Love, Marriage, Intimacy...

[_Gazelam]

I think its funny that someone wants to criticize the church and its stance on marriage when its the doctrine of the church that marriage is for time and all eternity. Salvation in the Celestial kingdom is entered into hand in hand.

Whats more romantic than a couple that desires to be together forever? Keep in mind that we are the only Church that states that the Father is married and that we have a Heavenly Mother. Is there any doubt that we hear so little regarding the Mother because the Father respects her enough to guard her against the crude jokes that carnal man would make in regards to a feminine deity?

All the married couples that I know in the church are total partners, with perscribed roles. I see nothing but love and respect and admiration, with a slight parting of the veil between them that they can see the ultimate destiny and the glory that that companion will one day hold.

If your concern is a lack of carnal desire between married couples in the church, then perhaps it is your perception that is flawed, not the Celestial couples.

Gaz

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Ray... thanks for that insight.

I think your example is a good example of my concern.

I saw a few minutes of the end of The Stepford Wives last night (I haven't seen the movie), and the dialogue was something along the lines of what it takes to have a perfect marriage, to be a perfect wife, and to be a perfect husband. If everyone is perfect, everyone is happy.

I reflected on this thread because in a way it identified what may be an underlying issue.

It seems there is such a need for perfection, for appearance, for an image of the ideal that the honest, deep, intimacy that comes from sharing one's heart and soul is completely lost.

If being real is threatening and unacceptable a relationship is based on a role, a pretense, or even a representation of what one is.

If a relationship is nothing but a pretense, a contract, or a duty for some ultimate reward then it is easy to divorce someone for differing beliefs.

If one's alliance is with the church, not one's family or spouse then I guess the selfishness that comes from wanting the heavenly reward Trump's children and partner.

This also speaks to a discussion that has taken place a few times over the years.... how can the CKHL be heaven without one's loved ones? Well... I guess loved ones, children, partner don't much matter. It is all about the church and getting to the CKHL.

Ahhhhh no wonder the church didn't fit for me. :-(

~dancer~

A great therapist I went too, for personal and marriage counseling taught us that intimacy is not just physical and romantic. It may include that, but it is emotional on the level that one can share in a healthy repectful way, all the ranges of emotion that come in a relationship. Talking and interacting in a respectful intimate way about even difficult issues in a relationship, even anger, sorrow, etc can be and is intimate.

[_Runtu]

I think its funny that someone wants to criticize the church and its stance on marriage when its the doctrine of the church that marriage is for time and all eternity. Salvation in the Celestial kingdom is entered into hand in hand.

Whats more romantic than a couple that desires to be together forever? Keep in mind that we are the only Church that states that the Father is married and that we have a Heavenly Mother. Is there any doubt that we hear so little regarding the Mother because the Father respects her enough to guard her against the crude jokes that carnal man would make in regards to a feminine deity?

All the married couples that I know in the church are total partners, with perscribed roles. I see nothing but love and respect and admiration, with a slight parting of the veil between them that they can see the ultimate destiny and the glory that that companion will one day hold.

If your concern is a lack of carnal desire between married couples in the church, then perhaps it is your perception that is flawed, not the Celestial couples.

Gaz

Since when does "intimacy" mean "carnal desire"?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think its funny that someone wants to criticize the church and its stance on marriage when its the doctrine of the church that marriage is for time and all eternity.

Only Mormon temple marriage -- all others are void in the hereafter.

Salvation in the Celestial kingdom is entered into hand in hand.

Don't you mean "hand in hand ... in hand in hand in hand, etc." (based on how many wives an exalted man receives in the CK)? ;)

Keep in mind that we are the only Church that states that the Father is married and that we have a Heavenly Mother.

Don't you mean "Heavenly MotherS?

Is there any doubt that we hear so little regarding the Mother because the Father respects her enough to guard her against the crude jokes that carnal man would make in regards to a feminine deity?

Where did you hear this? How incredibly sexist.

All the married couples that I know in the church are total partners, with perscribed roles.

They are certainly "prescribed." What they should be is equal, but that can never be so long as one spouse "presides" over the other in the home.

I see nothing but love and respect and admiration, with a slight parting of the veil between them that they can see the ultimate destiny and the glory that that companion will one day hold.

