expected to talk about? Sex isn’t exactly a “silent” experience around here, but it doesn’t come from chit-chat. Chit-chat is annoying. What are we supposed to be doing instead?

It sounds like you are happy, satisfied and comfortable with you and your husband’s sex life. That’s wonderful!! And by no means go about trying to fix something that’s not broken. I hope my suggestions offer new ideas and help those who are looking for something different than what they currently have. Things that are helpful for some may not be for others. That being said, here are some points I want to make.

  1. Although you may not be “talking,” it sounds like you are still definitely communicating. And if this comes in the form of a moan or a sigh, this is a form of verbal communication. And this is good because it affirms for your partner that you are enjoying your shared experience. We all can use some positive feedback.
  2. Don’t be so quick to dismiss what you stereotype as “porn talk.” There are many different types of talk that a couple can engage in that are perfectly appropriate. Here are some examples:
  • Using pet names (i.e. honey, darling, love man, etc.)
  • What I call “Beauty Talk” which highlights the physical attributes you love about your spouse (i.e. “your eyes are so beautiful,” “your skin is so soft,” “I love your…”)
  • What I call “Reminiscing” by bringing up loving memories of a past shared moment (“I loved it when…,” “I love thinking back on the time when…”)
  • “Love Letter Talk.” Speaking out loud things that you might write in a love note (i.e. “I love being married to you,” “I’m so lucky to be your wife/husband,” “It feels so good to be with you,” “You are such an incredible person.”)
  • And there is the “I like, I don’t like” talk which can be very useful for many couples. It’s a tool that can reinforce touching and behaviors that feel good as well as be a non-threatening way to communicate something you don’t like (i.e. “Wait,         that’s too rough,” or “I liked what you were doing before better.”
  1. It’s OK to laugh or giggle together when trying new things. There’s a certain playful element to sex that can be refreshing to tap into. When we try new things it can feel uncomfortable or corny at first. But by exploring new things you never know when something new and exciting will work for the both of you.
  2. Being willing to communicate in our sex lives does translate into being willing to be more vulnerable with our spouses. This can at first feel uncomfortable as well.
  3. Remember that just because you are satisfied with your sex life, doesn’t always translate to your spouse being satisfied. That is why it is also important to talk about sex outside of the bedroom in a more neutral environment.

Many people find “love chat” erotic, sensual and an added enjoyment to their sex lives. Who wouldn’t love hearing they are sexy or beautiful? Keep having fun!  When we take into account that one of the main purposes for sex to begin with is that of a bonding union, I would hope all kinds of communication would be seen as useful towards this end.

Readers – what sorts of sexual communication do you see as appropriate or not appropriate? Bonding vs non-bonding?  How does sexual communication affect things such as “being in the mood,” your libido or your feelings of love towards your spouse?  Does sexual communication leave you feeling awkward or corny?  How does sexual communication relate to your beliefs about eternal marriage?  Is sex part of eternal marriage in your belief system?

66 Responses to The Mormon Therapist on Sex Talk

  1. June 9, 2010 at 8:09 am

    I would wonder if they don’t talk during sex because that’s just their style, or if there is something else going on that could be looked at. Is it safe enough to talk? Does it feel awkward? I think that (not always) but often when something feels awkward–not just during sex–it’s covering up other more important things. Dismissing it as porn talk, as you pointed out, is also something that makes me wonder if there’s more to it.

  2. June 9, 2010 at 8:24 am

    How much of not feeling safe is relational dynamics vs our own comfort level with sexuality in general and also our own body images. How does our membership in this church help or hinder us in these areas? For me personally it seems that general, basic doctrine helps me while cultural tradition hinders me.

  3. June 9, 2010 at 8:42 am

    I’m sort of curious what this post is doing on MM.

  4. Dave P.
    June 9, 2010 at 8:44 am

    My ex and I had several talks like this, especially regarding one of my major fetishes I’ve had my whole life. I won’t go into details, but she was uncomfortable with the idea outright so we’d talk about ways to work around it or slowly ease into it. Unfortunately we broke up before getting married so I can’t really report on if that worked out or not.

