Polygamy and later sexual repression

[Arcturus]

I had a similar reaction to the Angel post mentioned. Hell hath no fury.... and all that. I also made a point of snuggling up with my DW for a bit. But I want to thank Angel for posting that because the point she is trying to make is both informative and a warning to those of us still happily married.

For most of my adult life, being a male, I was okay with polygamy. It was only when I got the female perspective by reading Wife Number 19, reading posts by the women of NOM, and subsequent reading of Tell it All (another 19th century polygamy expose by woman who lived in and among it), that my male delusions about polygamy being acceptable were shattered. So I am grateful whenever I encounter information from the women's point of view. It's something I don't come by naturally

Hopefully I can express this thought articulately so it's relevant to the conversation. I also had an interesting "awakening" about my responsibility in my relationship with my DW in conjunction with Angel's post. In my TBM days, I would say I was as attendant to my DW's needs as I *hope* I am now, but I had a backstop peace of mind that she would never leave me because of her duty as a woman of zion. In fact, I never really even gave any thought to the possibility of my DW being dissatisfied with our relationship that she might leave someday. That's taboo in Mormonism.

Now, I realize that my DW can up and leave if she wants because we both believe that individuals are totally entitled to do so if the relationship is not working, given our new theological perspectives. Currently, my DW stays home with our young children while I am in a tremendously demanding stage of my career. Although my job is hard, I really really enjoy it even though it can be exhausting. On the other hand, her job with the kids at home often as a "single parent" because of my work demands is exhausting and I concede is much harder than what I'm doing. My DW has sacrificed her own "non-domestic" opportunities to invest in our kids and my career. She's awesome for that. But now without the Mormon safety net of exerting significant psyche control over her to stay where she is, I feel even more responsible to make sure she's happy and I'm sharing more of the load at home. In other words, stepping away from the church has made me much more mindful of being involved at home and making sure my DW has a voice and I actually help facilitate the realization of her wants and needs. There's no more duty to just make things work because.

With the major duty construct now gone, I also feel more responsibility to be attractive to my DW, with respect to being a best friend as well as a romantic partner. All this is a result of leaving Mormonsim. Deconstructing the Mormon constructs of spousal roles in the home and waking up to the importance of individuality.

Thank you for your insight Angel.

[DPRoberts]

I've read those quotes from SWK about divorce and sex. Its heart-breaking, but I have reason to believe, from my own studies and conversations with therapists up and down the Wasatch Front, that sex is still the #1 cause of problems. Oh, they say it differently now--its "porn addiction" they blame it on and everything else, but its sexual hurt at the foundation.

I little bit of context on the SWK quote. There was a period in the 1980's when the divorce rate in the LDS church was above the national average. I remember attending a presentation by some masters candidates from BYU talking about that. So SWK may have been looking at statistics that were a big black eye for the church. Maybe some of the changes made by Kimball's successors at least got the church to its recent slightly-better-than-average divorce rates?

I wonder if LDS leadership ever considered that just maybe, possibly, on the outside chance[?] ..... maybe a healthy marriage with some good yummy sex between 2 people who love each other MIGHT be a possible protection against some of this acting out stuff?

I concede there are excesses out there with some plain mean nasty people who cheat--ON BOTH SIDES--but there is a big group of people, both men and women, who wished there was a little less emphasis placed on force-reading scriptures, praying, paying tithing, doing callings, etc,...and a little more emphasis placed on marital sexual harmony.

It wasn't until I was outside of the church that I learned, mostly through networking with others outside the church, that there is a large group of women who were themselves dissatisfied with their sexual relationships inside their LDS heterosexual marriages. WHAT A SHOCK! It was at that point I began to really digest how much damage was done to me! I was taught my whole life, both explicitly and implicitly that sex and virtue (in women) were in opposition. That if you wanted to have a "righteous woman" as a wife, you had to forgo her having any real sexual passion. You see, even I as a man heard those messages being taught to women about them being the gate-keeps of male sexuality.

This shaming crap has done massive damage...MASSIVE. It affected me, my then wife, and a whole lot of people around me. It is base misogynistic, but it also shames men, emasculating them to force deferral to authority in all cases.

A total cult mentality.

I remember how much the importance of sexual relations in marriage was de-emphasized in the church, and I know I took more than one eternal marriage prep course based on CES curriculum. I also know that my own experience in marriage has been quite different. I don't know how a marriage survives without sexual passion, as it seems to be a huge factor in my own. And that aspect improved when I stopped seeing my DW as the head wife of the Celestial harem and realized that I may only have the here and now to enjoy this relationship.