Did you read this in a Neal Maxwell book?

If your concern is a lack of carnal desire between married couples in the church, then perhaps it is your perception that is flawed, not the Celestial couples.

That "lack of desire" will always be there for many "celestial couples" so long as the Church dictates behavior in the marital bedroom, like no oral sex, no dirty talk, etc.

[_Yoda]

I think its funny that someone wants to criticize the church and its stance on marriage when its the doctrine of the church that marriage is for time and all eternity. Salvation in the Celestial kingdom is entered into hand in hand.

Whats more romantic than a couple that desires to be together forever? Keep in mind that we are the only Church that states that the Father is married and that we have a Heavenly Mother. Is there any doubt that we hear so little regarding the Mother because the Father respects her enough to guard her against the crude jokes that carnal man would make in regards to a feminine deity?

All the married couples that I know in the church are total partners, with perscribed roles. I see nothing but love and respect and admiration, with a slight parting of the veil between them that they can see the ultimate destiny and the glory that that companion will one day hold.

If your concern is a lack of carnal desire between married couples in the church, then perhaps it is your perception that is flawed, not the Celestial couples.

Gaz

I think you need to re-read TD's OP, Gaz. TD is not criticizing the Church's stance on marriage. Her opening statement was that she noticed a trend among LDS couples she encountered who seemed to lack a sense of intimacy(we're talking emotional here, not sexual) with their spouse, and asked if any of us had noticed anything similar.

I agree with you 100% that the LDS view of eternal marriage is romantic. (As long as you keep the plural marriage principle out of the mix...but that's another thread. ;) ).

I wish I could echo your observation of all LDS couples being total partners and seeing nothing but love, respect, and admiration. Unfortunately, I haven't.

There are some who fit this mold that I have seen...both in and out of the Church.

However, unfortunately, what I have witnessed is more the norm is a frazzled Mom juggling kids, housework, work, and hubby away at meetings. This is the Mormon reality for many. I don't necessarily criticize Mormon doctrine for this. I criticize Mormon culture for this.

It's something that can be controlled by the couple. You can choose to REALLY prioritize family first.

[_truth dancer]

Gaz... I think you are the only one who equated "intimacy" with carnal desire.

I think you completely missed my point.

So...

I'm wondering if, focusing on the church as opposed to an emotional, connected, unified, loving bond between partners is harmful to a relationship.

When I hear nonsense like people breaking up a family, harming children, and destorying lives because of differing beliefs I have to wonder what is important... a selfish need to become a God, or one's family.

When I hear men praise polygamy and look foward to the day, I have to wonder how deeply they loves their wives.

When I hear LDS women state they would rather be with women as sister wives than have a deep emotional connection with their husband, it makes me question LDS marriage.

The LDS concept of marriage WOULD be romantic if it did not include polygamy. I totally fail to see how a polygamous "reward" is in any way productive, positive, romantic, inspirational, or beneficial to the connectedness and beauty of a marriage. Contrariwise, I think it is most harmful and destructive and inhibits emotional connection.

In sum, in my opinion, the bond between a husband and a wife, the amazing loving emotional intimacy that can exist is unlike any other in the known universe. And yet, church attendance and belief in Joseph Smith seems to Trump it for some believers.

Ohhh and thanks for those who helped to clarify my thoughts! :-)

~dancer~

In case anyone is interested... I have a blog about intimacy... http://theartofintimacy.blogspot.com

[_harmony]

Gaz... I think you are the only one who equated "intimacy" with carnal desire.

I think you completely missed my point.

So...

I'm wondering if, focusing on the church as opposed to an emotional, connected, unified, loving bond between partners is harmful to a relationship.

When I hear nonsense like people breaking up a family, harming children, and destorying lives because of differing beliefs I have to wonder what is important... a selfish need to become a God, or one's family.

When I hear men praise polygamy and look foward to the day, I have to wonder how deeply they loves their wives.

When I hear LDS women state they would rather be with women as sister wives than have a deep emotional connection with their husband, it makes me question LDS marriage.

The LDS concept of marriage WOULD be romantic if it did not include polygamy. I totally fail to see how a polygamous "reward" is in any way productive, positive, romantic, inspirational, or beneficial to the connectedness and beauty of a marriage. Contrariwise, I think it is most harmful and destructive and inhibits emotional connection.