  5. June 9, 2010 at 8:55 am

    The other type of talk I failed to mention is fantasy talk. Reality is that most people have fantasies. However, I assume that in a culture such as ours (Mormon), many may feel guilty about having fantasies to begin with and/or are not discussing these with their spouse. What are your thoughts about this? Are you comfortable sharing fantasies with your spouse? Listening to them? Can fantasy be an appropriate part in a couple’s sex life?

  6. jmb275
    June 9, 2010 at 8:56 am

    How does our membership in this church help or hinder us in these areas? For me personally it seems that general, basic doctrine helps me while cultural tradition hinders me.

    I think this is right on!

  7. June 9, 2010 at 9:02 am

    GBSmith – Lol hmmm. Sex talk isn’t a Mormon Matter? ;)

  8. June 9, 2010 at 9:07 am

    I think fantasy is fine – writing up sexual scripts, e.g. how each person would like things to go is one intervention I have heard of, but not done yet with any couples. These can include reasonable fantasy fulfillment. Not sure how I feel about extradyadic (outside the couple) fantasies though. Sure, most of us have extradyadic fantasies and thoughts pretty regularly (actually 98% of men and about 70% of women, but that sample was of college students in relationships, so take it with a grain of salt), but I don’t think fantasies should ever be focused on real people. I don’t see how that would not be threatening to the spouse.

  9. June 9, 2010 at 9:47 am

    What about the value of just admitting to one another that these thoughts exist? Not necessarily incorporating all of them into the actual sex life itself, but just being able to nornalize for one another that these thoughts are part of human nature. Would this help decrease shame and in turn increase emotional intimacy? Would it also help decrease the power these thoughts hold over us? I have seen this to be the case with couples I work with. The key to this being doable has a lot to do with the safety within the relationship to begin with and the education a couple has regarding sexuality.

  10. June 9, 2010 at 9:48 am

    I agree 100%. Often I have found even happy couples don’t feel safe enough to talk about some things outside of therapy, at least not at first.

  11. June 9, 2010 at 9:52 am

    GB-
    what I have found on the blog I run is that members are dealing with all types of questions and concerns that directly stem from doctrinal principles, interpretation of doctrinal principles, and/ or religious upbringing. These, unfortunately, many times get in the way of a healthy sexual relationship between married couples. My hope is to open up discussion regarding sexual issues so that we nay all benefit as a whole.

  12. Thomas
    June 9, 2010 at 11:11 am

    I bet lots of LDS couples make love in silence just to avoid waking up the baby in the crib six feet away.

    When the baby goes into her own room, I think I’ll try reciting the Song of Solomon. In Latin, like Adso did in The Name of the Rose. Should be interesting.

  13. June 9, 2010 at 11:21 am

    “Sex talk isn’t a Mormon Matter?” Sing a hymn AdamF, sing a hymn.

    I suppose if you insert the word mormon in a few places or do I need to tell the bishop that I say bad words when we do “it” it might apply.

  14. June 9, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Thomas- :)

    There is actually research showing that babies (under the age of 1) find love-making noises soothing. So those who co-sleep with their infants need not worry about traumatizing anyone.

  15. jimbob
    June 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Being the consummate multi-tasker, I find that my sex talk isn’t really sex talk at all, but more of a recitation of what I need to get done the next day and how my wife can play a role in those plans. For example, it’s not uncommon for me to say something while in flagrante delicto like, “I need to pick up some soda for the YM activity on Wednesday. Can you remind me to submit a receipt for that?” I’ll be the first to admit that it’s not particularly titillating, but man, am I efficient.

  16. Thomas
    June 9, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    #14 — Dang. Youngest just turned one. Missed the boat.

    I would add that traumatized or “soothed,” an infant who wakes up is likely to want attention. And I’m just not that good a multitasker.

  17. Vort
    June 9, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    #15 jimbob: I hadn’t thought to comment on this thread, but your remark leads me to tell you a joke I heard way back in high school:

    What does a wife say during lovemaking? “Oh, yes, Pierre, my love! More! More!”
    What does a wife say during lovemaking? “Ah, Paolo, you are the greatest lover of all time!”
    What does a wife say during lovemaking? “Oy, Jake, the ceiling needs painting.”

    A rule my wife and I established almost on our wedding night and have faithfully lived by for over two decades: No painting the ceiling.

  18. Vort
    June 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Hmm. My jokes didn’t format correctly. Should read something like: “What does a [nationality #1] wife say etc.” Guess pointy brackets and their contents get stripped from these posts.