Maybe they just don't like anything to be good enough to compete with "o boy another meeting!"

[DPRoberts]

I had a similar reaction to the Angel post mentioned. Hell hath no fury.... and all that. I also made a point of snuggling up with my DW for a bit. But I want to thank Angel for posting that because the point she is trying to make is both informative and a warning to those of us still happily married.

For most of my adult life, being a male, I was okay with polygamy. It was only when I got the female perspective by reading Wife Number 19, reading posts by the women of NOM, and subsequent reading of Tell it All (another 19th century polygamy expose by woman who lived in and among it), that my male delusions about polygamy being acceptable were shattered. So I am grateful whenever I encounter information from the women's point of view. It's something I don't come by naturally

Hopefully I can express this thought articulately so it's relevant to the conversation. I also had an interesting "awakening" about my responsibility in my relationship with my DW in conjunction with Angel's post. In my TBM days, I would say I was as attendant to my DW's needs as I *hope* I am now, but I had a backstop peace of mind that she would never leave me because of her duty as a woman of zion. In fact, I never really even gave any thought to the possibility of my DW being dissatisfied with our relationship that she might leave someday. That's taboo in Mormonism.

Now, I realize that my DW can up and leave if she wants because we both believe that individuals are totally entitled to do so if the relationship is not working, given our new theological perspectives. Currently, my DW stays home with our young children while I am in a tremendously demanding stage of my career. Although my job is hard, I really really enjoy it even though it can be exhausting. On the other hand, her job with the kids at home often as a "single parent" because of my work demands is exhausting and I concede is much harder than what I'm doing. My DW has sacrificed her own "non-domestic" opportunities to invest in our kids and my career. She's awesome for that. But now without the Mormon safety net of exerting significant psyche control over her to stay where she is, I feel even more responsible to make sure she's happy and I'm sharing more of the load at home. In other words, stepping away from the church has made me much more mindful of being involved at home and making sure my DW has a voice and I actually help facilitate the realization of her wants and needs. There's no more duty to just make things work because.

With the major duty construct now gone, I also feel more responsibility to be attractive to my DW, with respect to being a best friend as well as a romantic partner. All this is a result of leaving Mormonsim. Deconstructing the Mormon constructs of spousal roles in the home and waking up to the importance of individuality.

Thank you for your insight Angel.

Well said.

[Rob4Hope]

I remember how much the importance of sexual relations in marriage was de-emphasized in the church, and I know I took more than one eternal marriage prep course based on CES curriculum.

Yep.

There is a massive deemphasis. Let me pull a quote from "A Parents Guide"....

Courting couples need to be discreet about what they discuss together because certain information is appropriately shared only within marriage. Besides, there is so great a need for consideration of matters other than physical functions (such as finances, religion, child rearing methods, friendships, relatives, career plans, and living arrangements, not to mention planning the wedding itself) that undue attention to sexual information can actually create problems. The whole point of virtuous courtship is to maintain spirituality while learning about each other as persons and putting temporal and mundane matters into proper perspective (emphasis added).

The subject of this paragraph is sexulity. It is relegated to "temporal and mundane"?

YIKES!!!!

This says something. It also drives a wedge between spirituality and sexuality. You can have spirituality in marriage with NO SEX---since sex is mundan and temporal.

WOW!!!! Talk about a twist. Eternal Progression, as explained to me, involved children. BUT,...<<drum roll again>>....this sex things is just an aside since spirituality can be completely devoid of it. But don't you need sex (in LDS parlance) to make babies for Eternal Progression?

[Rob4Hope]

If the two people take care separately to inform themselves of the body and all its parts and functions and practice basic, virtuous courtesies together during courtship, their sexual adjustment after marriage will likely be all that they want it to be. In fact by giving proper attention to social, emotional, and spiritual matters, the couple will create in courtship a foundation upon which deeply pleasing intimacies are built after marriage.

YOU WISH!

After all, lets take two people who are "a-sexual" before marriage (since they followed the LDS teachings to suppress it completely before), and then lets pop them together without them knowing ANYTHING about themselves, and NOTHING ABOUT EACH OTHER IN THIS AREA CUZ THEY ARE FORBIDDEN TO TALK ABOUT IT!....and lets let chance make their marriage work.