In sum, in my opinion, the bond between a husband and a wife, the amazing loving emotional intimacy that can exist is unlike any other in the known universe. And yet, church attendance and belief in Joseph Smith seems to Trump it for some believers.

Ohhh and thanks for those who helped to clarify my thoughts! :-)

~dancer~

In case anyone is interested... I have a blog about intimacy... http://theartofintimacy.blogspot.com

In my experience, polygamy is not looked upon as a reward by LDS men of my acquaintence. It's looked upon as a burden they may be required to shoulder. And it's looked upon by their wives as something to avoid thinking about at all costs.

Most LDS marriages I know about are healthy, loving relationships. They're also fraught with fantasies about "forever with our children". Balderdash. Their children will not be children. They'll be adults, and their children will be adults. There will be no children in the CK. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not studied it enough.

Even though the relationships are often harried and lives seem like they're lived at a frantic pace, I find that most (not all... I know of some spectacular divorces that resulted from Dad always being off at some church meeting and Mom at home with 6-8-10 kids)... most marriages weather that kind of storm. And if the relationship is built on solid foundation of respect and love, the partners can work out compromises that allow the relationship to stand. But the idea that there need not be any compromise, that church callings always Trump family needs, is just balderdash, and deserves to be kicked to the curb.

[_moksha]

Sometimes when you look around at all the housework, wouldn't it be nice to have a couple of wives? I imagine even single women could appreciate this.

[_Gazelam]

After all the headbuting I seem to do with Harmony, she posts something I agree with:

"Even though the relationships are often harried and lives seem like they're lived at a frantic pace, I find that most (not all... I know of some spectacular divorces that resulted from Dad always being off at some church meeting and Mom at home with 6-8-10 kids)... most marriages weather that kind of storm. And if the relationship is built on solid foundation of respect and love, the partners can work out compromises that allow the relationship to stand. But the idea that there need not be any compromise, that church callings always Trump family needs, is just balderdash, and deserves to be kicked to the curb."

In the biography recently written on Bruce R. McConkie, there is a whole section devoted to finding a balance. As busy as a person can be in the church, imagine that as an Apostle. That was something he worked on, manageing time between responsibilities and family. I know that my Bishop is a Bishop on Sundays and Thursdays. Other than that hes a dentist and a Dad. Add to that mix being a Husband. Sometimes its hard to find the time, but there is time for intimacy between a husband and wife. I have never heard a testimony given by those who worked near the apostles of there being a gap or rift between an Apostle and his wife, quite the opposite. The testimonies I hear of a deep and abideing Love, and their wives being a part of their being. I have no doubt that Pres. Hinkley looks forward to the tiem he will reunite with his wife.

[_harmony]

After all the headbuting I seem to do with Harmony, she posts something I agree with:

"Even though the relationships are often harried and lives seem like they're lived at a frantic pace, I find that most (not all... I know of some spectacular divorces that resulted from Dad always being off at some church meeting and Mom at home with 6-8-10 kids)... most marriages weather that kind of storm. And if the relationship is built on solid foundation of respect and love, the partners can work out compromises that allow the relationship to stand. But the idea that there need not be any compromise, that church callings always Trump family needs, is just balderdash, and deserves to be kicked to the curb."

In the biography recently written on Bruce R. McConkie, there is a whole section devoted to finding a balance. As busy as a person can be in the church, imagine that as an Apostle. That was something he worked on, manageing time between responsibilities and family. I know that my Bishop is a Bishop on Sundays and Thursdays. Other than that hes a dentist and a Dad. Add to that mix being a Husband. Sometimes its hard to find the time, but there is time for intimacy between a husband and wife. I have never heard a testimony given by those who worked near the apostles of there being a gap or rift between an Apostle and his wife, quite the opposite. The testimonies I hear of a deep and abideing Love, and their wives being a part of their being. I have no doubt that Pres. Hinkley looks forward to the tiem he will reunite with his wife.

You act like being an apostle is somehow different from being an executive of any multi-billion dollar business. Do you honestly think they're any different? Except that, if the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company is also LDS, he's got at least one and likely two or three callings he's doing, in addition to his job. So the CEO is actually busier than the apostle.