  19. jks
    June 9, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    My husband and I talk a lot during sex. I have to talk to feel emotionally close anyway, so our spending time together usually involves talking in various states of undress. Can’t imagine not talking during sex. I think our conversation covers all the types you mention except you left out talking about everyday life, which we definitely do to some extent at least during earlier stages.
    Our sexual communication is almost always open, honest, loving and considerate and we always operate under the idea that our sex life is important even when it feels more like work. Our good sexual communication has made a great sex life….not the other way around.

  20. June 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    What’s sad vort is that I got the joke anyway. :)
    says something about being mainly anglo Saxon

  21. Vort
    June 9, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    #20 Natasha Helfer Parker: Fyi, the original #3 nationality/group was not “English” or “Anglo/Saxon”. In my long-ago high school days, I believe it was Polish (I think the guy telling it to me used a more derogatory word), but Googling “Oy, Jake, the ceiling needs painting” suggests that the joke is most often used as a Semitic slur. I cared only about the ceiling-painting part, so I left ethnicities out altogether.

  22. June 9, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    ahhhhhh the “good ole days”. not. i had to say my sex life with my ex was fairly satisfying, but he was only interested in the dirty, porn like talk. i didnt object to the talk, per se, just that it was all he was willing to do. i cant imagine talking about everyday stuff, like picking up snacks for a yw/ym activity, but some variety is good. its nice to see that people are willing to come out and share honestly about this topic. i think mormons, in general, have huge issues(no pun intended) in the bedroom and need to loosen up and enjoy themselves. i hate hearing about married people who hate their sex lives. i just want to scream “FIGURE IT OUT! ENJOY YOURSELVES!” there is entirely too much anxiety in the mormon bedroom.

  23. SUNNofaB.C.Rich
    June 9, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    it would be pointless for me to honestly answer the question posed above because my comment would get deleted faster than you can say -insert obscenity-

  24. pinkpatent
    June 9, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    Vort, if anyone notices the state of the ceiling paint in OUR bedroom, it will be my husband. ;)

  25. Vort
    June 9, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    #24 pinkpatent: TMI!!! TMI!!! I’M NOT LIIIISTENIIIIIING!!! LALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!

    Okay, I’m all done with this thread.

  26. Thomas
    June 9, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    I hold with President Kimball (“To Camilia Eyring Kimball, Equal Partner”), and conclude that husband and wife should both have occasion to examine the state of the ceiling paint.

  27. jimbob
    June 10, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Re 22: I’m now concerned that people didn’t know I was joking before. I mean, no one can seriously believe that I know how to multitask.

  28. Heber13
    June 10, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    OP: Is sex part of eternal marriage in your belief system?

    No. I know there are a lot of things about the afterlife we don’t know yet, but I don’t see how sex is an eternal marriage thing. Just a earthly thing for procreation.

  29. Vort
    June 10, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Is sex part of eternal marriage in your belief system?

    Undoubtedly. From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

    Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

  30. Heber13
    June 10, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    #29, I agree. Gender is essential. I don’t equate that with sex.

    Christ also ate a honeycomb after resurrection. I don’t believe we have to eat.

    I believe eating and sex are earthly things.

  31. Thomas
    June 10, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    “I don’t believe we have to eat [in heaven]”

    Well, strictly speaking, I wouldn’t say I have to assemble in marital congress, either. But I’d sure miss it.

  32. Vort
    June 10, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    #31 Thomas: My thoughts exactly. What is the purpose of bisexuality if not sexual union? That such union will take place in the eternities seems to me axiomatic. I can’t claim to know exactly what that will entail, but if earthly things are patterned on eternal things, as we are told, then I don’t see any reason to assume it will be greatly different from what we now experience.

  33. Thomas
    June 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    “The same sociality that exists here….”

  34. Heber13
    June 10, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    However, I don’t pattern my belief in eternal things based on my earthly experience.

    Money and employment are earthly things, but do not necessarily translate to eternal things. In fact, I would hope we are beyond things like money in heaven. Perhaps sex too. (However, I sure would miss brats and football…and a lot of other earthly pleasures…but hopefully there is something even better).

