Stake Conf. Topic: Sexaul Intimacy

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

Great song, and Gaye's rendition of the national anthem at the NBA All-Star game is a national treasure. I listen to it all the time, and it moves me every time.

I'd be remiss if I didn't recount a recent conversation I had in the foyer with a gentleman in my ward. The ward temple visit was switched from Saturday night to Saturday morning. We did this to accommodate the many mid-singles in our ward who wanted to go to the temple on Saturday morning so they could party on Saturday night. Anyways, a 50-year old gentleman approached me to say we shouldn't have switched ward temple night. His words: "I'm a sex therapist, and I bet you couldn't guess when couples are most likely to have sex: Saturday morning. So I strongly suggest that we switch the temple visit back to Saturday night."
I smile and nod, and think, "Riiiight. I'll bring that up in the next ward council meeting."

if you are only having sex once a week on Saturday morning! .... with camels.

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

I was catholic before I joined the Church and I don't seem to recall any lessons addressing human sexuality given by the priests or nuns. I don't believe evangelicals, JWs, or baptists address these issues with their congregations. I may be wrong, but, I don't think the Church leadership ever intended to provide this type of counsel to its members. I assume they want the parents to address these issues with their kids...I would welcome if the Church were to offer optional seminars/classes by its LDS Social Service counselors as many parents would greatly benefit from such presentations.

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one here who doesn't feel like church is the place to be discussing sexuality.

We are a lay leadership here (BTW, I've always felt kind of dirty when using that term). Really, why does anyone think that the local leadership in our church is qualified to be offering advice on healthy sexual relations. Unless, of course, Utestar happens to be your Bishop.

I say leave it to families and, if needed, LDSSS. I understand that is not being taken care of in many (most) families, but why does it then fall on the church to fill that void?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one here who doesn't feel like church is the place to be discussing sexuality.

We are a lay leadership here (BTW, I've always felt kind of dirty when using that term). Really, why does anyone think that the local leadership in our church is qualified to be offering advice on healthy sexual relations. Unless, of course, Utestar happens to be your Bishop.

I say leave it to families and, if needed, LDSSS. I understand that is not being taken care of in many (most) families, but why does it then fall on the church to fill that void?

Here's where we're different.

We place it in our membership requirements, and feel it incumbent upon our leadership to lecture against promiscuity or extra-marital relations. If we're going to step into the arena with one foot, are we doing more harm by ignoring the other foot?

By arguing for restraint, you create psychologically an imbalance, especially for sincere, devout persons who often mistakenly look to religious faith as the primary instructor of their beings. Many Mormons find their culture to completely define them and look within their culture to inform them of everything. So either leadership needs to disabuse everybody of that notion, not something I see the Church doing, or leadership needs to better its membership on these issues.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by exUte

if you are only having sex once a week on Saturday morning! .... with camels.

I've found that a two hump camel doesn't always just refer to the number of lumps on their backs.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

I've found that a two hump camel doesn't always just refer to the number of lumps on their backs.

Folks here could use some lumps on the head.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Let them masturbate.

I really do wonder if this might resolve some issues.

Sorry I'm kind of late to the thread. My wife, who tends to be very conservative religiously but very liberal politically, read this thread and says she agrees with this statement. I was surprised.

This kind of discussion always reminds me of my Bishop who used to ask every year, "So do you have a problem with masturbation?"

I was always tempted but didn't have the courage to answer, "No problem at all, Bishop. I have nothing against masturbation. No problem with it at all."

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one here who doesn't feel like church is the place to be discussing sexuality.

We are a lay leadership here (BTW, I've always felt kind of dirty when using that term). Really, why does anyone think that the local leadership in our church is qualified to be offering advice on healthy sexual relations. Unless, of course, Utestar happens to be your Bishop.

I say leave it to families and, if needed, LDSSS. I understand that is not being taken care of in many (most) families, but why does it then fall on the church to fill that void?

Hell, we discuss sexuality in the temple. One of the temple recommend questions involves sexual activity.

The church already has sexuality as a huge part of its doctrine and practices.

We've had instruction (and proscriptions) on birth control, oral sex, homosexuality, abstinence, petting, masturbation, childbearing, fornication, adultery, etc.

You could say sexuality is one of the most significant topics that is addressed in church. I don't think it's out of line to instruct the relief society to stop being so frigid. Every other instruction seems to be on what not to do sexually - maybe a little positive instruction would help.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Sorry I'm kind of late to the thread. My wife, who tends to be very conservative religiously but very liberal politically, read this thread and says she agrees with this statement. I was surprised.

This kind of discussion always reminds me of my Bishop who used to ask every year, "So do you have a problem with masturbation?"

I was always tempted but didn't have the courage to answer, "No problem at all, Bishop. I have nothing against masturbation. No problem with it at all."

Matt Mendenhall, a former lineman I believe for BYU has this saying ascribed to him, while being interviewed at the MTC or LTM by Max Pinegar:

"Well I used to have a problem, but now I'm real good at it."

Max, not one to suffer fools lightly but recognizing the sarcastic nature, "Okay, we're done here, let's set you apart."

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Sorry I'm kind of late to the thread. My wife, who tends to be very conservative religiously but very liberal politically, read this thread and says she agrees with this statement. I was surprised.

This kind of discussion always reminds me of my Bishop who used to ask every year, "So do you have a problem with masturbation?"

I was always tempted but didn't have the courage to answer, "No problem at all, Bishop. I have nothing against masturbation. No problem with it at all."

its easier to just say "nope... works every time"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Hell, we discuss sexuality in the temple. One of the temple recommend questions involves sexual activity.

The church already has sexuality as a huge part of its doctrine and practices.

We've had instruction (and proscriptions) on birth control, oral sex, homosexuality, abstinence, petting, masturbation, childbearing, fornication, adultery, etc.

You could say sexuality is one of the most significant topics that is addressed in church. I don't think it's out of line to instruct the relief society to stop being so frigid. Every other instruction seems to be on what not to do sexually - maybe a little positive instruction would help.

Very succinct. Stop being just negative, maybe a sex toy party? Nah, would never happen.