What a load of ROT!

I saw multiple red flags when I was dating,...but I did what I was supposed to--I DIDN"T ASK QUESTIONS. And I also married her because she was "worthy". Then we get married and those red flags turned into massive problems....which the church solves with "just be celibate".

Yep. I was a succor for it. But no more.

[moksha]

Is there a correlation between sexual repression and religiosity?
Do unhealthy views on sexuality accompany unhealthy views on religion?

[Angel]

Thank you for your insight Angel.

Thanks - was not trying to scare anyone, but I do see polygamy in the same light as adultery, and believe both kill love. Both create something I would not call "marriage".

United in all things - in heart and mind... vs.
Not united, hidden lives, hidden relationships, comparison and jealousy... anything hidden and dishonest is a marriage killer. Many spouses on the other side of adultery will tell you it was not the affair that was most painful, it was dishonesty. My husband was addicted to porn before we were married - porn does not have to be horrible, but in a repressive shaming religious culture it created a dishonest hidden world that prevented me from connecting with him. For love to work, or friendship - two people have to be 100% transparent, open, and honest.

[Angel]

Is there a correlation between sexual repression and religiosity?
Do unhealthy views on sexuality accompany unhealthy views on religion?

When I was a TBM in a sexless marriage I looked to Catholic nuns, and Buddhist monks to learn the art of celibacy and abstinence. There are quite a few religions who view sex as evil somehow. I understand self-control, I eat healthy foods, I exercise etc. Self-control is good, but there is an extreme to it that is not healthy.

"The natural man is an enemy to God" - shaming the physical body and everything that goes along with it (fasting - try to starve yourself, abstinence - go without sex, Muslims covering themselves in black, a Hindu Yogi on a bed of spikes, mortification of the flesh - using flagellants etc in the Catholic church... there are quite a few religious practices that seem to encourage physical deprivation as a means of becoming holy.

[Rob4Hope]

Is there a correlation between sexual repression and religiosity?
Do unhealthy views on sexuality accompany unhealthy views on religion?

When I was a TBM in a sexless marriage I looked to Catholic nuns, and Buddhist monks to learn the art of celibacy and abstinence. There are quite a few religions who view sex as evil somehow. I understand self-control, I eat healthy foods, I exercise etc. Self-control is good, but there is an extreme to it that is not healthy.

"The natural man is an enemy to God" - shaming the physical body and everything that goes along with it (fasting - try to starve yourself, abstinence - go without sex, Muslims covering themselves in black, a Hindu Yogi on a bed of spikes, mortification of the flesh - using flagellants etc in the Catholic church... there are quite a few religious practices that seem to encourage physical deprivation as a means of becoming holy.

When my marriage was on the rocks, I remember reading 2 books from Michelle Weiner-Davis: "The Sex Starved Marriage" and "The Sex Starved Wife".

Both of those books blew me away. I felt my eyes opening to ideas I had never before considered--ever. And it made me wonder what else I didn't know...or what I thought I knew but was totally wrong on. I bet there is quite a lot actually,...which is why I spend time reading and listening, trying to see other points of view.

------------------

During the HBL and SWK years, there was a massive push to condemn masterbation. I recall SWK saying that ALL of the earlier church leaders had condemned the practice--which was a lie because its been researched and they didn't. Anyway, this was, to me at least, a beginning of body shaming and the careful calculated practice to destroy individual sexuality, especially the pleasure/connection aspects of it. I've read accounts of women and men both who associated sex with sin, having it destroy their later family lives.

Now the church has this really strange position on masterbation. Is it a sin or not? People like Netash Helfer Parker have expressed frustration about this lack of clarity. So, you end up with leadership roulette on the topic. In my prior stake, ALL MEN were asked by the bishop and stake presidency both some additional questions: "When was the last time you looked at porn?" and "When was the last time you masterbated?"

Interesting position.

Since such activities seem to be among those "next to murder".....is it any wonder those who occasionally peek or sometimes choose to not let the left hand know what the right hand doeth....is it any wonder those activities drive secrecy and shame?

The church has created a massive shame problem, and they choose to do NOTHING about it. Shame on them!

[alas]

Is there a correlation between sexual repression and religiosity?
Do unhealthy views on sexuality accompany unhealthy views on religion?