  35. June 10, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    In answer to some of the questions:

    What sorts of sexual communication do you see as appropriate or not appropriate?
    I think this is something the couple has to work out themselves. It’s not so much what is or what’s not appropriate in some sort of one-size-fits-all measure, but how it happens in the specific couple’s sexual relationship. I think it was Elder Nelson who in conference a while back said couples should never use “lewd language” during sex. I don’t know what that means in terms of an objective standard, but I guess everyone must decide what works for them… and frankly it’s no one’s business but the couple’s.

    How does sexual communication relate to your beliefs about eternal marriage? Is sex part of eternal marriage in your belief system?
    I’m totally undecided on this. I do get the feeling from some people of faith (even a few Mormons, although not as often) that sex is somehow an “earthly” (read: dirty) activity and isn’t fit for heaven. This hatred towards the body and sex REALLY comes out when other Christians attack us for apparently believing “God had sex with Mary.” First of all, I don’t know any Mormons (personally) who believe that, and second, even if we DID all believe that, what the heck is wrong with that idea? It’s only wrong if you think sex is bad/dirty/shameful etc. Just sayin’. Okay, back on topic now…

  36. Heber13
    June 10, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    AdamF, good thoughts…

    Just to clarify, I don’t believe sex is naturally “dirty” … I mostly see it as the way life is brought into this world, and don’t see that necessary (although I’m open to it being possible) in the eternities.

    In other words, I am a spirit child of a Heavenly Father and Mother. I don’t think the only option that happened is through heavenly sex. God’s ways are higher than our ways and I just don’t believe it is an eternal thing.

    …but not because it is a dirty thing. Just wanted to clarify that.

  37. Dan
    June 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    I’m sort of curious what this post is doing on MM.

    Gasp! We’re talking about s e x !

  38. June 10, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Heber13 – Yeah, I realized right after I typed that comment that it may come across like I was pointing at you, but I wasn’t. I’m fine with the idea that it may not be eternal… I just can’t decide one way or the other though. “Sex” has so much more to do with it than “intercourse” or even “anything that goes on in the bedroom.” Maybe that’s what the comments above referring to “gender” being eternal are referring to. If “sex” is not part of the next life, then I can’t see how “sexuality” would be either, and that is a big part of life. Who knows?

  39. Rigel Hawthorne
    June 10, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    “How about that?” just seems like silly porn talk to me”

    Ok, I think this post is represents an excellent dilemma for temple recommend carrying LDS people. I think husbands and wives can find heightened overall enjoyment of their intimate acts when encouragement of verbal expression takes place. The problem is that the verbage used is not something that is comfortably enunciated by your standard LDS folk.

    The strict anatomic names for body parts can be used, but that often times sounds sterile and not erotic. The slang terms for body parts can sound too irreverent or, if taken wrong, debasing. After you wake up the next morning, you think, “did I really say that last night,” and hope it is never mentioned. Code names that are developed between husband and wife that nobody else knows is cute. I’ve been surprised when my wife has uttered a so-called swear word (a word that is also a structure that holds back water) at a time when things were going, should I say, ‘well’. I then thought to myself, did I just hear what I thought I heard, but, of course, I know better than to ask.

    As to ideas of some things that would be colorful expressions of how one feels, this is probably not the forum, but where is such a forum? (without ending up with ‘silly porn talk’)

  40. Vort
    June 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    #35 AdamF & #36 Heber13:

    The LDS doctrine of eternal physicality raises many questions about how physicality applies in the eternities. We believe we are literally in the image of our Father; thus, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that God’s body has the same private parts that any other man has. Why would God have body parts for elimination and procreation unless he used them to eliminate and procreate? And since elimination and procreation imply eating and sex, why would we suppose eating and sex were not a part of eternal reality?

    One summer long ago, I did an internship at a medical center back East. During our dialysis unit, we also investigated transplantation, rejection issues, etc. Speaking of people who had been on dialysis for years and then had received a transplanted kidney, the instructor for the unit said, “You’ve never seen so many people peeing and smiling.”

    In the last lecture of his famous seventeen-part lecture series Time Vindicates the Prophets, Hugh Nibley eloquently makes the same point: The processes of physical life are a joy to experience. It’s a joy to breathe, to move around, to eat, to urinate. Our physical bodies are a source of great joy for us. Joseph Smith taught that the dead look forward to a reunion with their bodies, viewing their spiritual state as a sort of imprisonment.

