Spouse Swapping

[Midwest LDS]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. That is what makes this particularly troubling.  

I really don't think it's a big problem though. Very, very very few kids will do this. 

Agreed, I'm sure this isn't widespread, it's too complicated for most kids.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Agreed, I'm sure this isn't widespread, it's too complicated for most kids.

It's also too time consuming. I think most of us are too lazy to do all that work just to score companionship for the weekend. 

[BJ64]

The more I think about it I’m guessing that it has probably happened at some point but rumor has blown it out of proportion. Those involved may or may not have been excommunicated but I’d guess excommunication was added to the rumor to scare people from doing it. 

[Just_A_Guy]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The one that says the annulment was in Vegas was lying.  That is only available for residents.  Not for someone who spent the weekend there.

While that may have been accurate in the past, it seems not to be the case at present:

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-125.html#NRS125Sec360

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, BJ64 said:

Those involved may or may not have been excommunicated but I’d guess excommunication was added to the rumor to scare people from doing it. 

I think people love to throw that word around, excommunication. I'm not saying it's not appropriate in some cases (Not sure about this one) but it always amazed me how people are much, much more unforgiving than God apparently is. 

[Lost Boy]

Our Earthly laws are certainly not God's laws.  We are judged based on his laws and whats in our hearts.  You may be able to fool man, but you won't fool God.  You just aren't that good.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The one that says the annulment was in Vegas was lying.  That is only available for residents.  Not for someone who spent the weekend there.

Unless they were Nevadans, of which there are plenty at BYU.

[BJ64]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Our Earthly laws are certainly not God's laws.  We are judged based on his laws and whats in our hearts.  You may be able to fool man, but you won't fool God.  You just aren't that good.

So if you got married for sex and stayed married for life are you still going to be judged for getting married for sex?

Like I said before, most people get married for sex. Most everything else you can have without marriage. 

The first commandment Adam and Eve were given was to multiply or in other words ave sex. It is the most basic feature of marriage. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by BJ64

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

So if you got married for sex and stayed married for life are you still going to be judged for getting married for sex?

Did you honor your marital covenant? Yes? Then you have not made a mockery of marriage.

Honestly, this is not a difficult concept. It's actually pretty obvious.

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

So if you got married for sex and stayed married for life are you still going to be judged for getting married for sex?

Like I said before, most people get married for sex. Most everything else you can have without marriage. 

The first commandment Adam and Eve were given was to multiply or in other words ave sex. It is the most basic feature of marriage. 

Historically, sex was not the only factor and typically not the driving factor.  Marriage has been more of a financial arrangement and for security.

[BJ64]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

Historically, sex was not the only factor and typically not the driving factor.  Marriage has been more of a financial arrangement and for security.

Yes, historically marriages were often arranged for financial or political reason. That’s why they had mistresses on the side. 

In general society marriage isn’t for sex either. They are getting that long before they decide to marry. 

Within the Church however the only way to have legitimate sex is to get married. It has been generally encouraged to not have long engagements due to the temptation of sexual misconduct. I would also think that since church members are also “forbidden” from self gratification the urge to marry for sex would be much greater than the general population. However, having said that I would also assume thatva good many young men ignore the counsel to not M and do it anyway. 

[Lost Boy]

11 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Yes, historically marriages were often arranged for financial or political reason. That’s why they had mistresses on the side. 

In general society marriage isn’t for sex either. They are getting that long before they decide to marry. 

Within the Church however the only way to have legitimate sex is to get married. It has been generally encouraged to not have long engagements due to the temptation of sexual misconduct. I would also think that since church members are also “forbidden” from self gratification the urge to marry for sex would be much greater than the general population. However, having said that I would also assume thatva good many young men ignore the counsel to not M and do it anyway. 

Is not doing M. specifically spelled out in the rules?  Or is it just an understood thing?  

[BJ64]

15 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Is not doing M. specifically spelled out in the rules?  Or is it just an understood thing?  

What do you think? That is a question for a multiple page argument between people who are absolutely certain that their opinion is correct without exception. I on the other hand I’m not certain. I don’t want this to sound like an endorsement of M and I’ll also say I don’t do it but I think it is a normal and natural thing to do and is not a sin. However I’m not going to bet my salvation on my opinion. 

[Grunt]

40 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Is not doing M. specifically spelled out in the rules?  Or is it just an understood thing?  

We are specifically cautioned not to.   

Edited May 21, 2018 by Grunt

[BJ64]

45 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Is not doing M. specifically spelled out in the rules?  Or is it just an understood thing?  

 

25 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

What do you think? That is a question for a multiple page argument between people who are absolutely certain that their opinion is correct without exception. I on the other hand I’m not certain. I don’t want this to sound like an endorsement of M and I’ll also say I don’t do it but I think it is a normal and natural thing to do and is not a sin. However I’m not going to bet my salvation on my opinion. 

I think the concept that M is a sin comes from the hysteria that was caused by writers and doctors in the 16th and 17th centuries about the health hazards of M whereby it was blamed as the cause of all manner of disease and insanity. There are those who thought it would be better to become a eunuch than risk the health hazards of M. 

The anti M campaign continued during the 19th century with the famous Victorian preoccupation against all things sexual. 

I think it is assumed to be a sin but you will find nothing in scripture to back up that assumption. People try to twist scriptures into being against M but that’s all they are doing, twisting scripture. 

In the late 1800s Church leaders promoted plural marriage as a cure for M. 

In more modern times the only prophet to make a statement on it was President Kimball who said that prophets anciently and today condemn M. But in all the searching that I have done I can find no prophet bedside him who condemned it. 

Again I don’t want to sound like I am encouraging it. Since we are told not to do it it is better to obey than question. 

It would be interesting to poll members to see the actual obedience to the counsel. I know from interviewing bishops, stake presidents, relatives, friends, online acquaintances and friends of other faiths that the issue is far from settled among the member and nonmember population.    

Edited May 21, 2018 by BJ64

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

So if you got married for sex and stayed married for life are you still going to be judged for getting married for sex?

Did this hypothetical “you” repent?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Historically, sex was not the only factor and typically not the driving factor.  Marriage has been more of a financial arrangement and for security.

With regard to sex and marriage, we don't base our beliefs on what man has done historically.  The world has it backwards.  It usually does.

• Man believes marriage is just a mortal contract between two people.
• Man believes sex is about self-gratification.
• Man believes sex is a carry over from baser animal instincts that prove we're nothing more than animals ourselves.
• Man believes that marriage was an invention of the patriarchy to subjugate women.
• Man believes the only reason to have children is to have labor and heirs.
• Man believes family is a burden and gets in the way of living life.

We care about what the Lord intended. 

• Marriage is the highest of all sacraments and is a covenant between man, wife, and God.
• Sex is about sharing the most intimate parts of our bodies, souls, and hearts with the one we love.
• Sex is the result of divine design to create the most fulfilling bonding experience possible between two people in such a way that separates us from lower life.
• Marriage is commanded of man, and has been instrumental in the protection of the rights and protection of women.
• Marriage is an institution ordained and required by God for the forming of the only truly lasting thing on this earth -- families.  Procreation is the means to bring sons and daughters of God into this mortal probation to learn and grow, to develop faith, to become one with the Father and the Son.
• Marriage and family are the source of the greatest happiness on this earth.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Guest

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I think it is assumed to be a sin but you will find nothing in scripture to back up that assumption. People try to twist scriptures into being against M but that’s all they are doing, twisting scripture   

We’re specially counseled not to do it.  Period.  Lots of people try to twist words to justify ignoring the Apostles but that’s all they’re doing, twisting words. 

 

8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Again I don’t want to sound like I am encouraging it. Since we are told not to do it it is better to obey than question. 

Sure you do.  That’s what you’ve repeatedly done.  You’re the guy that talks his buddy into throwing a rock first so he can feign innocence.  

 

12 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It would be interesting to poll members to see the actual obedience to the counsel. I know from interviewing bishops, stake presidents, relatives, friends, online acquaintances and friends of other faiths that the issue is far from settled among the member and nonmember population.    

It wouldn’t be the least bit interesting to me to find out who ignores the counsel of the men called of God.  

[BJ64]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Did this hypothetical “you” repent?

Repent for what reason?

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

 

I think the concept that M is a sin comes from the hysteria . . .

I think it is assumed to be a sin but you will find nothing in scripture to back up that assumption. People try to twist scriptures into being against M but that’s all they are doing, twisting scripture. 

In the late 1800s Church leaders promoted plural marriage as a cure for M. 

In more modern times the only prophet to make a statement on it was President Kimball who said that prophets anciently and today condemn M. But in all the searching that I have done I can find no prophet bedside him who condemned it. 

This is one of those “truths” that, deliberately or not, serves to perpetuate a false impression.  The Church is clearly against it.  I believe it has been pointed out to you that the Ensign has warned against the practice.  So does For the Strength of Youth.  And if memory serves, you have indicated awareness of Packer’s To the Young Men Only.  Whether we call it “sin” or “wrong” or merely “inadviseable” is really just a matter of degrees.

Again I don’t want to sound like I am encouraging it. Since we are told not to do it it is better to obey than question. 

 

With all due respect . . . you do seem to be dancing awfully close to that line.  

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

With regard to sex and marriage, we don't base our beliefs on what man has done historically.  The world has it backwards.  It usually does.

• Man believes marriage is just a mortal contract between two people.
• Man believes sex is about self-gratification.
• Man believes sex is a carry over from baser animal instincts that prove we're nothing more than animals ourselves.
• Man believes that marriage was an invention of the patriarchy to subjugate women.
• Man believes the only reason to have children is to have labor and heirs.
• Man believes family is a burden and gets in the way of living life.

So true. 

These thoughts about marriage and sex are what a foolish and snotty 17 year old thinks. Most men, even most non religious men I've encountered don't think like this. Boys might think this way, but men don't. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

Repent for what reason?

Umm . . . for having gotten married solely for the purpose of sex with no initial intent that the relationship should entail a lifelong commitment.

That was your hypothetical, wasn’t it?

[BJ64]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

With all due respect . . . you do seem to be dancing awfully close to that line.  

I know. That’s why I try to be cautious in my statements. However I think it’s possible to obey even if one has doubts. 

Its true that President Kimball preached against it but it’s also true that Brigham Young preached the Adam God theory. 

[BJ64]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So true. 

These thoughts about marriage and sex are what a foolish and snotty 17 year old thinks. Most men, even most non religious men I've encountered don't think like this. Boys might think this way, but men don't. 

I think it is interesting that the church (God) recognizes civil marriage. Personally I believe that marriage is a religious institution and not a secular one. I can see how someone might doubt the necessity of having a secular government official pronounce you man and wife. How was government given that authority? 

If you were shipwrecked on a deserted island with a woman could you declare yourself the legal authority of the island and pronounce yourself married, not worry about getting married or stay single for the rest of your life?

[Grunt]

10 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I know. That’s why I try to be cautious in my statements. However I think it’s possible to obey even if one has doubts. 

Its true that President Kimball preached against it but it’s also true that Brigham Young preached the Adam God theory. 

Sure.  And instead of giving a factual answer that “yes, we are specifically told to avoid this behavior”, you do a pseudo tap dance to suggest it’s OK.