When I was a TBM in a sexless marriage I looked to Catholic nuns, and Buddhist monks to learn the art of celibacy and abstinence. There are quite a few religions who view sex as evil somehow. I understand self-control, I eat healthy foods, I exercise etc. Self-control is good, but there is an extreme to it that is not healthy.

"The natural man is an enemy to God" - shaming the physical body and everything that goes along with it (fasting - try to starve yourself, abstinence - go without sex, Muslims covering themselves in black, a Hindu Yogi on a bed of spikes, mortification of the flesh - using flagellants etc in the Catholic church... there are quite a few religious practices that seem to encourage physical deprivation as a means of becoming holy.

When my marriage was on the rocks, I remember reading 2 books from Michelle Weiner-Davis: "The Sex Starved Marriage" and "The Sex Starved Wife".

Both of those books blew me away. I felt my eyes opening to ideas I had never before considered--ever. And it made me wonder what else I didn't know...or what I thought I knew but was totally wrong on. I bet there is quite a lot actually,...which is why I spend time reading and listening, trying to see other points of view.

------------------

During the HBL and SWK years, there was a massive push to condemn masterbation. I recall SWK saying that ALL of the earlier church leaders had condemned the practice--which was a lie because its been researched and they didn't. Anyway, this was, to me at least, a beginning of body shaming and the careful calculated practice to destroy individual sexuality, especially the pleasure/connection aspects of it. I've read accounts of women and men both who associated sex with sin, having it destroy their later family lives.

Now the church has this really strange position on masterbation. Is it a sin or not? People like Netash Helfer Parker have expressed frustration about this lack of clarity. So, you end up with leadership roulette on the topic. In my prior stake, ALL MEN were asked by the bishop and stake presidency both some additional questions: "When was the last time you looked at porn?" and "When was the last time you masterbated?"

Interesting position.

Since such activities seem to be among those "next to murder".....is it any wonder those who occasionally peek or sometimes choose to not let the left hand know what the right hand doeth....is it any wonder those activities drive secrecy and shame?

The church has created a massive shame problem, and they choose to do NOTHING about it. Shame on them!

The whole thing about sexual sin being next to murder is a gross misrepresentation of what the scripture actually says. It is talking about a missionary who apparently fell in love or lust (it is not clear which) with a girl and his father labeled her a hooker, no proof that she WAS a prostitute, (any young woman who tempts a missionary is by definition a lose and corrupt woman, so a harlot) no proof the young missionary was doing any more than “chasing after her.” But his judgemental father accused the less than hard working missionary of leading people away from the church into sin, and THAT was the sin next to murder——leading others away from hardworking righteousness. The sexual crap is men with dirty minds reading into it what they think it means—-that chasing after a harlot was the sin next to murder. Nope, leading people away from God by setting a crummy example of what a missionary should be doing was the sin next to murder, because it turned people away from God.

This misreading of scripture is then used to shame boys about normal sexual development. I don’t know who started misreading this scripture, but he should be taken out and shot.

Possibly rape is next to murder, but this isn’t talking about rape, and since it isn’t clear just WHAT the young missionary was doing with the young woman, people can read into it anything they want.

[Rob4Hope]

This misreading of scripture is then used to shame boys about normal sexual development. I don’t know who started misreading this scripture, but he should be taken out and shot.

Last I looked on lds.org about this, it was interesting they still have it posted that the sexual sin (as you defined above) was the sin next to murder.

I think the church has painted itself into a corner with their policy of not correcting prior leadership statements. I agree that this is read out of context and was misrepresented. Now that its in the lds canon, it is a problem to correct. They can't say that "so and so was wrong"...because that calls into question their authority and revelatory mantle.

[moksha]

In my prior stake, ALL MEN were asked by the bishop and stake presidency both some additional questions: "When was the last time you looked at porn?" and "When was the last time you masturbated?"

Perhaps he was being like Diogenes and looking for an honest man. I imagine many would lie and deny they ever masturbated or looked at porn. The willingness to fib might be a good way to screen for potential pool of multilevel marketing recruits.

[Angel]

...ALL MEN were asked by the bishop and stake presidency both some additional questions: "When was the last time you looked at porn?" and "When was the last time you masterbated?" ...

Will have to check out those books, thanks. (perhaps I will leave them for my DH to read LOL)

Haha - not "have you ever..." but "when was the last time you..." → the thing that bugs me the most are leaders who are sinners themselves, pretending to be holy - the one-way conversation, wanting interviewees to expose their most vulnerable hearts while the interviewers expose nothing of themselves... hypocrisy to demand the interviewee to expose themselves while the interviewer looks on judgmentally without admitting the mote in his own eyes.