    In my experience (speaking in general and not necessarily about Heber13), those who declaim the processes of physicality as an eternal/celestial reality do so because they consider such processes “dirty” or somehow “beneath” God. Eating implies pooping, and heaven forbid God might poop! Reproduction implies sex, and heaven forbid God sully himself with such a perverted thing! Yet the New Testament clearly testifies that the resurrected Lord sat with his disciples and ate fish and honeycomb. The Book of Mormon tells of the resurrected Lord serving and even providing bread and wine for the Lehite multitudes. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord tells us that “…the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth…” Drinking –> peeing…

    I suspect if people were truly and fully divested of any prejudice toward physicality, there would be far less scandal over LDS doctrines about God having a body and far less fuss about the idea of sex (or eating) in the hereafter.

  41. June 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Rigel – Perhaps it should be agreed upon that whatever is said during sex will not be held against each other afterward. ;)

  42. Heber13
    June 10, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    I am saying there is a difference between we “can” eat and we “must” eat in the eternities. You are the first person I have heard in my life that believes Heavenly Father has to use the bathroom.

    My understanding is that our resurrected bodies will not be the same as our earthly bodies…but will be perfected. That difference opens the door to many possible things being different about our eternal existence.

    Thanks for not directing your thoughts to me personally…but I would still say to that comment that I don’t view the idea sex is not eternal because I think sex is sinful and ungodly…but that eternal things are not the same as earthly things, so we may not have any urges for it…we could be very well beyond such things, just like I no longer crave cotton candy as an adult like I did when I was 5 years old.

  43. June 10, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    I’m with vort on this one. I think the plausability of enjoying the sexual bond through physical means is most definitely a likelihood in the hereafter. In my eyes, sex, procreation and intimacy are some of the most godlike attributes on thus mortal existence (of course thus is why it is also the aspect mist attacked by the adversary). The symbolism alone is deeply powerful (two beings actually becoming one if only for a short period of time and losing all control through pleasure of orgasm – talk about vulnerability!) . And if sex can reach a state of perfection, why wouldn’t we want to partake in such a form of manna?

  44. June 10, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Rigel
    I offer such suggestions on my blog if you find that forum more comfortable and anonymous. And I apologize for all my typos – currently posting from phone at pool trying to make sure no children are drowning. Guess I’m not too good at the multi tasking.

  45. Thomas
    June 10, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    “Drinking –> peeing”

    Only if you assume an inefficient mechanism. I also have to say this is the first time in my life I’ve considered whether God poops. And now that you think about it, that is a wonderfully pro-human thing to contemplate.

    However, I prefer to think that Christ’s perfected body would be capable of subjecting the molecules of that honeycomb and that wine to nuclear fusion, and turning 100% of that matter into pure energy. So (OK, major sacrilege ahead, but you started it, Vort!) if God poops, he poops rainbows. (Because radiating energy in the visible spectrum would be so much cooler than just radiating infrared or X-rays or something.)

    Dang, anti-Mormons would have a field day with this thread. A great big raspberry to them and the Platonic ideal they rode in on.

  46. Thomas
    June 10, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    “just like I no longer crave cotton candy as an adult like I did when I was 5 years old.”

    Define “crave.”

    Seems I haven’t entirely gotten around to putting away childish things — I have a life-threatening sweet tooth, and about eight extra pounds to thank it for. Add cotton candy to the list of things heaven better have. And that awesome Peach Lemonade Snapple that the company used to make before it went lame and focused on iced tea.

  47. Vort
    June 10, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    #45 Thomas:

    A great big raspberry to them and the Platonic ideal they rode in on.

    I can’t agree more with this. Platonism (or neoPlatonism) destroyed primitive Christianity as the ultimate basis of the Great Apostasy, and the Platonic anti-physicality ideal is the very antithesis of the joy of life.

  48. Do You Like Worms?
    June 10, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    Personally I usually whistle the theme song from the “Andy Griffith” show whilst in the midst of intercourse. Sometimes… it’s… a bit… muffled?

  49. living in zion
    June 11, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Ya’ll can speculate all you want about heavenly bodily functions, but I don’t think I’m alone saying, “If you think I’m going to be eternally pregnant because you can have perfected sex, you are outta your mind.”

    Or maybe that would explain the whole multiple wives jazz. If no guy ever shot a blank and every egg was ripe, it would take a ton of women to deal with the aftermath.

  50. Geoff of Australia
    June 11, 2010 at 7:36 am

    I believe sex is one of the most spiritually uplifting activities we can partake in.

    I therfore expect it to be continued in the afterlife but not for creation for spiritual recreation.

    I didn’t think anyone had touched on the spiritual uplift of sex though Natasha came close on 43

  51. AndrewJDavis
    June 11, 2010 at 8:46 am

    I can’t help but think of my daughter’s book: “Everybody Poops”. I think the discussion of heavenly metabolism requires a well-versed biologist, but as far as sex in the afterlife goes, It remains one of the best ways for my wife and I to draw close and share complete trust in each other.

  52. Heber13
    June 11, 2010 at 9:11 am

    “but as far as sex in the afterlife goes, It remains one of the best ways for my wife and I to draw close and share complete trust in each other.”

    I know we’re all just speculating, but I sometimes hope that the next life will be far greater that what we evaluate is “perfect” in this life. I also cherish the benefits of bonding and “oneness” between my wife and I…but what if in the next life we can read each others’ thoughts, or use a perfect Godly language, or be one in thought and deed perfectly by other methods…we can be even closer and have more trust.

    Those are possibilities in my mind, and so I don’t hold onto the things in this life that give me greatest pleasure and joy…because we could very well find out those things pail in comparison to what awaits us in the next life.

  53. Hawkgrrrl
    June 11, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Sex talk always seems just a little silly and forced to me. I suppose I feel like Jerry Seinfeld in that episode where he just doesn’t know what to say and he ends up asking her “Are those the panties that your mother laid out for you?”

    Do I think there will be sex in the afterlife? I do think so, after resurrection. Personally, it’s one of the aspects of Mormonism that I think is appealing and on track (not the sex, but the idea that the body is holy rather than something to be ashamed of and at war with).

  54. June 11, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    I just want to say that I have LOVED this discussion! So many wonderful things to think about. Thanks to all for your comments!

  55. dblock
    June 11, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    I’m hoping that in the eternities that I am blessed with a Barbie body. Then this Italian girl can eat all the pasta she wants and not have to worry about my weight.

  56. brjones
    June 12, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    “First of all, I don’t know any Mormons (personally) who believe that, and second, even if we DID all believe that, what the heck is wrong with that idea? It’s only wrong if you think sex is bad/dirty/shameful etc.”

    This comment seems a little short-sighted, AdamF. First of all, I guarantee you know some mormons who believe this, as it is a widely held belief in the church, and, I think, supported at least incidentally by many general authorities. For what it’s worth, every bishop I’ve ever discussed it with has confirmed their belief in that point of doctrine. Second, there are a number of reasons one might find the idea of god having physical sex with mary offensive, which have nothing whatever to do with believing sex to be bad/dirty/shameful. How about the fact that mary was betrothed to someone else? What about the necessity of marriage before sex? How about the fact that mary, according to all the “evidence” had no say in the act? I think these are legitimate points, and frankly, I’m astounded that any person, and particularly any woman, mormon or otherwise, could even begin to condone or overlook, let alone celebrate, an incident of a man coming to a woman who had not chosen him, and, under the auspices of authority and priesthood, commanding her to offer her body to him in sexual congress. I have very few hangups with respect to sex, and this idea is beyond disgusting to me.

  57. GBSmith
    June 12, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    “I’m astounded that any person, and particularly any woman, mormon or otherwise, could even begin to condone or overlook, let alone celebrate, an incident of a man coming to a woman who had not chosen him, and, under the auspices of authority and priesthood, commanding her to offer her body to him in sexual congress. I have very few hangups with respect to sex, and this idea is beyond disgusting to me.”

    Out of curiosity did you know where this could head?

  58. AdamF
    June 12, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Hmm, I didn’t consider the “betrothed” aspect. Short-sighted indeed! Really though, I really do not know any members who believe that, and yes, it has come up more than once, haha. But thanks anyway. Now, I do know members who believe other more controversial things, but not that.

  59. Vort
    June 13, 2010 at 1:32 am

    God allows (or causes) people to die. Does that make God a murderer? No.