Healthy communication needs to be a two-way street, vulnerability on both sides, transparent honesty on both sides... perhaps in my next interview I will ask the bishop to answer the questions first - let him know I will not be vulnerable with him until he is honest and vulnerable with me. He can be the "leader" by answering all the questions first

[Dravin]

In my prior stake, ALL MEN were asked by the bishop and stake presidency both some additional questions: "When was the last time you looked at porn?" and "When was the last time you masterbated?"

Even if you assume all men have at some point, plenty go periods after repenting without. I went years with a absolutely no masturbation or pornography and I did so after having repented in conjunction with priesthood authority. So asking not only assumes it has happened it assumes it hasn't been properly repented of by church standards, as if it has it is none of their business by the very doctrines of the church itself.

Not that, "When was the last time you look at pornography or masturbated that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but has not been?", to paraphrase the temple recommend question, is much of an improvement

[Rob4Hope]

In my prior stake, ALL MEN were asked by the bishop and stake presidency both some additional questions: "When was the last time you looked at porn?" and "When was the last time you masterbated?"

Even if you assume all men have at some point, plenty go periods after repenting without. I went years with a absolutely no masturbation or pornography and I did so after having repented in conjunction with priesthood authority. So asking not only assumes it has happened it assumes it hasn't been properly repented of by church standards, as if it has it is none of their business by the very doctrines of the church itself.

Not that, "When was the last time you look at pornography or masturbated that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but has not been?", to paraphrase the temple recommend question, is much of an improvement

When this practice of the SP came to my knowledge, I remember wondering about MOF. You know, where Kimball says that if you sin, all the other sins come back?

I think I mistakenly assumed that it was something like this: Every time you sin, you get a black mark by your name. The accumulate. Then, when you repent, those black-marks get some white-out. BUT!!!!!!! If you sin again, that white-out gets removed and the WHOLE SMATTERING OF BLACK MARKS COMES BACK.

Kimball didn't elaborate on his real meaning, and at that point, I couldn't have handled it anyway. I was going to hell.

[Dravin]

I think I mistakenly assumed that it was something like this: Every time you sin, you get a black mark by your name. The accumulate. Then, when you repent, those black-marks get some white-out. BUT!!!!!!! If you sin again, that white-out gets removed and the WHOLE SMATTERING OF BLACK MARKS COMES BACK.

I always mentally conceptualized that idea as being something akin to a suspended sentence. For something habitual (like masturbation) it really lets you ratchet up the guilt because it isn't just guilt from doing it that one relapse but every single time you ever did it. I can remember a time as a teen giving in to that particular 'sin' and I literally had tears streaming down my face during because of the crushing guilt and mental anguish that comes from believing you are calling the condemnation of every single past incident down upon your head. Still went through with it because teenage hormones, but it is an utterly soul crushing teaching.

[Rob4Hope]

The LDS church's position on masterbation has shifted so many times, I have no idea if there even is a position on it now. Its totally "leadership roulette", which means it depends on what your Bishop or SP read recently as to their opinion. If they are reading MOF, for example, then they will be more harsh (i'm sure).

But as far as a real policy,...nada.

[Red Ryder]

Hey Rob,

It's mastURbation with a U!

An easy way to remember this spelling is if UR mastURbating, UR sinning!

Kimball had a micro prophet.

[Rob4Hope]

Hey Rob,

It's mastURbation with a U!

An easy way to remember this spelling is if UR mastURbating, UR sinning!

Kimball had a micro prophet.

That's funny mate.

Dont know or care how its spelt. If JS could be a prophet and bad spellar... than so cam eye.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Palerider]

I think the church has painted itself into a corner with their policy of not correcting prior leadership statements.

After reading most of this thread with some interest, I thought it coincidental? that this article would appear in LDS Living magazine.

Looks to me as if the church has finally found a way to dump the sayings of earlier leadership with impunity.

Just let your church therapist do it!

I'm surprised at the ease and intrepidation with which he dismantles the past 175 years of revelation and seems to do it with a smile. Got a question on sexual intimacy? Hey!! No problem. We can answer that and you can forget feeling guilty about not following the counsel of dead prophets! It's all good dude.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Ask-a-Latter-d ... dium=email