    God allows (or causes) people to suffer afflictions. Does that make God a torturer? No.

    God can do what God wants to do. The scriptures state clearly that God CANNOT sin. So whatever God does is no sin.

    I have no opinion on the particulars of Christ’s conception, and find it in extremely poor taste to discuss the issue. But however it was accomplished, we may be sure that no sinful activity was involved, because that is impossible by definition. Thus, if the act was something we might find offensive, that’s a sure sign we need to rethink our notions of offensiveness.

  60. brjones
    June 13, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Not really sure what you mean, GBSmith.

    AdamF, I hope it didn’t sound like I was criticizing you. I know that not everyone in the church believes this doctrine and I understand that even among those who do believe it there are differing perspectives on the issue. I just wanted to point out that there are some other issues that may be in play for some people. I always respect your opinions and positions.

  61. brjones
    June 13, 2010 at 1:46 am

    Vort, we could get into a debate about what god’s purported actions say about him, but I don’t think it would be very productive. Beyond that, I honestly think that if you are uncomfortable discussing the particulars of christ’s conception, then you should avoid discussing them. That said, it is a fairly significant point of doctrine, and not one that has been invented by the laity, I don’t believe. So I think it’s fair game for discussion.

  62. AdamF
    June 13, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Thanks brjones.

    I think I’m getting the other reasons why people find the sex idea offensive. I get Vort’s idea as well. If it does turn out that that’s how it happened, well, whatareyagonnado?I think my previous comment was directed at other Christians and even non-religious folk who love sex but still think it’s bad/dirty/comedic etc.

  63. June 13, 2010 at 6:56 am

    50- I completely agree.

    I’m not sure where the discussion got on to Jesus Christ’s conception (are there comments missing from the thread somehow?) but I’m on the side of taking issue with the thought that somehow our Heavenly Father literally had sex with Mary. It’s just too incestual for my comfort zone. I found the following link that is more in lines with my opinion on the matter: http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Conception

    One of the fascinating aspects of the early church culture was the ability for prophets and apostles to discuss and have open discussion about a variety of issues without it somehow turning into official doctrine. Everything was new and everything was on the table. I believe that sometimes we have a difficult time in our current church culture separating these types of discussion out because we have developed a clear focus on “not questioning” our leaders. It is this conundrum that, IMO, leads a lot of people to question their faith or leave the church when they start realizing the types of things that were said back in the day and the types of disagreements that were had about what we currently consider pure doctrine.

  64. wayfarer
    June 13, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Natasha,you touched on sex as a spiritual journey.I’m so with you on this and have found this aspect of my life to be deeply educational in the process of love.It involves control,submission,sublimation,as well as surrender to a power greater than one’s own.In those moments I find myself closest to eternity and at one with the universe,I feel deeply that my Heavenly Father smiles on our joy and delight.Giving the beloved all that we can give and holding nothing back that it is within our power to give when we have the health and energy to do so.Creation is for our joy and education,why would the eternities not be the same,and more.?

    BTW,I also have no problem with a sex as an appetite that needs sating-appetite keeps us alive and functional.

    Thanks Natasha,I’m just done with starting to open this up for discussion with my adult daughter,woman to woman.Let’s enjoy more,and make our lovemaking of eternal significance in our life’s journey

  65. Rufus
    June 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    When I first read some of the comments questioning weather or not there was sexual activity is eternal I was surprised that there is an actual question about it.
    I took a class at BYU in the 70′s called The Church in the 20th Century. The instructor was a old guy who taught some things that were very bold and I’ve never heard in the next 35 years. One of things that the teacher said was that the way we treat sexual activity is a type of how we would treat Godhood. It was a very profound thing which I’ve never heard stated again, even here. It seems odd that we wouldn’t talk about such a profound subject, but maybe we don’t want make it sound like the 72 virgin’s kind of inducement to join the church.

    Also that the only people who’ll be enjoying it for like the rest of eternity are those who are in the Celestial Kingdom. (My only addition to this would be that I think most of humanity will be there.) Those who don’t, the instructor said, will be “quickened” so they don’t have sexual urges any more.

  66. Eldervermont
    August 31, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    I am afraid I have a problem – I cannot have orgasm unless I think of some soft porn romance book scene I have read.  Is that bad for a female  LDS person?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *