Thursday, November 15, 2007

Masturbation

Disclaimer - as I have recently been misquoted on another site I am declaring here that this article nowhere claims that masturbation causes cancer. I am surprised at the amount of responses that the opposing post received, considering that not one of his followers upon reading my article noticed that flaw in the claim of the writer. _ end of Disclaimer

This is a much debated, but highly important subject. General Authorites of the church are now speaking out more than ever before against masturbation. This is good, but many remain uncertain themselves or what to say to those involved.

Health
I only mention this subject as it is a point to keep in mind and to get it out of the way first, as it is the least important.

I remember seeing a picture of a guy with thick dark rings around his eyes from masturbation, and reading of people having to be locked up in mental institutions due to their constant need to masturbate. Of course people will say, "well that's not me." Yet on the other side it could be argued that those in the mental institutions would have originally said the same. It is true, however, that the vaste majority don't end up in institutions.

Additionally I should mention that there are those who's genitals get damaged by this at times.

Bad health can begin to occur within the body by having to restore liquids, used in the process, so often. This is also a problem for young people in the stages of growth. Long term health problems would obviously eventually derive from this taxing of resources during the growth period. It would equally cause problems for those getting older where their body is working to keep healthy in spite of deteriation. In fact there is no age at which this isn't an issue to some degree or other.

But these health issues are minor matters compared to the overall problems.

Social
Pornography places emphasis on people as objects. One reason is because you don't communicate with the person in the photo/movie. I once asked a rapist how it was that he could treat a person that way. He said it was because at that point he saw her as an object, not as a person. Pornography and masturbation create this thinking. People masturbating will probably be unaware of the more subtle changes that this has made in relationships with others. However those changes are there. We are a product of all our actions and thinking. we can't just do or think things negative about mankind and not have some negative effect. Strong feelings are produced during masturbation and the feelings prior. Many pornographic views don't show the person's face at all. For these reasons a person masturbating is less likely to appeal to the gender they wish to create a relationship with, as there will be a deeper sense of seeing that person as an object. This will diminish the human feelings the person would otherwise demonstrate naturally. Therefore less appeal to the other person: The person won't sense good respect.

Secretive
People buying pornography generally will be secretive about it. They may hide it from family and friends. There is a sneaking around when buying it, making sure that no one they know sees them. Then they hide their actions in using it. This deception shows also. Our character is effected by our actions and feelings, whether we like it or not. This deceptive part of our nature comes out in our relationships with others also. If we are honest in everything else people may find us honest overall. But it still will have a negative effect. As this shows in relationships with family and friends, and these are places where all negative effects should be disposed of, masturbation can destroy important relationships we already have.

Another problem relative to secrecy is that it can grow. Adultery is a possible outcome. Masturbation encourages having sexual feelings for anyone displaying sexual parts. People with religious feelings don't usually plan to become an adulterer. It comes as a part of having secret feelings.

Under age sex offences are another possible outcome of such secrecy. In spite of the false propaganda, most child sex offenders (at least those dealing with someone 8-years-old and above) are not habitual offenders. I also remember noting on a 60 Minutes program that there is only about a 6 % recidivism (re-offender) rate for child sex offenders. So child sex offences aren't generally performed by some strange breed of person. They can happen by secrecy and being drawn to sexual parts (a product of masturbation). There is often this feeling of a secret romantic relationship between the offender and the child.

Everyone does it?
I have often heard the joke that there are only 2 types of people, those who admit they masturbate and those who are lying. I can assure all readers that this is false. I don't, and I know many who don't. I have no problems with this. My wife died young and I haven't had any sexual action for many years. I don't miss it at all. Not because I couldn't, but I understand the spiritual aspect of this, which I will come to.

God's Opinion
Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Galatians 5:16 "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."

Galatians 5:24 "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

James 1:15 "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

Doctrine & Covenants 88:121 "Therefore, cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings."

Our Spirit
By "our spirit" I'm referring to that which is otherwise referred to as our "heart". This is by far the most significant factor. This area creates the question, "lust - good or bad?"

When a person gets on to a roller-coaster they take a ride which causes fear in their spirit. Their spirit comes to life more by this fear. People confuse this and call it "exhilarating" or "exciting". They want to go and do it again for this feeling. However if they actually inteviewed their spirit it would plead with them not to do it again.

Our heads are bad when it comes to interpreting our hearts. We feel strong sensations and interpret them. But is our interpretation correct? I remember the song, "there's a fine line between pleasure and pain". The truth is that there is no line between sexual pleasure and pain. People will sometimes use pain to increase sexual "pleasure". Some will go to great lengths with this. As ridiculous as it may sound to you, that feeling a person lusting interprets as "pleasure" is your spirit in pain. Increasing physical pain increases the spirits' pain sensation. To really come to see the truth of what I am claiming a person would need to start listening to their heart properly. This requires a process. Firstly a person would have to cease all sexual fantasies. Your mind is yours - don't forget that. Every time you begin to have a sexual fantasy you can either change it to a romantic fantasy where the heart feels the romance. Or you can make it a spiritual fantasy where you do wonderful, spiritual works for others and share heart feelings with them. Or, for that matter, you can do both these, as you wish. Seek to become one with your heart. Listen to it. Eventually you will begin to have communication, and you will come to understand yourself.

Children can be produced without lust, don't let the devil con you on that one. A beautiful relationship will exist between husband and wife. Getting rid of lust will increase the love in a marriage beyond belief. Try God's way and you will see it works, no matter how crazy it may sound. That is what we call "faith".

If you feel you need further assistance, read the whole of my article in "Masturbation; giving it up" - the link is at the top of the page ("Masturbation Problems").

158 comments:

Ryan said...

You spelled it wrong!

Doug Towers said...

ryan

I see you mean the spelling in the heading. Thanks for that. It has been corrected.

CoriAnton said...

I don't even know where to start with this:

"...speaking out more than ever"??? I think that this is a ridiculous statement. Masturbation was mentioned much more in years past than it is today. Pornography indeed is the subject of many a GA discourse, but masturbation is hardly spoken of at all in recent years. (the last reference in general conference that I could find was Pres. Kimbal in '85)

Health issues? Sorry, but the medical community as completely rejected the notion that there are negative physical effects of masturbation. Victorian era doctors thought so, that's not in question. But to suggest that such is the case is to question the entire medical establishment. (which is certainly your right, but I think it's pretty ridiculous for you to expect anyone to believe you anecdotal experience with "seeing a picture of a guy" who had masturbated.
*I'll grant you that some techniques of masturbation could feasibly result in some kind of damage to genitals, but this, in my opinion, is a call for better education about masturbation, not telling people it is harful per se.

* I also find your idea that "having to resore liquids" will result in long term health problems to be ludicrous. The volume of fluid lost in ejaculation is miniscule. (not to mention it can easily be replaced... drink some water) What's more, is recent studies are showing that frequent masturbation, particularly in teens and twenties, results in a decreased risk for prostate cancer. The proposed mechanism is that seminal fluid is concentrated, and the longer it just sits there, it has more time to do harm. Frequent (5x/week) ejaculation tends to flush things out, lowering incidence of prostate cancer. (scientists think a similar thing is happening with the decreased risk for breast cancer in women who breastfeed)

CoriAnton said...

Ok... On to the Social aspect.

"Pornography places an emphasis on people as objects"

Finally, we agree on something. I absolutely agree that pornography can alter the way men view women, and have adverse effects on them.
However, there is nothing that automatically ties masturbation to porn. One can happily masturate ones entire life without ever viewing, or desiring to view pornography. They don't need to go together, so I fail to see this as a reason to look down on masturbation either, just look down on/discourage porn use.

Secretive

I have secrets. Every endowed member of the church has things they keep secret. I don't believe that secrecy has anything to do with the moral value of something. It makes no sense. Should garments be viewed as evil, since members buy them in secret (only endowed members are allowed into that part of the distribution center I go to), they keep them hidden from others (when I change at the gym, I don't walk around in my garments for all to see, how 'bout you?), etc.
Just because something is secret doesn't mean one has to be deceptive, and it doesn't mean there is anything evil going on.

"...masturbation encourages having sexual feelings toward anyone displaying sexual parts." Actually, I think hormones do that, but what I think you mean here is porn, not masturbation. Have you ever considered that masturbation can be an expression of "self-love." It need not be directed at anyone else (real, imagined, etc). It can be focused entirely on self, and the pleasure that derives from it, much like eating a delicious piece of chocolate cake.

As far as masturbation leading to pedophilia, the proposition is absurd. Just because most pedophiles who abuse a child previously masturbated (ie correlation) doesn't mean that it lead to it (causation). One might as easily suggest that eating carrots causes trafic fatalities, because most people who die in car accidents had previously eaten carrots (some probably habitually!!).

As far as the everyone does it goes, I think not all people do. I think that all people with normally operating sex drives, who lack other sexual outlest do. (with, I submit, some possible very rare exceptions) But you, like myself, are in no postition to say that you KNOW many others who don't. How would you know that, if this is a private, secretive activity? And for all I know, you are suffering from a sexual desire disorder, that, if you were in a sexual relationship, would actually be causing you and your partner a great deal of distress. But, maybe you're just that one that has chosen not to. That's an impressive amount of will power, but still does nothing to show that there is something wrong with the vast majority that do engage in masturbation at some point in there lives.

CoriAnton said...

For the rest:

Matt 4:28 - I think I've cleared this up already above... masturbation does not have to have anything to do with lusting after another person.

Gal 5:16,24 - Lust is "a strong desire, especially of a sexual nature." (wiktionary) I really don't think that Paul is telling people that they should not fulfill any of their sexual desires. He's using it to tell people to control them, and not fulfil those aimed at people with whom they are not married.

James - same thing

D&C 88:121 - again, just as He is not commanding us never to laugh, but rather against innappropriate laughter, I don't think the Lord is condemning all sexual desire (since He is the one that created it, so that man would leave father & mother, etc) such as the one between husband & wife. Here, he is condemning, like He did in Matt 5, lusting for illicit sex. I think that is the dividing line. If fulfilling our lustful desires would be breaking the commandments, then we are lusting innapropriately, and sinning as Jesus said.

Spirit - Just so you know, when a person rides a roller coaster, that exilerating feeling is caused the release of neurotransmitters and hormones. It's a physical process. I don't know where you find the basis for your idea that my spirit is shrieking in pain when I go bungee jumping, or go rock climbing, or do anything else to get an adrenaline rush. It's a healthy, physical process, not the spirit being tortured.


I'm curious as to how you define lust. And I'm curios as to why on earth you believe that a "person would have to cease all sexual fantasies." I'm curious to whether you are married. Sexual fantasies (about one's spouse; shared & explored with one's spouse) can be a wonderful part of a beautiful sexual relationship in marriage.

As far as putting things to the test, I completely agree. I recounted my own experience of doing so here: http://randomramblingsaboutstuff.blogspot.com/2008/11/so.html

I'd encourage everyone to do likewise when presented with this topic. Study it out. Reason with it. See what makes sense. Then put it to the test. See what fruit comes of it. For me, I found much greater peace and happiness when I let the guilt imposed by society go... I let my own heart look to learning from God... and he helped me come to a conclusion that I feel is right.

Doug Towers said...

CoriAnton

Thanks for your comments. I will answer them as soon as possible - most likely early next week. Sorry about the delay.

Doug Towers said...

CoriAnton

You raise some interesting perspectives.

To answer your question I would define the lust I'm referring to as any base feeling related to desire or greed for the flesh on sexual grounds.

My post is directed at those practicing masturbation outside of marriage. Obviously situations may arise in a marriage where it could be regarded to be better for partners to masturbate each other than for adultery to occur. And therefore perhaps you are right that I should have narrowed the focus to qualify that I'm referring to masturbation without love - something that I think you would agree that pornography would incorporate.

In regard what you are talking about, I have not been in the situation, nor have I met anyone that I know is. I would refer you to my thesis on lust as recorded at Sex Problems I think you should read that and prayerfully consider its application to you.

My point in regard liquids wasn't about fluid itself (apparently I should have made that more clear), but about the contents of the fluid that needed to be restored. Some masturbate many times in a day. I don't think you would regard that they can successfully maintain good health and yet replace the contents of the fluids that easily. These types of problems are those I'm referring to. Keeping a post at a readable size while covering such a subject does pose some problems. The point I am making is true even if I didn't go into full explanation.

The medical community proposing that masturbation is healthy is a strange one to raise. Do you really believe that they or any organisation run by people in the community of today couldn't possibly have an ulterior motive for presenting such a concept? If I quoted Hugh Hefner stating that pornography was good, and that he had scientists that said so, what would you say? Apparently you aren't aware that "modern science" can prove anything that you have the money for them to prove it with. You just need to contact Professor M. T. Munni-Bags of the Fundus Institute for Unemployed Scientists. A sad reflection on real science.

However, you are right that producing children should be being practiced by those in their teens and twenties for greater health. That is no doubt one reason why so many civilisations married and still marry at more sensible ages than we do. And that women should breast feed, where possible. And God knew this also.

This doesn't mean that masturbation should be practiced instead. Or that women should milk themselves to relieve them of the chance of getting cancer. That is entirely the wrong answer.

I don't think I would stand in much fear of contradiction with reality if I declared that at least almost everyone who masturbates, lusts in the process. So I can't see the point in venturing too far away from that stream. Furthermore in the beginning God gave the purpose of sexual activity, by saying to be fruitful and multiply. And while Paul adds to that the dangers of adultery, for some people, I would pose that we should raise ourselves spiritually beyond such a level if we hope to achieve eternal life.

The reality is that there are people who can't control themselves even in public. They will masturbate anywhere. Some of these are put away in institutions. So you can't completely white-wash masturbation as an innocent bystander.

The more you scratch something the more it itches. The only way to end the itch is to go through the tough time of resisting to scratch. And then the itchy feeling will become less and less until it is rare if at all. So it is with masturbation.

In regard secrets. A wise person once said that if you tell no lies you don't have to remember anything. Secrets are very damaging of relationships. I note that you don't deny secrecy relative to masturbation, but merely endeavour to justify it. Obviously some secrets exist that shouldn't be exposed for the good of those involved. But to keep a continual secret with constant building to the secret IS damaging. And as to the fact that you keep your temple experiences secret, they aren't a secret from all others attending the temple. So it isn't really a great secret. In fact you can read it on the internet.

You've stated
"As far as masturbation leading to pedophilia, the proposition is absurd."

While I don't actually disagree that it CAN contribute to it, I said,
"Under age sex offences are another possible outcome of such secrecy." In fact pedophile psychological education programs include this point regarding secrecy. So I'm not alone in that opinion.

That riding a roller coaster produces physical effects FROM the emotional effects isn't in dispute. Surely you aren't proposing that the risk factor has nothing to do with the "adrenaline rush" you mention? So obviously some part of you is responding to the risk. I'm presenting that it is your spirit, and why.

To answer some of your concerns in regard me, I have had children, but my wife died young, of cancer.

Years ago I (not having been raised a member of the church I had no understanding of these things) spent a year and a half studying the effects of giving up masturbation and sexual fantasies, in the process of doing so. I did this at the insistence of Heavenly Father himself. Then I spent time analysing my spirit's feelings of the whole issue upon conclusion. The Holy Ghost was also heavily involved in this over a year and a half examination with me. Some of this is based on that examination and such of others in the problem.

And while it may seem strange to you I actually DO KNOW that certain people don't masturbate, without having to sit on their shoulder all day. I know many such people (almost all of them being in the church, of course). How I know is that I can feel their spirit. Our spirits are made up of a collection of feelings on all subjects. It could be defined as a type of bar graph with all areas being at different levels. I can go in as far as I wish. Generally all I'm interested in doing is going in and seeing all the nice things - its uplifting. But in the process I know levels of sex problems in people or absence thereof.

I have only been able to do this since coming to understand that lust of the flesh is in opposition to our spirit's happiness, and therefore ceasing sexual desires and fantasies.

I have absolutely NO problem with leaving lust alone. I actually detest it as a dark side emotion. I can say that in the last ten years (since my wife died) I have felt feelings based on sex appeal on only 3 occassions. Yet my own sense tells me what the end of pursuing such feelings is - lust. So I just regard those as minor hickups in my continued pursuit of a totally balanced existence. Your mind and body are yours. Just program them for what you want. Knowledge is freedom.

As to sexual fantasies, these create unrealistic expectations and additionally set sex focus on the physical experience rather than the spiritual experience. Celestial sex isn't about physical "pleasure" (which I know to be a great illusion, not the pleasure that is interpreted by the head) but producing children. If people understood this there would be no questions of homosexual and lesbian marriages. In fact there would be no question of homosexuality and lesbainism at all. There would be no beastiality nor bondage with people hurting themselves to add to the "pleasure."

Both men and women go into marriages with unrealistic expectations. This is one major reason for divorce. Adultery is one likely outcome of such expectations. Can one women really fulfill all your sexual expectations? While she may for a time that will soon change, where the physical has been such a focus. Another backside looks more interesting. A blond may look more appealing. A red-head, brunette or black hair. And you can even divide between styles there. Its the 5 minute wonder syndrome. Well has God warned to ignore the physical and concentrate on the spiritual.

I can testify to the wonderful freedom I feel not being bound by lust. My life has been GREATLY improved since ceasing such desires.

CoriAnton said...

I would absolutely agree that masturbating to pornography is wrong... however, that is because porography use is wrong.

Regarding fluids, I actually would maintain that ejaculating multiple times a day need not necessarily be harmful to health. I have no reason to believe that replacing the fluids (or its contents) poses any problem for the human body. However, I'd be more than willing to change my mind if you know of any evidence to the contrary. (Note - I'm not saying someone with a sex or masturbation addiction doesn't have any problems... just that I doubt, due to lack of any evidence, that there is any physical harm done in ejaculating frequently, particularly in trying to replace the fluids)

To the doubting medicine/science idea:
Sure, big tobacco did come out with all kinds of studies that showed no increased health issues... but their studies were seriously flawed, from a scientific viewpoint.
Ulterior motives could come in to masturbation studies, I suppose. But where's the "big tobacco" when it comes to masturbation? Where's the multi-million dollar coorperation trying to get people to masturbate? Why on earth would all the evil doctors and scientists have such a motive? Why would they want you to masturbate?
And should we reject anything that science tells us then? Instead, we should accept what? The medical opinion of ages past about the dangers of "onanism"? Why? For years, medicine believed that masturbation lead to insanity, weakness, etc. Numerous studies have failed to show any link between masturbation and insanity (or all the other alleged ills). What evidence is there to the contrary?
What's more, I'd be much more skeptical (don't worry, I'm very skeptical by nature to start with) of a study that did show a link between masturbation and "pick your own physical problem" precisely because of ulterior motives. I see it much more likely for ulterior motives being involved there than the other way around? What reason do people, outside the church (who don't see anything morally wrong with extramarital sex) have to trick us into thinking masturbation is not unhealthy?
I think we should treat new studies with skepticism. For example, I recently saw a paper that suggests that increased availibility of pornography tends to lead to decreased rates of violent sexual crimes. Now, that goes against what I would guess, but I can see a plausible mechanism. Now, just because it decreases rape doesn't necessarily make it a good thing for society. Likewise, just because I'm saying there's no reason to believe masturbation is physically harmful doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. Physically harmful has nothing to do with whether it is morally acceptable. (I happen to believe it's also morally ok, but that needn't be the case)

Most people lust while masturbating... sure. But just because most people swear while playing basketball (in my experience, it's a near universal way of expressing frustration in sports) doesn't make basketball evil. If you want to call lust a sin, call it that. But that doens't mean masturbation has to fall in with it.

God did command Adam to be fruitful & multiply. This was before the fall, before he became carnal & devilish. But God created in him a sexual, desire for his wife, so that he would leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife." I think that sexual desire is a good thing, created by God in us, and after His own image. I disagree that this desire is something we need to rise above to acheive eternal life. I do not believe God sent us down here to have a physical experience that is completely removed from the physical lives we'll live hereafter. We are not going to become mere spiritual beings. There is a resurrection, for which I'm incredibly grateful.

In my own experience, I've found that masturbating can be a wholesome, lustless experience, enjoyed for the physical release it provides. I'm in no need of pornography, or fantasies about others. I have everything I need right here with me.
I have found that masturbation allowed me to think much less about sex, to lust less than I did during long periods of abstinence. In that, I see Paul's council to married couples regarding adultery to apply to singles avoiding fornication by solo masturbation...
But, to each his own. I still encourage all to follow Jesus council, to put the word to a test. Measure it by its fruits. Judge whether it is of the Father, or if I, you, or anyone else who speaks on the issue, speak of myself.
When I did this, I came to the conclusion that masturbation is not, in fact, wrong. That Pres. Kimball, Pres. Packer and others were speaking based on cultural conditioning, rather than revelation. I wouldn't take my word over theirs, if I were you, but rather, put it to the test. That is what I did. Try masturbating. Try abstinence. See which helps you to be more spiritual, to feel happy, to improve yourself. For me, it was masturbation.
Best of Luck to all...
CoriAnton
http://randomramblingsaboutstuff.blogspot.com/2008/11/so.html

Doug Towers said...

CoriAnton

My internet time is limited, but I'll hopefully get a reply posted in a couple of days.

Again, sorry about the delay. This subject requires more than a quick answer.

Doug Towers said...

CoriAnton

In regard the fluids, I am actually speaking from experience. Even early on in the problem, I noted that although the first and second times masturbation was performed the fluid was thick, successive times within the same day demonstrated thinner and thinner fluid. This showed me that my body wasn't able to keep up with such a pace restoring the contents. This means a sapping of energy that should have been used in my growth, at that point of my life. And while this became obvious by this situation, clearly the body has to keep replacing it whenever masturbation occurs, regardless of how often that may be.

In regard medicine and science. The ulterior motive for such sexual justifications is to appease a person's own conscience (head knowledge isn't required for a person to know that lust is wrong). That, along with sustaining a person's own belief, would be the most common reasons why people attempt to prove things.

In regard the studies claiming that increased pornography lessens the amount of sex crimes, I would pose several points. Firstly I remember a suburb where the crime went through the roof, but amazingly the crime statistics dropped. Why, I asked myself? I realised, upon observation, that people weren't reporting the crimes because they had lost confidence that anything would be achieved by doing so. The Police response was that you could make some paperwork if you wished. So lower statistics don't necessarily mean lower occurrences.

But I would also be interested to see how you could possibly conduct such an experiment. That sounds like a lot of rubbish to me.

People such as Hugh Hefner and some psychiatrists proposed, in the late 60's and early 70's particularly, that allowing pornography would eliminate sexual crimes, due to masturbation relief. Hmmm.

It is true that by the fall, man became an enemy to righteousness. Yet King Benjamin says that is only the case if we don't yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and put OFF the natural man and become a saint through the atonement of Christ (see Mos 3:19).

To quote Spencer W. Kimball, "God did not give man sex for a play thing." [Though I note you don't hold to all his opinions].

The natural feeling that is used for a man to get a woman pregnant doesn't have to be used in a lustful way. So you can't make God an advocate of lustful sex just because we are capable of such. That would equally make him guilty of advocating rape, based on the same logic. You, yourself, are presenting that sexual expression without lust is quite simple.

You've said
"But God created in him a sexual, desire for his wife, so that he would leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife."

But the Scripture that you are quoting says that the reason for this was because woman was taken out of man and they are one flesh (see Gen 2:23-24). Nothing about sexual desire.

The purpose of women, as recorded in Genesis, is that a man needs to have someone facing him from the opposite direction. Simplified in English as "help meet." In other words someone to view things from the perspective that men don't view them from. And women don't view things from the perspective that men do. That is an advantage IF USED PROPERLY.

No doubt this opposite also is relevant to the mating process for the having of children. But, again, nothing about fulfilling lustful desires is stated.

You have said, in regard yourself, that, "I have everything I need right here with me." But God says that you don't. You need a wife, CoriAnton. Having children. That is what sex is for. Yet you state regarding masturbation, that it is something that "helps you to be more spiritual, to feel happy, to improve yourself."

This is a claim far beyond your original claim of just helping you get by. Masturbating helps you be more spiritual???? Making a physical act to scratch a physical itch makes you feel more spiritual? Have you thought about the logic of that statement?

What you are doing is temporarily extinguishing the lusts of the flesh, by masturbating, and therefore you are noting your spirit more afterward, NOT improving your spirit. There is a vast difference. This is an illusion. The reality is quite the opposite. You are doing things to serve the flesh. Therefore your spirit is less happy in that process. The spiritual is being ignored and the physical is being served. You should read the link I have given you on my last comment.

Corianton, whom I note you are named after, brought iniquity upon the Zoramites by his conduct relative to sex (Alma 39:11). I see not only does this idea you are presenting affect you, but those reading your ideas that you are advocating.

The logic of your idea could make us present that pornography is alright provided you aren't lusting the women. Also we could say that it is alright to lay naked with a women and rub up against her, provided you don't lust her in the process. It could even be argued that if we use a condom no one will get pregnant, and if you don't lust each other, we could just have sex with anyone as a natural release, where two benefit rather than just one.

While all these arguments are logical, they are spiritually irrational. They are contrary to building happy relationships. They are contrary to our spirit's joy. Masturbation is still rubbing an itch that should be ignored. With ignoring it the itch will, in time, pass. I extremely rarely have any such feelings. And on those rare occassions, I know where it leads, so leave it alone. There is no need for strange compromises.

CoriAnton said...

Oh... I see what you mean about the fluids. Sure, you don't have an endless supply of semen, no question. And yes, when you ejaculate, through whatever means you choose, the quantity and quality of the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th one in row will be different. However, I think the idea that it sapped you energy, keeping you from growing properly is silly. There's never been any evidence whatsoever that this is the case. (if you know of any, be sure to let me know) However, this argument would be the same whether you're talking about sex, nocturnal emision, or masturbation. Does sex sap energy too, should it be avoided to ensure proper stores of energy are availible for other purposes?

So you're saying that all the researchers who haven't been able to find a negative physical consequence to masturbating were unable because they didn't want there to be one. THey wanted the studies to show it was healthy to appease their own consciences... and there hasn't been a single researcher that has been able to show that there is such a negative effect... is there no one in science with an intact conscience Doug?

I never did claim that porn reduces rape, though I suppose it is possible. The studies weren't experiments... they were observational studies following changes in gov't policies regarding restriction on porn.

Regarding Pres. Kimball.. absolutely not. I don't hold all of his opinions. Do you? Do you hold all of the opinions of all the prophets and apostles... all the former ones? Personally, I don't believe that's possible, considering how often the disagree with one another. But no, I don't agree with Pres. Kimball that it is an abomination for a woman to wear shorts. Or a lot of other things. Do I believe he was a prophet... Absolutely. That doesn't mean every thing he thinks is correct.

I'd reply to the rest, but alas, I'm out of time...

Doug Towers said...

CoriAnton

If no researcher ever found some reason why he felt that masturbation created problems, that would be suspicious of itself. There are always scientists who disagree with other scientists. That is the point Paul made about "science falsely so called." Science means to know, in Latin. And they speculate from assumption upon assumption. And then present you with the "evidence."
My belief in so called "scientists" is far less than yours in Spencer W. Kimball's opinions.

I realised that you didn't claim support for the idea of porn reducing rape. I only answered it as you raised the issue of there being those who believed so.

Anonymous said...

There are both social and medical issues with masterbation.

Socially it can rob you of self confidence in dealing with members of the opposite sex. Exposure to too much pornography can change the way you perceive them, even if you do not want it to happen.

Medically there are no serious issues, as most 'experts' will tell you, but if done excessively it DOES lead to enlarged veins (blood vessal dilation). These will probably be on the penis, but may also show in the eyes.

The eyes have a series of capiliaries that can become obviously enlarged by excessive masterbation. The skin underneath the eyes may also become darker (dark rings)as it is quite thin generally (and so more likely to show vein dilation).

Another potential issue is varicocele and arterial hypertension, you can google those.

This gradual process of blood vessel dilation is the main medical issue, and is more unsightly rather than damaging. If you happen to have high blood pressure the problems with dilation may be more apparant.

So ignore EVERYONE who says that masterbation cannot cause any medical problems. It can.

Dyson said...

Doug Towers,
Is it a sin to masturbate while thinking of your wife? You're married to here and you would be remembering her, you would be internally expressing how much you love her.
Don't you think of your wife sexually? Do you block those thoughts out?

Doug Towers said...

Dyson

This is a good point to raise. Thanks for the question.

Masturbation puts a focus on the physical. It is an interesting point in regard physical vs spiritual marriages and sex. I would strongly recommend to you entirely spiritual marriage. However that is a bit of a challenge to our usual way of thinking. To adjust to the idea takes time.

But certainly I would strongly recommend to you abstaining from masturbation as a first step, in making a spiritual marriage. Even though she is your wife, physical focus is damaging of your spirit.

Your love for your wife, and hers for you, will expand enormously if you move away from any inclination to see your wife as there to provide sexual relief or "fulfilment."

Genesis speaks against lusts of the flesh. Love helps to cushion the effect of lust within a relationship. But the effect is still there.

I know it may be new to you but sex within marriage can be done with absolutely no lust or attention to the physical whatsoever.

Attaining this situation will bring you both a joy beyond your wildest belief. You would never look back.

Yet in regard to answering your question plainly _ If Heavenly Father were writing to you he would say to abstain from masturbation.

Anonymous said...

Doug, I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with your last comment regarding a physical vs. spiritual marriage. Demonizing the physical aspect of love, marriage, and sexuality is not in line with the high importance our religion places on physicality. We believe our Father has a physical body and we look forward to the day when we will have an eternal and incorruptible physical body. You don't have to shun the physical to be edified spiritually. The permanent union of a physical body with our spirit is what will constitute our immortal souls in the hereafter. I believe God would want us to enjoy and relish in the very physical wonders that sex with our spouse provides; doing that increases our spirituality. They are not mutually exclusive, but instead complementary.

Doug Towers said...

Anonamous

I appreciate your comments. Looking at what you have expressed_

"Demonizing the physical aspect of love, marriage, and sexuality is not in line with the high importance our religion places on physicality."

I am not demonizing any of these 3 aspects. I am happy with cuddling and kissing a wife. I am happy with a man having sex with his wife. It is only lusts of the flesh that oppose the happiness of our inner being.

Consider this point, God has to hold worlds together. Do you see him doing so while in the process of a great, physically centred, orgasm?

Todd said...

"Consider this point, God has to hold worlds together. Do you see him doing so while in the process of a great, physically centred, orgasm?"

YES - He is constantly (eternally) in the process of creation. I grant you that he does not have any lustful thoughts, but I'm certain that he enjoys having children.

I think it is dangerous for you to speak for God as you did in your comment, "If Heavenly Father were writing to you he would say to abstain from masturbation."

I appreciate that you have a strong opinion in this matter, but your are not a prophet - you are not authorized to publish doctrine to the masses on God's behalf. It destroyed your credibility for me.

Finally, the path you are following is too close to celebacy for my comfort.

Your intelectuallized version of intamacy and complete self-mastery of all things sexual appears to have cost you some very funadamental human joys. Your arguments crush the life out of passion, excitement and romance.

There seems to be no fire in your life. Somebody needs to light a candle under you. I hope you find her soon.

I favor the man who is full of fire, and masterbates a little when it gets too hot, over the man who puts his fire out altogether and grows cold and lonely.

Doug Towers said...

Todd

Thanks for sharing your feelings on the matter. You raise some points worth discussion.

Firstly I would say that while I may not be the President of the Church type "prophet" I certainly am a prophet. I have had many prophesies that have come to pass and discussion with the Father directly.

I know I can speak on his behalf in that he and I have spoken face-to-face on this subject.

You are right that otherwise it would be foolish to make such a claim. And in making such a statement I can only speak for myself, that I know what he would say. I do state at the top of my site that I don't speak as an official church site.

As to no-one putting a candle under me. Thanks for your concerns. But I have a most wonderful relationship with a woman presently, whom I feel walks on water.

She sends her love through me and it touches every part of my heart. I feel the depth of her spiritual love for me. Her romantic love for me. And her human love for me.

Nothing lust has touches this stuff. It is sheer ecstasy. The physical only detracts from the spiritual. Only by ignoring the physical can the spiritual come fully alive.

Give up masturbation, and find a life far beyong your imagination; is my advice to you and all.

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand you correctly - denial of the physical corresponds to greater spirituality? While there may be some truths to be found in this, as a whole it is a poor philosophy of man to be mingling with scripture.

I do not know how familiar you are with Gnosticism, an early Christian movement that stated that material or physical things are evil, and that only by shedding the physical can we return to the true (Spirit) God, who, in Gnostic belief, has no body. All things physical are corrupt, and any emotion tied to physical sensation is in and of itself evil. In their view, to embrace the physical is to deny the spiritual.

This is clearly contrary to revealed doctrine, as the Lord declared in D&C 88:15, "The spirit and the body are the soul of man." (Emphasis mine.) If God has a body, then He experiences all the passions that come with that body in their pure and undefiled form.

Remember that the flesh cannot be made perfect without the spirit, neither the spirit without the flesh, to paraphrase the scripture. And in my opinion, we do not deserve the privilege of our bodies in the resurrection (even though resurrection is universal) if we do not learn to accept them, understand them, and experience them as God intended.

I understand that if I categorized your arguments as Gnostic, it would be setting up a straw man. However you should seriously examine whether or not they are leaning that way.

As for the specifics of the argument concerning masturbation, I will withhold my personal comments for the time being.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

You have presented some interesting initial thoughts.

Firstly I have to agree with you that I don't take the concept as do Gnostics, though there is leaning in that direction.

However you do seem to be questioning just how far I am taking it. And your comments really are a challenge to totally analyse just where it starts and stops in every regard: A subject which could go on forever.

Nevertheless I will attempt to make my feelings a little more clear.

Paul presents the necessity to remove body control from our decisions: That our (and the Holy) spirit must decide. He states that this allows us to become spiritual and overcome the urge to sin.

I fully agree with his statements. Of course we need to listen to our bodies in regard food etc.

In regard sex within marriage, I have refrained from qualifying my whole thoughts on the matter deliberately. However some have read my feelings as being obvious. Yet I don't oppose sex within marriage. I oppose lust within marriage. I believe in making love. - literally: A beautiful and heart (spirit) created experience. And I know this is what God does.

It must be remembered, however, that I'm not presenting this concept; but that people should cease masturbation.

Anonymous said...

Is it completely wrong if you happen to release juices while you're looking at pictures of your wife?

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

Are you speaking of pornographic pictures? If so then it isn't good.

The point really comes down to you not lusting. Lust is degrading to your spirit. It focuses on the flesh. We need to rise above the flesh and live in the spirit.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to leave a small note concerning the human fluids. Sex/masturbation too many times a day can and does cause serious damage to the body over extended periods. When working with Rape victims in human trafficking where they are used as sex slaves the victim usually will not survive for long. True that most are not to this extreme but this is what causes a breakdown in the body- whether fast or slow. Also, when rape victim or another victim gets out of these situations often they masturbate and are still promiscuous. In cases of masturbating at the same level I have found it has the exact same affect on the body.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

Thanks for your thoughts

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Doug. I ENJOY LUSTING AFTER MY WIFE! You need to read the book "And They Were Not Ashamed," which is written by a Church member who works as a counselor. If I didn't LUST after the wife, I'd either have the wrong sexual orientation or have a lack of hormonal balance. I do not consideration masturbation to the wife as a sin, and think is actually a fun practice. You ought to try it with your spouse sometime-- you never know, you might even enjoy it. I love it!

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

I have experienced it with my wife (though she has passed away).

As to your feelings on the matter; you are entitled to yours and I'm entitled to mine. It is something I have examined from both sides.

Yet as Paul has said in regard such things, that if, as you say, you would have problems with it you should act as you feel, and it is acceptable within marriage.

Anonymous said...

Your comments on masturbation seem to
be out of tune with the spirit.

If a man an women love one another and they engage in mutual masturbation it is perfectly healthy.

A wife who is in her time of month may want to have her husband relieve
his desire rather than possibly seek out another women.

I have a firm belief that what God has given if used with moderation and with good intent and love would enhance the spirit.

Many problems are created from the suppression of our God given faculties.

There is medical and psychological studies that state that a person with a healthy sex life will live longer and be better adjusted than some one who is repressed and made to feel guilty about there sexual activities.

As far as the bible is concerned your interpretation is self serving and does not make any sense.

By the way are we overlooking the history of the Church, Joseph did in fact have more than one wife as well as many other presidents of the Church (Brigham Young had over 20) I guess that would be preferred to masturbation however our society does not allow such practices.

I say use moderation with your spouse and enjoy our gifts from god with love, guilt free.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

Your 3rd paragraph makes your statement not in conflict with what I've presented.

I also agree with your paragraph 6. You seem to be presenting that I'm proposing some sexual repression as a way of life. This is far from the truth.

In regard paragraph 7 I wasn't ignoring that at all. This just extends the times that a man would be in the process of procreation.

You seem to be feeling that my advice that a person should keep their sexual activity within the bounds of procreation, is an opposition to sexual activity at all.

I have no qualms about making LOVE for its purpose all day if necessary.

I would echo the statement of Spencer W. Kimball, "God did not make sex for man for a play thing."

Anonymous said...

I happened upon this blog by chance and this post has been quite interesting. If you will oblige me, I wish to add my 2 cents on this topic from the perspective of a physician. There is no question that pornography is bad and contrary to the teachings of the church. Additionally church leaders have discouraged the practice of masterbation, but many of their statements on the topic are misguided at best, and out right false on others.

From a medical standpoint, masterbation does NOT:
-Cause loss of strength
-Stunt growth
-Reduce fertility
-Cause disease
-Cause dark circles under your eyes
-Cause 'rosey' or 'hairy' palms
-Or 'lessen your fluids' (whatever that means)

Past posting have been correct in that those who do masterbate tend to have lower incidence of prostate cancer - that being said, It's not something I would advise my patients to start doing. There are better ways of mitigation than to masterbate.

The male reproductive system contains the cells that grow into sperm from birth. By the time that puberty begins, a boy will begin to produce sperm. Unless something traumatic happens like, radiation poisoning or trauma to the testis, this production will continue for the REST OF HIS LIFE.

Sperm mature & are stored in the epididymis. As you know, cells are incredibly small - so there are a great many sperm that can be stored at a given time. If ejaculation, or emission, does not occur, some of the sperm are destroyed by specilized cells in the body - but that's no big deal as sperm production continues and replaces any sperm that have been destroyed or emitted from the body.

In regards to this 'loss of fluid' mentioned, it is true that there may not be as much of this 'liquid' on immediate, subsequent emissions - but just wait a couple of days and it will be fine again. When sperm are emitted, fluid is added from 3 places: The seminal vesicles (which provide a sugar for energy for the sperm), the prostate adds a few things but chiefly a substance called PSA, and lastly - the bulbourethra adds an alkaline, pre-ejaculate. Your sperm count isn't reduced by any quantifiable amount, but the seminal vesicles and bulbourethra are small structures, so common sense dictates that once an emission is made, the next emission will not be as viscous or substantial. However, as I mentioned before, ejaculations contain about the same number of sperm everytime. Fertile males have AT LEAST 100 million sperm per emission. The average emission is 3ml.

Masterbation does not start sperm production, nor does not masterbating cause an 'overflow' of sperm that must be emitted. It is understandable that we have been counseled to refrain from this practice as it could easily lead to more destructive practices. However, masterbation (except in extreme circumstances) causes no physical harm to the person performing it. As with many other topics of a sensitive & personal nature - you must follow the spirit and know that you alone will answer to the Lord at the last day.

-Dr. LDS

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

Thanks for the thoughts and welcome to the site.

That is very informative.

I would tend to see some things that keep me of the opinions I've expressed though. And perhaps you may not have explained it all sufficiently for me to see your point.

Creating sperm must use energy in further production. That we are able to produce so much doesn't alter the fact that it will be replaced upon use. If we are having children then the production would serve a great purpose.

Secondly these other areas of production that you mention need to work to replace the products, also use energy.

So this only really qualifies what areas are doing the work, rather than demonstrating that no work is required. If work is done then there has to be energy spent.

When a young man is growing up and when a person is trying to maintain their body, any loss of energy CAN have a physical effect that will produce adverse effects.

It would only be if a person is in absolutely perfect physical condition, with no emotional or physical possibilities of defect occurring that a person can say, with absolute surity, that NO problems would occur.

I can assure you that masturbation does cause a loss of ability for the body to deal with growth in youth. This often causes continual problems that stay with the person til death.

I have seen young men suffer this. So whatever research some of your profession may have done in this regard, I'd suggest they go back to the lab. I think it would help if none of those conducting the research masturbated themselves. Unfortunately, I feel that many research results are influenced by those paying for the research and/or those involved.

But thanks again for the input.

Anonymous said...

Response to Doug Towers

"When a young man is growing up and when a person is trying to maintain their body, any loss of energy CAN have a physical effect that will produce adverse effects."

---First, what do you define energy as? I define it as ATP. If we are in agreement on that, how does the expenditure of ATP cause physcial adverse effects? I am unaware of any such condtition.

"It would only be if a person is in absolutely perfect physical condition, with no emotional or physical possibilities of defect occurring that a person can say, with absolute surity, that NO problems would occur."

---By this logic, you're stating that the release of energy by the body causes physical harm. If that were the case the mere act of thinking would cause us all harm, as the brain is the largest consumer of glycogen in the body. Everything from turning off your alarmclock, to driving a car, to kneeling down & praying will have adverse physical effects. How is that possible? Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't to me.

"I can assure you that masturbation does cause a loss of ability for the body to deal with growth in youth. This often causes continual problems that stay with the person til death."

---How can you assure me? What evidence do you have that supports your claim? This just sounds like an opinion to me. That's fine, we're all entitled to them - but don't claim to know of assurity when no such proof exists. You are in fact very wrong on this statement (don't beleive me look at Chandley AC: Meiosis in man. Trends Genet 4:79, 1988.
Clermont Y: Kinetics of spermatogenesis in mammals: seminiferous epithelium cycle and spermatogonial
renewal. Physiol Rev 52:198, 1972.
Eddy EM, Clark JM, Gong D, Fenderson BA: Origin and migration of primordial germ cells in
mammals. Gamete Res 4:333, 1981.
Gelchrter TD, Collins FS: Principles of Medical Genetics. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1990
Gorlin RJ, Cohen MM, Levin LS (eds): Syndromes of the Head and Neck. 3rd ed. New York, Oxford
University, 1990.
Heller CG, Clermont Y: Kinetics of the germinal epithelium in man. Recent Prog Horm Res 20:545,
1964.
-- I hope you get my point. There is NO stunting of growth! Materbation CANNOT possibly cause congenital anomalies nor can it produce pathologic mutations causing such anomalies.

"I have seen young men suffer this. So whatever research some of your profession may have done in this regard, I'd suggest they go back to the lab. I think it would help if none of those conducting the research masturbated themselves. Unfortunately, I feel that many research results are influenced by those paying for the research and/or those involved."
---This is just a silly statement I don't even know where to begin. There are many good and faithful LDS scientists. Not every scientist is out to disprove the gospel or the existance of God. With that being said, the science behind human growth and development is well established and dates back thousands - yes, thousands of years. With all of this knowledge - which by the way God encourages us to seek after and obtain - the geneticists, nutritionists, physicians, neurobiologists, anatomists, physiologists, etc. have produced conclusive evidence i.e. PROOF that what you are claiming is absolutely wrong. If a reader happens to stumble on to your blog, who is struggling with this problem - he may read your unsubstantiated claims which could throw him into deeper dispair. As I said before, you're entitled to your opinion - it's your blog - but please take some responsibility for your own actions and stop making these false claims of 'knowing' for sure that all these physical problems will arise from masterbation. They don't, if you insist on continuing to claim this I strongly encourage you to type in all capital letters before each posting "THIS IS MY OPINION AND HAS NOT EVER BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE"

Doug Towers said...

What do I define energy as, you ask?

Well I have to admit that I didn't use a microscope to test their APT. I had a much simpler and far more logical way than that.

I respect your feelings, and I can see that you have written what you have in a genuine spirit of concern. You feel that I have just gone off on some tangent with no idea of what I'm talking about. I can assure you that isn't true.

When I see a person who is normally running around with bags of life and movement, I consider the person to be full of energy. Now I'm not talking about how this person would rate in these tests you quote. I'm talking about what even an idiot should be able to see.

When this person begins to become sluggish and more susceptable to colds and flus I can see that there is a lack of energy. Again I can't tell you how the person's APT is going. But they aren't going too well.

When I see a collection of these people and find the change occurred at the beginning of masturbation, and/or when their rate of sex or masturbation had significantly increased, I don't need a microscope to accept the obvious.

In spite of all the sites you quote I'd be extremely surprised if everyone in these professions you quote would agree with you.

You've posted that _
"Materbation CANNOT possibly cause congenital anomalies nor can it produce pathologic mutations causing such anomalies."

Any loss of energy certainly can create an inability of the body to deal with problems and growth; whether directly or indirectly. I can't see why I would need to present researched evidence of such an obvious fact. We eat to obtain energy and revitalise ourselves. If we don't we don't grow and we don't stay alive. As energy is expended in any activity (as you have mentioned), then it must stand that masturbation can cause congenital anomalies or patholocic mutations.

The question isn't whether activities use up energy. The questions are how much energy and for what purpose is the energy being used?

Additional factors are how often the person is practicing masturbation and how vigorously are they doing so (as this helps us understand how much the person is being affected)?

You have said (and you really shouldn't have got onto the subject of science with me)_
"the science behind human growth and development is well established and dates back thousands - yes, thousands of years."

Are you referring to the science that removed tonsils only decades ago because they "knew' we didn't need them? Or is this the science that believed 32 parts of the human body were useless only decades ago? Is this the science that only a couple of decades ago decided we shouldn't eat things with cholesterol, and then made that "some cholesterol," while other scientists say its a lot of nonesense?

There is an old saying about "experts." An x is a has been, and a spurt is a drip under pressure. In the case of modern science this is too often the case. I have no doubt that some people are doing wonderful things in the name of science. However many are doing terrible things in the name of science, and so quoting credentials is meaningless to me.

I have seen enough people absorbed in sex get dark rings around the eyes. And I've seen this with masturbation victims. I don't need a degree to put two and two tegether. Nor need I bother chasing around the internet to find someone claiming they've proved it with a microscope.

Anonymous said...

I think masturbation after marriage is okay. What happens in the bedroom is you and your spouses decision. It really is noone elses business. Bishops and Stake Presidents do not ask what you do regarding sexual matters
after marriage.
You can think for yourself, pray, learn (there are many pros for masturbating: your health, happiness, sexual relationship, general relationship, body image) and decide regarding not only masturbation but all matters in the bedroom.
Some people say masturbation can be a spiritual experience, a way to celebrate and appreciate the body/sexual passions God gave you. Surely God intended for sexual passions to be expressed in marriage. How you express them is your choice.

Here is an article written by and LDS doctor who is for masturbation:

http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/masturbation_help.htm

Anonymous said...

.. I really do not know about masturbation before marriage. We are taught to bridle our passions. After marriage those passions are obviously a little unbridled. If you chose to masturbate (perhaps often thinking about your spouse when they are not home or asleep)- that seems fine to me. The truth is our spouse can not fulfill our sexual needs all the time. This can lead to built up frustation and you will get frustrated at your spouse. Masturbation can help you get excited for when you do make love with your spouse. Somen women take awhile to truly get turned on while men are usually ready pretty quick. Mastubation can help you appreciate your body and understand why your spouse loves it :) It really can be a beautiful thing to enjoy those sexual passions. You are free to enjoy them in marriage. You can and should pray for the spirit to guide you in your marriage sexual matters. I honestly feel its okay in moderation. Ha, you don't want to do it 24/7. If you can not eat, sleep or work without thinking about masturbating- then you may be doing it too much.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

The Law given to Moses gave no statement that you can't masturbate. And when Christ came to re-introduce the gospel again he taught the higher law of no lust. Christ didn't destroy the law and so you can continue to live by those laws if that is what you can take at this time. It isn't up to me to drag you to the gospel before you are prepared.

Additionally I'd ask you to consider. What if under the law a man was masturbating another man's wife? Is this alright because it isn't specifically stated? I think we get the idea that masturbation is a sexual act of sufficient magnitude.

Not being raised in the church I began to masturbate during early teens, after holding out due to my heart (spirit) not being happy at the feeling. Pressure and ignorance eventually got to me and I succumbed.

After many years of this I eventually challenged masturbation. Over a year and a half I gave it up. I deliberately took that long as I wished to fully study all feelings relevant to the change. I can guarantee you that if you turn from lust you will be happy you did. I know full well the feelings that you feel and how your head interprets it. It is false interpretation. I know that will be very difficult for you to believe.

A spiritual feeling can come after sexual fulfillment. This is because the desire to fulfill the body's wants has been extinguished for the moment. This also is deception as it doesn't last and isn't because of anything good in masturbation.

I read the doctor's article. I couldn't help but feel sorry for him.

It is left to you to consider what you do in the bedroom. I would only point to the highest happiness that you can have. Only a lust free existence will bring the life Christ promised in its fullness.

tlcees said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

... and I can agree with you on the no masturbation thing. It is not so "very difficult for me to understand". I was raised in the church, am a endowed member of the church and was married in the temple. So I think I am already "dragged" into the gospel. I understand at the same time why some church members masturbate. I understand why you feel sorry for that doctor with that article. A lust free marriage though... yikes. Obviously sexual passions are unbridled a bit in marriage. There are some guidelines such as no porn, oral sex, etc. But they do not say don't ever get aroused now. Its impossible to not have sex without some arousal. Why do you think a man gets an erection or women gets wet? The are aroused and heaven forbid a little lustful/have sexual urges! For those who have strive for a lust free sex life, I feel sorry for them. Sex is a way to express your love for your spouse...

Anonymous said...

... Of course there is lust in marriage. Physically you become aroused and lustful before making love with your spouse. How do you think a baby is made? A man must orgasm! A women must become lustful and aroused for a man to enter without pain. God gave all women a clitoris. It serves no other purpose than to provide intense pleasure. I do understand following the spirit. I think there is spiritual driven lust for your spouse.

Anonymous said...

I guess I am going a little off topic with lust in marriage. Setting masturbation aside, God without a doubt intended for sex to be arousing and pleasurable. There is not doubt it is arousing no matter how you try to deny it. The body becomes aroused/prepares for sex. Period. It is a beautiful thing. It can be and should be arousing, exciting but does has more to with expressing love.

Anonymous said...

I see some of your previous comments. You have a problem with lust in marriage but not sex. I also see you were married but you wife has passed. I am sorry for your loss.

I understand striving to be lust-free, wanting to be totally pure and spiritual. God commanded husband and wife to be one flesh and to multiply. The church did state that sex is not only for having children but for expressin love betwee husband and wife.

I think we as christians are afraid of the word lust.

Lets look at definitions via merriam-webster online:

Lust (n)

1 obsolete
A pleasure, delight
B personal inclination: WISH
2 usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire
3 a: an intense longing: craving
b: enthusiasm, eagerness

Lust (v)

intransitive verb
: to have an intense desire or need : crave; specifically : to have a sexual urge

I find nothing wrong with craving your spouse, delighting in sex or being excited for sex. God created sex to be delighful and exciting! The physical reactions of our bodies proves this. God created our bodies and he does not make mistakes. I hope you agree sex was intended to be pleasurable and arousing. If you deny that I honestly consider you and your opinions ridiculous.

Why would God give women a clitoris for no other purpose than to provide pleasure? Why would God create the male body to get an erection? Why would God have designed the requirement of male orgasm for a baby to be made? Why would God do these things if sex was not to be enjoyed and delighted in marriage? He could have created us differently but he did not.

Now lets look at the definition of arouse

transitive verb
1: to awaken from sleep
2: to rouse or stimulate to action or to physiological readiness for activity : excite

You can never deny that sex invovles become aroused. Now becoming phyically excited and stimulated is similar to having a desire and craving for sex- lust.

With arousal, physical changes to sexual organs happen and that is fact. I suppose a mans penis can enter a women without her being aroused. It would cause her discomfort and pain. But, in order for a man to have sex- he must have an erection. In order for a baby to be made, he must orgasm. The fact is physical changes happen before sex. These physical changes happen because of stimulation and arousal, because of a longing/urge/desire/craving-LUST for sex!

Now, even in marriage there are boundaries as the general authorities have stated. They have stated no oral sex, porn movies or x-rated movies, lewd lanugage or unwholesome fantasies. They have never stated to not become aroused!

I will have to agree to disagree with you.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

As I have stated, I see there are degrees of how people choose to live. And I am not telling you that anything you are saying is "wrong".

As to me personally I know that you can have sex without physical arousal. It is done by focusing on the spirit inside your partner rather than these parts you mention. Children will still be produced and great love and affection will flow between your partner and yourself.

All those aspects will be used, that you mention, but will not be noticed.

There is nothing missing in the marriage or the sex.

tlcees said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Doug Towers, you have some interesting and rare opinions.

No apsotle has ever taught to have sex totally free of physical arousal or to not notice the physical in marriage!

There are physical needs, desires and passions in marriage that are divinely approved to be expressed.

“Tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles in the intimate relationship between husband and wife. Each partner must be considerate and sensitive to the other’s needs and desires..”
- The Prophet Howard W. Hunter, “Being a Righteous Husband and Father,” Ensign, Nov. 1994, page 50

He mentions needs and desires.

"Couples will discover differences in the needs or desires each partner has for such a relationship, but when each strives to satisfy the needs of the other, these differences need not present a serious problem. Remember, this intimate relationship between husband and wife was established to bring joy to them. An effort to reach this righteous objective will enable married couples to use their complementary natures to bring joy to this union."

"..Both husbands and wives have physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs associated with this sacred act."

"..Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule. While sex drive is a myth, husbands and wives do have physical and emotional needs that are fulfilled through sexual union. If they perceive and appreciate their masculine and feminine natures as important, complementing, but not controlling, parts of their lives, becoming as one flesh can be one of life’s richest and most rewarding experiences."

This is from "Chapter 6: Mature Intimacy: Courtship and Marriage," A Parent’s Guide, (1985) via LDS.org

Hmm...physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs associated with this sacred act. PHYSICAL NEEDS let me repeat.

“The natural desire for men and women to be together is from God. But such an association is bounded by His laws. Those things properly reserved for marriage, when taken within the bonds of marriage, are right and pleasing before God and fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], p. 279

A natural desire for men and women to be together...

"The sexual senses of the body are to be enjoyed in righteousness, and its sexual functions to be used to create and nurture life. All this must be within the sanctity of a loving marriage."

"Chapter 5: Teaching Adolescents: from Twelve to Eighteen Years," A Parent’s Guide, (1985)

Sexual senses of the body are to be ENJOYED in righteousness.

Physical needs fulfilled through sexual union! Wow!

This is a handbook of church doctrine via lds.org

Anonymous said...

Care to explain how you have sex without being aroused and not noticing the physical? For sex is a physical act even if you try to focus on your partners spirit. Being naked with your spouse and seeeing them will arouse you physically. Or do you keep your eyes closed and hands to yourself? Do you never touch your spouse when naked? Perhaps you never get fully naked. Or you do touch your spouses private parts but just try to never think about it? Do you not believe in foreplay then?? Do you not believe in stimulating a women to orgasm? For to do that invovles sexual stimulation, arousal and sexual thoughts for a women to reach orgasm. I bet you are against lingerie too.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

That is an interesting collection of good quotes about sex within marriage. If I ever need any I can thank you for them.

You are right that if GAs started teaching such a doctrine almost all would leave the church. And perhaps most GAs don't believe such a doctrine.

In trying to understand what I'm saying you are looking at it from your point of view. It is like a Catholic saying we can't be right because forgiveness of all sins require a priest to absolve us.

To understand me you must throw your view out for a moment. I'm not trying to ignore physical feeling. It isn't some strained process.

I meet a lovely woman with whom I'd love to spend eternity with. She is full of love and service. She is a giver. We fall in love.

As I look at this the natural feelings in my heart are to realize what a lovely mother she would make. How blessed her children and husband would be.

In my time with her my heart goes out to her and our heart meld in a wonderful feeling of mutual love that is FAR beyond the feelings you speak of. There is an enormous powerful thing going on.

We get married. We are in the bed together. There is no thought of lustful or physical desires or needs. We talk of having children together as we had planned. We remove our underwear so that sex can occur.

We let our spirit love flow, with the man and woman in appropriate positions. The physical will just occur as the spirit desires. An erection will occur and the woman will do that to allow it in. Yet all focus is on the amazing and powerful feelings of love that flow spirit to spirit. The flesh feelings are so insignificant that they are barely observed.

Now that is making love.

Requires a lot of change of thinking for all of us? Yes. I certainly didn't think like that 20 years ago. I thought just like what you say.

Anonymous said...

I think I understand what you mean partially. Sex should be about focusing on how much you love your spouse, how much they and the relationship means you, what a wonderful person they are and what a beautiful spirit they have, etc.

You can think about these things the whole time you kiss, touch and have intercourse. Physical changes happen but you don't always realize it because you are focusing on your love, etc. for the person and how you enjoy feeling so close to them not only physically but spiritually.

But, physical changes happen from sexual arousal.

The body has to be sexually aroused to be ready for sex or it would be painful and uncomfortable. It was designed to get ready for sex- that is what foreplay is for! Perhaps you do not believe in foreplay.

I don't know why you deny sexual arousal so much. There is nothing wrong with being sexual aroused before sex and it is a given. You are denying what is natural and what happens every time.. unless you are raping a women. She would not be sexually aroused and you would cause her pain.

God approves of physical desires, needs, passions that are fulfilled by the sacred act in marriage. In order for sex to happen the body has to be ready and stimulated.

The body and the spirit are one. When you focus on someones spirit you are also fousing on their body. You can not have sex solely with someones spirit.

Anonymous said...

We let our spirit love flow, with the man and woman in appropriate positions. The physical will just occur as the spirit desires. An erection will occur and the woman will do that to allow it in. Yet all focus is on the amazing and powerful feelings of love that flow spirit to spirit. The flesh feelings are so insignificant that they are barely observed.

Yes, I understand and agree with that. But as you say, the physical will occur. How the physical occurs is the body becomes aroused and ready for sex because the person/the spirit and the body desires it.

Anonymous said...

As in the quotes, prophets and the church have stated there are physical desires, needs to be fulfilled in marriage sex. The church does not hold your same view of solely spiritual sex, void of sexual arousal. Nor will any doctor or nurse agree with no sexual arousal regarding sex. Honestly I don't even think God would agree with you. He created our bodies to respond physically before sex in certain ways and created us to experience orgasm. I shall never think as you do now. But I do understand focusing on how much you love the person, etc. Interesting. Like I said, I am grateful the church does not teach your views.

Good luck to you.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

Prophets don't teach deep doctrine. It isn't their responsibility to do so. In fact quite the opposite. God gives a doctrine to the church that is prepared for the weak and weakest of Saints.

All the natural physical things you are concerned about happen in the process I describe. It is our spirit that gets the body to do these things.

The only difference in our ideas is that your idea puts much more focus on the physical. What I'm saying puts all focus on the spiritual.

My body does all its functions with no noticeable thought at all. All the functions still work of an erection and open vagina. It doesn't require focus when done as I said.

Yet this is just something you can think about. What you may oppose today, tomorrow you may preach.

Anonymous said...

Well good for you, lol.

Yes, I may change my view. It is possibility, I will give you that. Opinions change constantly with time and experiences.

I am not ignoring the spiritual. I did hardly spoke on it. I did choose to type mostly about the physical.

I think the spiritual and physical are so closely interwined. Literally they are in this life. Our spirit and body are one until we die. Of course the resurrection will reunite the spirit and body.

The best part of making love is feeling so close to the person. You feel so close physically, mentally, emotionally and yes spiritually. It is beyond description how emotionally and spiritually close to your spouse during sex. What a wonderful blessing. Yes, the physcial does wane in comparision in that sense.

But yet I also think the sexual desire, arousal, enjoyment is natural, wonderful and important too.

Perhaps it is the spirit that desires a kiss, a very intimate touch, foreplay and an orgasm and the body just has the physical reaction. Interesting. So it could be a spiritually driven desire. That makes sense. Our spirit and mind rules our body. The body reacts to the spirits desire. The spirit desires to be close to the spouses spirit. In order to reach the utmost spirital connection of sex the body must react and prepare for it with kissing, foreplay.

But still the body does feel enjoyment and pleasure. The physical does enhance the ultimate spiritual connection. We feel good physcially, mentally, emotionally and spiritually during sex. Sex will always be a physical, mental, emotionl and spiritual act. It is complex and surely not solely physical.

Anonymous said...

We are all weak as humans, even you.

Anonymous said...

My idea does not necessarily put more focus on the physical. I did choose to type mostly focusing on and defending the physical. You really do not know what I actually focus on or think regarding sexual intimacy outside of this blog. I may focus on the spiritual and emotional more than the physical.

Focusing soley on the physical denies true love for there is so much more than a physical body. The persons mind, heart, soul and spirit matter more than their body.

Perhaps your opinions will change too someday. You are an older widower and probably have not had sex for a long time. These facts fit your point of view very well. Perhaps if you have sex again you will notice and delight in the physical in addition to the other more important aspects.

What anyone chooses to focus on, think about, or act upon regarding the marriage sexual relationshp is so completely personal and private. It is only between the husband, wife and God. With the spirit guiding us we will know what is right.

Anonymous said...

I see you consider yourself a prophet.

We are told to beware of false prophets.

Without a doubt the true and real prophets are those who lead or have led the church.

Anonymous said...

Did your "spiritual sex" involve touching, kissing, licking, sucking your wifes breasts and nipples? What about rubbing her clitoris or g-spot and brining her to orgasm or even female ejaculate? Or did you just talk, kiss, get naked and enter her and her vagina better be wet and open because absolutely no private part touching allowed? Was she allowed to stroke your penis?

Righteousness Always Prevails said...

Oh prophet! I too share your views. How glad I am to have found you! I worship you, oh wise and perfect one. You know all.

Sex is only for having children. When my spouse and I were done having children- we never ever had sex again! For the one and only purpose of sex is to have kids. It is not by any evil means of expressing love, such as the church says. As you are a widower, I know you will never have sex again if you re-marry. That would be against the true purpose of sex since you are done having kids.

"Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage." What a weak view that is. Then again, its not the church's job to teach deep doctrine. The church is for the weakest of all beings. We are the strong ones. In fact, we hardly need the church. We are so above and beyond the weak teaching of the church. It is mission in life to teach the deep doctrines. Let us write books, tell all and change the world. We are the prophets.


When we must have sex to have kids (such a chore), I have trained my mind to never think about evil or phsically pleasurable thoughts. The whole time I think "I am focusing on my spouses spirit".

Righteousness Always Prevails said...

Physical reactions happen, yes, because they must. The spirit wants it though. "The spirit says get an erection. The spirit says to open and liquify the vagina". At times I have been tempted to think about my spouses private parts when we are naked. But I will not give into that wordly and lustful temptation! I have trained my mind to think "I love my spouses spirit". That is what I think about over and over when we have sex, nothing else. My mind is well mastered.

When we are actually in the act of sex, I tell my body it feels no pleasure. For you and I sexual pleasure is not possible! Our private parts feel nothing. The vagina feels not a twinge of pleasure when it is filled by en erect penis. When I must do the worldy act of thrusting in order to relase the baby making liquid my penis feels no pleasure! When ejaculation occurs I tell my body this is what the spirit wants.

Of course occasionally my penis is tempted to feel a tiny ity bity bit good (gasp). I repent fervently and pray for forgiveness. Our private parts were never meant to experience joy. There are no physical needs or desires in sex. I have trained my penis to go numb during sex, so I can stay as spiritual as possible. I detest lust with a passion and I am terrified of it. There is nothing missing from the sex at all, you see. Yes... for us we have the best sex of all. To think we ever thought different and ever enjoyed sex. To think we actually gave into physical sexual pleasure, needs, wants- blasphemy! Noone else makes love as we do- the true and proper way. The best way. Such love flows from spirit to spirit.

Sometimes I wonder why we even have private parts anyho. They are the source of lust, evil. The other night I tried to cut my private parts off. Useless sources of temptation!

I also wonder why we even have sex. Why could God not just let us intertwine fingers to have sex. It would ommit all the evil and temptations. But then we could not master it. We would not be so wise. God sure did make a mistake in giving women a clitoris. It has not purpose other than to give women pleasure. How wicked! In my marriage this clitoris is never touched. It is forgotten. To touch that is wrong, so is touching our spouses private parts. When I have sex we talk then do the act. There is no foreplay at all. How can so many people give into such lustful acts?

I try to convince others of my view. Noone else understands except us. Everyone else is so blinded, so weak. Noone is as wise, perfect, strong as us. We know the real truth. We are the elite of humans among this earth. Let us look down on all the dumb ones, the ones without enough brain capacity to understand. Noone can change our ways, oh prophet! We are so stuck in our ways- never fear. Noone can sway us, we know the truth. Keep the faith, keep the faith!

Lingerie is so evil too. We should take down every victoria secret in the country!

I have had to convince my spouse of my ways too. It took awhile but it worked. You just have to tell them over and over. Do not let them think otherwise. We must strenthen their mind and rid them of weakness.

Righteousness Always Prevails said...

Oh and we do ignore the physical and not notice it. We only focus on our spoues spirit. I can assure you I have never even seen my spouses private parts!! When my spouse must get naked I close my eyes or solely look at my spouses face. To focus eyes on a vagina or breasts or a penis is a sin! To daresay enjoy the site or to become aroused is beyone all speakable evil! I encourage my spose to wear clothes as much as possible.

So glad to have found someone else that believes as I do!

N said...

God didn't make sex this good, for it to be ignored. It's a bond between man and woman that's special. Pretending it's 'not worthy' is denying God's creation.

YA said...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Best one I have heard all day.

You must be some guy that blogs crazy stuff for his own amusement, trying to convince and confuse others.

You are lying through your teeth with your no physical arousal during sex. Sex without physical arousal is rape.

+ said...

The body feels pain and pleasure, that is fact. There is physical pleasure during sex. Even if you try to deny it and have brainwashed yourself- the body feels pleasure. The spirit may desire it but the body feels it and responds. No human can have a orgasm without pleasure.

Enough confusing people for your own amusement.

Doug Towers said...

To all those who have written since my last response I apologize as I've been in hospital.

Yet in looking at this collection I can only say I haven't missed anything. "Yawn, yawn," is what I would have to say to this mindless collection of comments.

Pearls before swine, is all I seem to have here. Is it worth answering?

All you've stated is that you haven't read what I've said in all the comments.

So let me re-state for you that I don't have to mind-wash myself to feel such an amazing degree of spiritual love that so exceeds the physical that it doesn't come into the act. All you need is love and the right woman.

Beyond your comprehension? Apparently.

Louis said...

This is my motto: if it feels good, do it. Life is short, so you should take advantage of the pleasures you can, while you can.

For the most part, I don't see the reason that masturbation is bad for your health. It has such a negligible effect compared to other, harmless activities. For instance, hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. smoke cigarettes every day, but only a small minority experience adverse effects like lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, yellow teeth, bad breath, etc. And what is masturbation compared to a joint? I think you see my point.

About secrecy: there is really nothing wrong with keeping your own thoughts from other people. In fact, most relationships involve a degree of deception, as it adds an element of surprise and interest. Life would be boring and bland if we all went around telling the truth because then we would know what to expect. We need something to jazz it up!

I'm also not sure that viewing other people as objects is such a bad thing either. Sometimes when I am mad at people, I imagine that they are an object instead, which helps me to restrain from arguing with them, as it is pointless to argue with an object. This has helped me avoid many potentially violent situations.

So masturbate away if it feels good!

Doug Towers said...

Louis

Thanks for expressing your feelings on the subject.

"if it feels good, do it."

Jesus Christ taught this same principle. The question becomes, does it actually feel good. Or does it create a sensation that can be interpreted as good, but isn't really?

You have said that if you didn't view people as objects sometimes you would do violence to them. This means that you need to work on people skills. If this approach is working for the moment then keep it up. But I'd advise working on a complete change of approach over time.

And you will find that masturbation isn't the good thing that you have concluded it to be. Faith in Christ requires change of approach to many aspects of life.

Wickedness never was happiness, said Alma. But it certainly can be made to look that way.

Louis said...

Doug,

Alma has also taught that, "and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourself...it beginneth to be delicious unto me. Now behold, would this not increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea..." (32:28-29)

I think that Jesus really wants us to use our common sense, and follow what we personally feel to be correct. And for some of us, that might be different than abstinence.

Take for example the teachings of different prophets on polygamy. While Joseph and Brigham Young wholeheartedly encouraged this practice, later prophets have had different opinions, and now this practice is discontinued. Who is to say which of these prophets is right, when each was following what he personally felt to be correct?

I admire you for upholding your convictions, but I do not think they apply to everyone.

Doug Towers said...

Louis

It does come down to a very close examination of feelings; as you mention. And some feelings can be deceptive.

Is it that some things are good for some and not for others? Obviously some foods are that way. But moral principles are unchanging.

Plural marriage was commanded of God in the Law given to Moses if your brother died under certain circumstances. Guidelines were given as to things you couldn't do within plural marriage.

The Book of Mormon presents that due to the lack of following these instructions the people there were mostly forbidden from practicing it before Christ came.

Ezra Taft Benson expressed our continued belief in it while he was president.

The principles behind its practice and reason why it must be accepted have never altered, even if people have failed.

Intelligences must receive spirit bodies, and this requires parents. A man and a woman can produce one child a year. A man and 99 women can produce 99 children a year. There will be far more women gaining eternal life. Isn't it amazing how it all fits in? Clever those Gods.

Louis said...

Doug,

The more I read your blogs, the more I see all of your devotion and creativity shine through. I can't stop thinking "wow! he truly is a prophet of god"

That is a good point about the advantages of plural marriage that I had not thought about. It is efficient because one man can certainly give out eternal life to more than one woman, be they old, young, married, or single.

Just like Jesus gives eternal life to everyone who will come to him. I see it now: we can all fit perfectly around every inch of god's plan. No one has to be left out.

I did not know that about Ezra Taft Benson, but I will be sure to investigate it.

Thanks for answering all of my questions! I look forward to reading your posts.

Anonymous said...

I have a question- did you ever touch your wife's private parts and did she touch yours before soley spiritual sex? Is it our spirit the one that desires foreplay- prelude is a better word in marriage? Prelude to sex warms our bodies up, gets the physical reations going, prepares it for sex.

Anonymous said...

Will you please email me? Can you delete this comment after I give you my email address? Or is there a place I can give you my email so noone else will see it? : )

S.D. said...

Why would anyone want to ignore the physical pleasures in marital intitmacy? Sex between a man and wife is sacred and beautiful. Making love is a time to focus on your heart, spirit, will and mind closer uniting to your spouse while being as close as physically possible. I think sex can be a type of Sacrament. I do think our spirits desire sex to unite spiritually in the closest way possible between two humans and the physical compliments the spiritual. You literally become one with your spouse in everyway. You can feel the spirit during sex and experience physical pleasure. God created our intimate parts to be sensitive to the touch. How do you make your initmate parts not feel pleasure? Do you deny when a penis is a vagina or when a vagina is in a penis- it won't feel good? Wasn't it created to feel good? How does a man experience ejaculation without any physical pleasure or a women experience orgasm without any physical pleasure? Or do you think physical pleasure is really spiritual pleasure? A husband and wife may strive to have their sexual intimacies be pure, sacred, clean and spiritual to the furtherst extent. Do you think a married couple that diligently strives keeps the commandments, strives to be Christ-like, strives to have the spirit in their marriage as much as possible- if they also experience physical pleasure in addition to trying to focus more on the spiritual aspects and the aspect of hearts drawing closer- then they have still sinned with lust? If they also notice their bodies are experiencing pleasure- do you deny them reaching the ultimate spiritual experience and happiness? Do you think you can experience physical pleasures of our most intimate parts during sexual intimacies without lust?

Anonymous said...

Sincere and deep apologies for the very rude, disrespectful, immature comments in August. I realize all views deserve respect even if you passionately disagree or take great offense by others views. I hope you can forgive me. They were not all my views- I posted the views of a few others too.

X said...

******IT IS INTERESTING YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER A FEW THINGS. FOR ONE, IF YOU EVER TOUCHED YOUR WIFE'S PRIVATE PARTS BEFORE YOUR SOLELY SPIRITUAL SEX? OR IF YOU EVER BROUGHT YOUR WIFE TO ORGASM? MEN GENERALLY ORGASM/EJACULATE EVERY TIME- ESSENITAL FOR CONCEIVING A CHILD. DID YOUR WIFE NEVER HAVE THE ENJOYMENT OF A ORGASM HERSELF DURING YOUR SEXUAL INTIMACIES? A ORGASM FOR A WOMEN IS NOT AS AUTOMATIC OR EASY TO ACHIEVE COMPARED TO A MAN'S. A WOMEN HAS GENERALLY HAS TO BE VERY STIMULATED, AROUSED. DO YOU THINK A CLITORIS WAS A MISTAKE FROM GOD? GOD GAVE EVERY WOMEN A CLITORIS AND IT PROVIDES PLEASURE, NO OTHER REASON. OR DO YOU THINK EVERYTHING I JUST SAID IS ALL OKAY AND YOU DID ALL THOSE THINGS BUT YOU BELIEVE THE SPIRIT IS THE ONE THAT DESIRED IT ALL??

I KNOW A MAN CAN GET A ERECTION FROM TALKING, THINKING ABOUT HAVING SEX (ESPECIALLY IF YOU KNOW YOUR ABOUT TO HAVE SEX) AND DEFINITELY A ERECTION CAN OCCUR FROM TAKING GARMENTS OFF AND GETTING INTO A SEX POSITION.

TALKING ABOUT, THINKING ABOUT, GETTING NAKED OR INTO A SEX POSITION IS VERY RARELY ENOUGH FOR A WOMEN'S VAGINA TO OPEN OR LUBRICATE ENOUGH! BEING A WOMEN MYSELF, IF A WOMEN'S VAGINA IS NOT OPEN/WET ENOUGH- SEX WILL HURT. SO I AM VERY CURIOUS HOW YOU GOT YOUR WIFE READY FOR SEX. YOU COULD FORCE YOUR WAY IN, EVEN SLOWLY FORCE YOUR WAY IN BUT THAT IS NOT ENJOYABLE FOR THE WOMEN AT ALL.

UNTIL YOU ANSWER ALL OF MY QUESTIONS AND THOROUGHLY EXPLAIN, WITH DETAILS I WILL NOT BELIEVE YOUR SEX WITHOUT ANY PHYSICAL AROUSAL OR PLEASURE AND TOTALLY IGNORING/NOT NOTICIING THE PHYSICAL DURING SEX AND NEITHER WILL ANYONE ELSE!************

x said...

*A FEW MORE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS- DID YOU EVER BRING YOUR WIFE TO ORGASM DURING YOUR SOLELY SPIRITUAL, SEXUAL MARITAL INTIMACIES?

TOUCHING, STIMULATING EACH OTHER'S PRIVATE PARTS CAN BE BEAUTIFUL, SACRED BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE. A HUSBAND AND WIFE CAN PLEASE EACH OTHER WITH THE RIGHT ATTITUDE AND SPIRIT- NOT A PRIDEFUL ONE BUT OF WANTING TO EXPRESS THERE LOVE AND OF WANTING TO MAKE THEIR SPOUSE FEEL GOOD. A HUSBAND BRINGING HIS WIFE TO THE JOY OF ORGASM IS SACRED, BEAUTIFUL AND PURE. WHY SHOULD A WIFE NEVER EXPERIENCE ORGASM IF MEN EJACULATE/ORGASM ALL THE TIME?

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PURPOSE OF A WOMEN'S CLITORIS IS?

A CLITORIS IS VERY SENSITIVE, MORE SENSITIVE THAN THE HEAD OF A MAN'S PENIS AND CAPABLE OF PROVIDING GREAT PLEASURE. I HAVE EXPERIENCED NUMEROUS ORGASMS SOLEY FROM CLITORAL STIMUATION, AS DO MANY WOMEN.

THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF ORGASMS THAT WOMEN CAN EXPERIENCE FROM NIPPLE/BREAT STIMULATION (TOUCHING, LICKING, SUCKING) OR ORGASMS SIMPLY FROM VAGINAL PENETRAION- WHETHER FROM FINGERS OR A PENIS. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TOO.

IF A WOMEN CAN'T HELP BUT EXPERIENCE A ORGASM FROM SOLEY PENIS PENETRATION- DO YOU CALL HER BEING LUSTFUL?

Bonez said...

X: It is refreshing having a woman's point of view here! Thanks for sharing yours. This type forum, with question/answer, posting/response is great for this topic. It serves those who appreciate time to read and digest the various assertions. This sort of discussion also works well in real time chat such as that hosted on internet relay chat's undernet network, in a channel of same name, i.e., #masturbation.

Bonez said...

Doug:

Men, and necessarily Women, are dual nature, i.e., we are physical and spiritual. Our Lord, even Jesus Christ has this dual nature, spiritual from His Father, and our God, and physical/carnal/temporal/mortal from His earthly mother Mary.

This is so much hogwash about sexuality being just spiritual. The spirit is part but by no means ALL. We have to experience sexuality physically just as we must be baptized and a host of other activities in the flesh to become complete.

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...

Doug,

You are a very smart guy and have put much work into this blog. You have knowledge, wisdom and experience. I agree with some of the typings of your blog. You have some wonderful, helpful, spiritual, uplifting typings on this blog!!! I am sure you have helped many people and that is wonderful. But I don't agree with your all your views on the physical marital relationship.

Some people may consider their spouse stimulating their private parts a lustful act (such as I assume you do). I think that is wrong. Foreplay is essential (though foreplay seems a degarding word). Intimate thoughts and touching prepares your body for sex, especially essential for preparing a women's body for sex. Sometimes a women may think she is ready for sex so the man tries to enter= possibly painful and definitely uncomfortable.

I think a husband that doesn't care if his wife is ready for penis penetration/ not allowing any sexual touching before sex when a wife wants/needs it to be physical ready for the act of sex and not trying to help his wife's vagina to be sufficiently open and wet falls into the category of a man exercising unrighteous dominion over his wife.

The elements of rape are an interesting point. Rape is forcing sex, without consent and most people that are raped have no physical arousal present. When a women gets raped it can be very painful and can cause her vagina to rip and bleed.

What a woman needs to be ready for sex varies from woman to woman. Even for the same women- what she needs/wants to be ready for sex can drastically vary. It can vary on the day, the hour, the minute , her age, pregnancy, post-partum, menopause etc.

It is not lust if you have the right attitude, heart and spirit within the marriage commitment. You can help your spouse feel good sexually without lust or pride. I think you have lust confused in marriage. I think you detest lust to the extreme you consider admitting or noticing any physical enjoying in the physical relationship between husband and wife which is not lust with the proper attitude and spirit.

The wrong attitude is to foucs only on yourself receiving sexual fulfillment and to not care about your spouses needs or desires. To me focusing only on yourself is lust in marriage. It is using your spouse only for personal gain. But sex is not a solo act, husband and wife should work together to please each other. Also without the right attitude- the spiritual aspect will not come.

If a husband and wife focuses on giving each other sexual fulfillment that is a attitude of selflessness. That is the antidote for pride and lust. A husband and wife should both receive sexual joy. They should talk to each other about their needs, desires and be sensitive to each others needs. A husband a wife should help each other achieve sexual enjoyment. As long as a couple is keeping the commandments and stiving to stay close to the spirit/ striving to have the spirit in their marriage- they will know what to do and not do in their physical relationship.

I have felt the spirit during sex while still recognizing and experiencing physical pleasure. You can receieve spiritual promptings during sex while acknowleding physical enjoyment (spouse and I have also experienced). I have felt lasting spiritual upliftment after sex even though I experienced physical pleasure and recognized it. Sex has a strong spiritual aspect. Sex can uplift, heal, inspire, unite bring intense happiness to our spirits. You can have utmost happiness and spirituality in sex while still recongizing and noticing the physical aspects too. Sex is a spiritual and physical act. You can not separate the two, similar to Bones statement. You coud not have the spiritual aspect of sex if your were not that physical close to your spouse- if you were not literally one flesh.

I agree sex is sacred and many people neglect the spiritual aspect. You can still appreciate and fully have the spiritual aspects of sex and notice, appreciate and rejoice in the physical. Sex can be equally spiritual and physical.

Blogger said...

Why would God make us so attracted to the opposite sex and provide us with the capacity to experiece sexual enjoyment if we were forever supposed to ignore/surpress? Think about it. If we had no sexual desires- there would not be many/any? children in the world. Husband and wife would not as united- in body, mind, spirit, heart or will without the desire to be one flesh. God doesn't want us to ignore being physically attracted to our spouse in marriage. God wants us to delight in our spouse. He wants us to appreciate the beauty of his creation in marriage. Two of the many joys and blessings of marriage is to experience sexual pleasure and fulfillment and spiritual fulfillment through the same act of sex.

I definitely think there should be moderation regarding marital intimacy. As the phrase goes- "moderation in all things"

We don't want to become obsessed with sex. If we become too obsessed and so consumed with any one thing we will neglect our other important responsibilities and miss out on other essential aspects of life. Now that is another form of lust in marriage!

Sex in marriage can bring us closer to God and to our spouse. It can strengthen, improve and uplift our marriage but that also applies goes for fasting. Over-do fasting and we can harm ourselves. Really overdo fasting and you can starve yourself to death.

We do not want to become so consumed with marital sex that something so virtuous, sacred, pure, beautiful becomes a vice and something unpure and unholy!

I think husband and wives can enjoy the physical aspects of sex without becoming obsessed, without being lusful and without neglecting the spiritual.

I don't think the other aspects of marriage should be neglected. Sex is but one of the many wonderful, important, essential aspects of marriage.

But I think sexual fulfillment, like the other aspects of marriage are important and require work. Many couples have sexual problems. Such as communication problems- husband and wife need to work on them together, with the right attitude and with the spirit. In whatever aspect of marriage- the spirit is a essential companion.

It is essential to for both husband and wife to keep the commandments and stay close to the spirit. Husband and wife should strive to have the spirit as their constant companion individually and in their marriage.

I just know for myself that the spirit can strive very strongly in marital sex while still both husband and wife also enjoy and notice the physical.

Blogger said...

Some earlier quotes in a previous post apply. They are in reference to the physical relations between husband and wife:

“Tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles in the intimate relationship between husband and wife. Each partner must be considerate and sensitive to the other’s needs and desires..”
The Prophet Howard W. Hunter, “Being a Righteous Husband and Father,” Ensign, Nov. 1994, page 50

"Couples will discover differences in the needs or desires each partner has for such a relationship, but when each strives to satisfy the needs of the other, these differences need not present a serious problem. Remember, this intimate relationship between husband and wife was established to bring joy to them. An effort to reach this righteous objective will enable married couples to use their complementary natures to bring joy to this union."

"..Both husbands and wives have physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs associated with this sacred act."

-PHYSICAL NEEDS, NOT JUST SPIRITUAL.

"..Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule. While sex drive is a myth, husbands and wives do have physical and emotional needs that are fulfilled through sexual union. If they perceive and appreciate their masculine and feminine natures as important, complementing, but not controlling, parts of their lives, becoming as one flesh can be one of life’s richest and most rewarding experiences"

-ONCE AGAIN- PHYSICAL NEEDS THAT ARE FULFILLED THROUGH SEXUAL UNION.

--Chapter 6: Mature Intimacy: Courtship and Marriage, A Parent’s Guide, (1985) via LDS.org

“The natural desire for men and women to be together is from God. But such an association is bounded by His laws. Those things properly reserved for marriage, when taken within the bonds of marriage, are right and pleasing before God and fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988] p. 279)

-A NATURAL DESIRE FOR MEN AND WOMEN TO BE TOGETHER IS FROM GOD...

"The sexual senses of the body are to be enjoyed in righteousness, and its sexual functions to be used to create and nurture life. All this must be within the sanctity of a loving marriage."

-THE SEXUAL SENSES OF THE BODY ARE TO BE ENJOYED IN RIGHTEOUSNESS BUT YET YOU CALL IT LUST AND TRY TO IGNORE/NOT NOTICE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

Chapter 5: Teaching Adolescents: from Twelve to Eighteen Years, A Parent’s Guide, (1985)

-BOTTOM LINE: THE CHURCH AND PROPHETS TEACH CONTRARY TO YOUR VIEWS ON THE PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE!

Blogger said...

Sex is also not soley for creating children. It is for bring husband and wife closer together, bringing each other joy and expressing love. The latest church stance on birth control:

Church stance from Handbook 2: 21.2.4 Birth Control

"It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter."

Even Spencer W. Kimball Stated sex is for creation and expression of love:

President Kimball has explained: “It is the destiny of men and women to join together to make eternal family units. In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself [between a husband and his wife], for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], p. 311).

Lets look at parts of this quote more closely in a different aspect:

"In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself"

REPEATO: THE INTIMACY OF SEXUAL RELATIONS IS RIGHT AND DIVINELY APPROVED. THERE IS NOTHING UNHOLY OR DEGRADING ABOUT SEXUALITY IN ITSELF....

One of the definition's of sexuality is: capacity for sexual feeling(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sexuality). Another definition of sexuality is: 2Concern with or interest in sexual activity.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexuality).

Blogger said...

I love this other quote:

"Thirdly, may I say that physical intimacy is not only a symbolic union between a husband and a wife—the very uniting of their souls—but it is also symbolic of a shared relationship between them and their Father in Heaven. He is immortal and perfect. We are mortal and imperfect. Nevertheless we seek ways even in mortality whereby we can unite with Him spiritually. In so doing we gain some access to both the grace and the majesty of His power. Those special moments include kneeling at a marriage altar in the house of the Lord, blessing a newborn baby, baptizing and confirming a new member of the Church, partaking of the emblems of the Lord’s Supper, and so forth.

These are moments when we quite literally unite our will with God’s will, our spirit with His spirit, where communion through the veil becomes very real. At such moments we not only acknowledge His divinity but we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves. One aspect of that divinity given to virtually all men and women is the use of His power to create a human body, that wonder of all wonders, a genetically and spiritually unique being never before seen in the history of the world and never to be duplicated again in all the ages of eternity" (Jeffrey R. Holland, Ensign, November 1988, 77).

The spiritual aspects of marital sex are divine, wonderful and beautiful. So are the physical aspects that make the spiritual aspects even possible.

Jeffrey R. Holland states one aspect is to create a human body, not the only aspect.

In conclusion, sex is both a spiritual and physical experience. Sexual feelings are from God and are to be rightfully expressed in marriage.

I will put my faith and trust in the church and the church's appointed/recognized Prophets not you regarding these physical intimacy matters in marriage. I will follow the church, not you on these beliefs.

So I will definitely have to agree to disagre with you.

But to each their own however they want to think about sex. We are all free to think and act as we choose : )

PS- blogs should allow commenters to edit their comments I say.

A very Merry Christmas to you Doug and Happy New Year!!

Blogger said...

Okay, some more thoughts. The defintion of prophet is: one who utters divinely inspired revelations: as a often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible b capitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will
2: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3: one who foretells future events : predictor
4: an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
5Christian Science a : a spiritual seer b : disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prophet).

We could all consider ourselves prophets or decide to be one. Many people don't consider themselves a prophet and don't decide to be one. In the church Prophets are called to be one. Most church members consider President Monson, the 12, the 70 to be the only prophets.

Also you state walking and talking with God. We can all talk with God through prayer. We can be walking while praying. We can be walking and praying in the temple. God can talk to us through the spirit.

Some more things:


"Both husbands and wives have physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs associated with this sacred act. They will be able to complement each other in the marriage relationship if they give tender, considerate attention to these needs of their partner. Each should seek to fulfill the other’s needs rather than to use this highly significant relationship merely to satisfy his or her own passion.

Couples will discover differences in the needs or desires each partner has for such a relationship, but when each strives to satisfy the needs of the other, these differences need not present a serious problem. Remember, this intimate relationship between husband and wife was established to bring joy to them. An effort to reach this righteous objective will enable married couples to use their complementary natures to bring joy to this union.

The intimate relationship between husband and wife realizes its greatest value when it is based on loving kindness and tenderness between the marriage partners.

Virtuous living by couples who seek to learn the higher roles of a mother and father requires that they forsake unrighteous and worldly ideas and practices. There is little justification for marriage if its prime purpose is merely to legitimize sexual relations. There is every reason to enjoy sexual intimacies among the various intimacies of a virtuous marriage"

This is what the church teaches.

(http://lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-6-mature-intimacy-courtship-and-marriage?lang=eng).

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...

“The natural desire for men and women to be together is from God. But such an association is bounded by His laws. Those things properly reserved for marriage, when taken within the bonds of marriage, are right and pleasing before God and fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. But those same things when taken outside the bonds of marriage are a curse” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], p. 279).

Here is the link for that quote:(http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=d6877befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=ba805f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD)


"Tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles in the intimate relationship between husband and wife. Each partner must be considerate and sensitive to the other’s needs and desires. Any domineering, indecent, or uncontrolled behavior in the intimate relationship between husband and wife is condemned by the Lord." President Howard W. Hunter

He mentions needs and desires with the intimate relationship between husband and wife. I aboslutely agree there should not be uncontrolling, domineering or indecent behavior. A husband and wife will know what behaviors offend the spirit if they stay close to the spirit. Pres. Hunter does not specify- it is up to each of us to decide what is and isn't appropriate in the sexual relationship with our spouse. There is no church handbook of what is okay and what isn't in the bedroom four married couples.

Here is a exact link of the original talk:
: (http://lds.org/ensign/1994/11/being-a-righteous-husband-and-father?lang=eng).

We are warned:

“If it is unnatural, you just don’t do it. That is all, and all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane. There are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 312).

“The world may countenance premarital sex experiences, but the Lord and his church condemn in no uncertain terms any and every sex relationship outside of marriage, and even indecent and uncontrolled ones within marriage” (Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1972], p. 175).

The link for those Spencer W. Kimball quotes: http://lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-6-mature-intimacy-courtship-and-marriage?lang=eng


What a couple thinks is unnatural, indecent, uncontrolled varies and is very personal. It is up to each couple to decide for themselves. Hopefully they will decide while staying close to the spirit, praying and pondering about it, perhaps even fasting about it.

Sorry for typos and not citing well enough.

A Parents Guide: Chapter 6: Mature Intimacy: Courtship and Marriage here is the link- http://lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-6-mature-intimacy-courtship-and-marriage?lang=eng

A Parent's Guide Chapter 5: Teaching Adolescents: from Twelve to Eighteen Years
Here is the link- http://lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-5-teaching-adolescents-from-twelve-to-eighteen-years?lang=eng

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...

President Spencer W. Kimball

“The union of the sexes, husband and wife (and only husband and wife), was for the principal purpose of bringing children into the world. Sexual experiences were never intended by the Lord to be a mere plaything or merely to satisfy passions and lusts. We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sexual experience between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children, but we find much evidence from Adam until now that no provision was ever made by the Lord for indiscriminate sex” ( “The Lord’s Plan for Men and Women,” Ensign, Oct. 1975, 4 ).

He states sex is not to merely/just/only satisfy passions or lusts. He isn't saying sex is not to ever satisfy passions or lusts but that there are more purposes for marital sex. He states there is no directive evidence that proper sexual experience between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children Creating children, the spiritual aspects, bring a couple closer together are other aspects.

INDISCRIMINATE
2a : promiscuous, unrestrained

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indiscriminate)

Definition of PROMISCUOUS
1: composed of all sorts of persons or things
2: not restricted to one class, sort, or person : INDISCRIMINATE
3: not restricted to one sexual partner
4: casual, irregular

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous)

He does not state children is the sole purpose for sex. He says it is the principal purpose and there is a difference.

PRINCIPAL adj.
1: most important, consequential, or influential : chief

VS

Definition of SOLE adj.
1: not married —used chiefly of women
2archaic : having no companion : solitary
3a : having no sharer b : being the only one


"Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife" (https://lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng).

Elder Parley P. Pratt

“Our natural affections are planted in us by the Spirit of God, for a wise purpose; and they are the very main-springs of life and happiness—they are the cement of all virtuous and heavenly society—they are the essence of charity, or love; . . .

“There is not a more pure and holy principle in existence than the affection which glows in the bosom of a virtuous man for his companion; . . .

“The fact is, God made man, male and female; he planted in their bosoms those affections which are calculated to promote their happiness and union” ( Writings of Parley Parker Pratt, 52–53).

Those quotes can be found in the
Eternal Marriage Student Manual-
Physical Intimacy Ordained of God

Starburst said...

Lust is in reference to adultry only in these scriptures.

Christ taught:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

(Matthew 6: 27-28).

Keyword there is adultery- having pre-marital sex or sex with someone other than your spouse. You cannot commit adultery with your lawful spouse. He is not stating lusting after your spouse is wrong.

Lust is a strong sexual desire.

Sexual desires are there to bring husband and wife together to create children and express love. Sexual desires were given to all of us for God's divine purposes.

Uncontrolled sexual desires are not good even in marriage. A married couple can experience beautiful and pure joy from their sexual desires within controllable limits.

I think to try to completely ignore/not notice our divinely given sexually desires is absolute blasphemy. Our sexual feelings are a sacred gift from God to be righteously expressed only in marriage.

You mention celestial sex. Well, guess what? Neither you nor I nor anyone on this earth is a celestial being yet! Perhaps celestial sex will be different, perhaps not. We won't know until we get there. God may create children with no physical pleasures and I speculate he can totally ignore/not notice the physical. But he is God and a perfect being. We are not Gods or perfect beings yet. We have mortal sex, not celestial on this earth since we do not live in the celestial kingdom.

We can aim for celestial sex not by ignoring/not noticing our God given sexual feelings but by striving to live the best we can.

Starburst said...

I speculate God does not create children as us mortals do. That would be exhausting and take a very long time considering how many of God's children there are.

God approves of sexually intimacy in marriage. God gave us our beautiful sexual passions not to be selfish with or to be unrestrained with. He gave them to us to share in marriage within proper bounds. Each couple decides what bounds they want to set. God has not not sex bounds other than adultry.

Your extreme views on marital sex sadden me. You have polluted the sacredness and righteousness of appropriate sexual feelings, desires needs that are divine in marriage

: (

Bonez said...

"Starburst said...

I speculate God does not create children as us mortals do. That would be exhausting and take a very long time considering how many of God's children there are."

God's time frame and reference is not our time and reference or reckoning. We have no way of knowing how God and His WIFE create spirit children, whether its' the same same process that we mere mortals employ, or not. I would like to think that when I become a God (thinking optimistically here) that the sex enjoyed now, will be a billion times more powerful and exciting. Why Not?

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

I won't hold it against you if you don't.

I'm just joking there. It is a serious subject and sometimes that can bring out deep feelings. Talking it over is what blogging should be about, so you are welcome to agree or disagree with me as you choose.

If you want to give me your email address without it being online you can put a comment on my questions site. I will get the comment but it won't be shown. There's a link to the site at the top of the page.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

My relationship with my deceased wife was physical.

My knowledge of Celestial Sex comes to me from several sources.

Firstly Heavenly Father, the Holy Ghost and I went through a serious examination of lust. Some of that knowledge came from those discussions.

Secondly a woman who comes to me that is highly knowledgable in doctrine and life taught me. It is her spirit that comes to me and she is deceased.

Thirdly I have known a couple who practised it.

Fourth Joseph Smith and others taught that God's practise sex to produce offspring.

And fifth I have experienced the enourmously powerful emotions that occur between a male and female who have deep spiritual love for each other.

Doug Towers said...

S.D.

My comments have caused much comment response in this area. It is up to each individual to examine these things and consider their feelings on the matter after discussion with the Spirit.

I have not stated that there is no reason why physical responses are used in the process of having sex. What I have said is that when they become so small relative to the spiritual feeling then sex is being conducted in a lust free manner, it is being done as God would do it.

Doug Towers said...

x

My latest comments should have answered your questions. But I'll present some things to make sure.

Firstly my deseased wife orgasmed sometimes multiple times on the same day. And I did the styles of sex you refer to.

On some few occasions she faked an orgasm to make me feel better. I just pretended that I bought it. A guy can't do that like women can.

I'm aware that lubrication is necessary to avoid pain and even bleeding through wearing skin against skin.

However these aren't the things I'm referring to.

After all this I came to discover what God was on about with leaving the lust alone.

All functions work perfectly in the process of Celestial Sex.

Doug Towers said...

Bonez

I agree with you that sex is not only a spiritual action but must, of necessity, be physical. Else how can we have a physical child?

While baptism is done physically it is only the spiritual part that counts. Dunking ourselves under water doesn't actually produce anything.

There is therefore some connection between the 2 subjects.

I am continually being misinterpreted to be proposing the absence of bodies and physical functions. I am not saying that normal physical functions aren't required.

Thanks for your thoughts.

x said...

Well you have not spoken your thoughts on foreplay then or sexual touching before and during sex? Is that part of your celestial sex?

In your sex and masterbation problems you are against husband and wives thinking sexual thoughts/fantasies about each other. But before you touch your spouse sexually- does a sex thought not occur first?

And in your celestial sex your wife would still orgasm?

I am very curious about the details and how-to's of celesital sex.

Perhaps I could leave you my email and you could tell me the details?

Starburst said...

Yes, I have no way of knowing how God and his wife create children. That is why I said speculate. Who knows, one day we will all find out.

I hope you respect the special sexual relationship between husband and wife, no matter what a couple may practise or believe.

You can suggest and offer your opinions or advice but its up to each couple and they may not agree with you.

You should not make couples feel bad or guilty or not good enough or that their sexual relationship is wrong and full of lust if they choose to really enjoy the physical aspects, have sexual fantasies or whatever they choose.

A husband and wife's sexual relationship is so personal, intimate, sacred, delicate and having someone tell say this is wrong or that is wrong or that is full of lust can cause much offense!

The church and prophets teach there are physical and emotional needs and desires that are fulfilled through sex in marriage. You can't fault anyone for following the church or say that is lust. If following and agreeing with the church that there are sexual desires, needs that are fulfilled through marital sex is lust- I will lustfully following the church forever and continue on in marital bliss! LOL

If a couple is enjoying the sexual desires, needs in sex but yet still feel the spirit- they must be doing things okay, right? : )

Doug Towers said...

Blogger

An interesting collection of quotes.

I note that you have raised the question of just how authoritive do we take these quotes of some GAs? Just because I become a GA and even the president of the church doesn't make my opinions any more valid than anyone else's in the church.

If, as church president, I claim revelation from God on a subject and that the revelation was to become authoritive and binding as Scripture, that is a different matter. Once it has been passed by the quorum of 12 and the general church membership in general conference such then becomes part of our standard works.

On the other hand if Scripture already exists declaring a particular doctrine as valid then such opinions of any GA must be judged as wrong (according to Harold B Lee as church president in a general conference).

In 3 places the Scriptures represent that evil will make its attack on the 3 sections of our being. The intelligence, the spirit body and the physical body.

These attacks are represented as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life (desired to the taste, pleasing to the eye and desired to make one wise). When Christ was hungry Satan tried to tempt him with the with the desires of his flesh.

I don't disagree with all these quotes you have made. Further I don't disagree with the thrust of the opinion expressed in almost all.

I'm not presenting that people should or shouldn't only have sex to have children. That's something they need to talk to God about. And Spencer Kimball's quote is neutral in the way I read that.

What I'm stating is that there is a doctrine that rises above these basic principles. A dcotrine that Gods practise.

Doug Towers said...

Starburst

Joseph Smith mentioned that even a tree isn't just invented. All beings have parents. Natural parenting is part of the great eternal plan. Not even God is above it. As Lehi mentioned if laws were different God would cease to be God.

Those principles practised here are the same as those there. God produces children by plural marriage and his wives ability to store sperm in large quantities. Thus God doesn't have to spend endless hours in sex.

I agree with you that it isn't my intention to make people feel that they are in grave danger by lust within their marriage. My post doesn't say that.

Yet as people have asked more and more direct questions I have advised people to remove lust from their marriage. It is a catch 22 that I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't once certain things have been said.

A person can have the Holy Ghost advising them, and be dwelling in them most of the time yet not be a constant companion.

Doug Towers said...

x

In asking me questions about my wife in the present tense, my wife died some years ago before I came to understand things as I now do.

I have had extremely powerful romantic emotions built on spiritual love. These feelings create a power of the style God uses and we used in the creation process.

Both males and females orgasm in Celestial Sex. There is nothing unnatural about Celestial Sex. Celestial sex can be practised by anyone who has adopted a perfect lifestyle. Perfection isn't impossible in the slightest. Christ stated we can do so after presenting the spiritual thinking process required to make it work.

If you wish to leave me your email address I can email you with the way it works. If you don't wish to have others see it just go to the Answers site I've got a link to at the top of the page and leave a comment there. The comment won't show but I will get it. Just mention that you are x off this post.

Anonymous said...

Doug,

I disagree with you.

Tread lightly in regards to others sex lives. How dare you encourage those who are married to not have sexual thoughts/fantasies about each other. How dare you say anything but this is lust in marital sex. It is NOT your place!

Sorry but I will stick to following official Prophets, official church teachings. Also, I will stick to official church websites! LDS.org is a great site.

Goodbye!

Doug Towers said...

Everyone

Due to the large amount of concerns posted on the Sex site and the Answers site I feel that it would help if I try to explain this whole situation better. Yet understand in me doing so I know that I leave myself open to the problems that come with casting pearls before some not able to handle such deeply emotional spiritual feelings.

Having not been raised a member of the church and there being a lot of sexual ignorance through fear of discussing such a subject, my youth was full of misconceptions relative to sex and such relations. Also as I went to a boys only high school this didn't help. Yet as I was raised a Protestant/Catholic I at least had some standards that I followed.

I had to come out of all this ignorance at some point. Thanks to discussions with Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost I came to see that these ideas I'd had in my head were terribly wrong in some cases. I came to learn why I had always had conflict inside myself relative to the ideas in my head vs the feelings of my heart (spirit).

These ideas that I express aren't my own, as some have claimed. I have seen Heavenly Father's spirit many times as we have walked and talked together for hours. He has expressed his innermost feelings on many subjects, including this one. That which he trained me in I can express as fact with as much confidence as Joseph Smith declaring his experiences and Moses declaring his. If people don't wish to accept these facts that is up to them.

I have changed myself in major ways and seen the amazing results. Some of these changes didn't occur until after my wife had died.

While going through these examinations of my feelings relative to sex I also began an examination of my feelings in regard romance and making it more spiritual. In this I began to not only feel how much better I was feeling by ignoring sexual urges and dreams but also the increased spirituality of turning even more into heart feelings.

It must be understood that while the former did have an initial discipline to it this soon altered to become part of my natural feelings. Additionally my heart feelings took off like a shot. I have experienced feeling the power of creation through my spiritual love for a particular woman. It rose to the point that I had the clouds separate and saw up into the fires of heaven. It rose to the point that I saw the particles from which matter is made.

I now can look into people and see anything about them I wish. I see how much self repect they have. How much they choose to get angry with others. How much they forgive others. And so on.

People I would call "Angels" are rare indeed. But seeing them is a pure delight. And this is where Celestial Sex comes into it from my point of view as a man.

I know a particularly female who is very close to me. In looking at her I can't help but feel what a wonderful mother she would make. She has so much love to give. I see and feel it. I can't help but feel how wonderful it would be to one day make her a mother. I'm not referring to any desire for sex with her. I am referring to this wonderful desire I have to complete her as a woman and give her that special opportunity of serving children. She just has so much to give them and they would be so blessed by having her as a mother.

I have felt the enormous love that several of these women have for me. There is a deep spiritual depth to it that only by experience could it be understood. One of them had her eyes go on fire with the Holy Ghost in thinking of her love for me (D&C 110:3).

Now I'd like you to consider the power of the love that 2 such people can have flow back and forth to each other. The power for moving mountains is truly small in comparison. Yet spiritual love can make this power a reality.

Doug Towers said...

Everyone Part 2

Some seem concerned over abilities for lubricating. To create this effect with such power flowing is the least of problems. Let me assure all concerned that ALL physical functions that are necessary WILL occur. In fact the woman who comes to me said that with sufficient love pregnancy can be guaranteed each and every time: The mind can guide the sperm to the egg with unfailing accuracy. We are talking about God like abilities.

Naturally those GAs who may be aware of this aren't going around teaching such high-level doctrine. But as I'm just another mug sharing his views on the internet I can say it. After all, who am I?

There are those that are seriously concerned that they aren't just jumping in and doing this, and therefore are worried about their spiritual future. Don't be. Just begin to do something about it. You won't get there just like that. It will take a lot of time and effort to make the change.

If you have a good relationship with your marriage partner then you have a good foundation to build from. And let me say that wonderful changes will occur in your life and marriage from following this course.

The process itself is simple. Firstly the couple decide they want a baby. Then they remove any underwear that will get in the way. Then the couple begin to express their love by sweet kisses, cuddles, and spirit to spirit feelings of love (this latter is where it all comes from). When they feel they are ready the man can get upon the woman and the woman can adopt an appropriate position. At this point the spirits involved must be at the peak of their feelings of love. If this is done to the correct degree it won't be long before the male ejaculates and the woman draws it in through climax. This is done through the desire to have children being foremost in their minds.

If done properly there will be little to no awareness of the climaxing.

This latter may seem a loss of a promotion of the relationship. This isn't going to be so. The power of the love you have created to get this far will have helped you to create a relationship that is truly light years beyond anything you have now.

But remember to make this a gradual change. Slowly become aware of the change. Both you and your partner don't want to have each other feel that something you had is missing to the point that the marriage becomes divided before you complete the change.

PS. My Sex site wasn't made with an allowance for showing comments because it seemed a complex enough matter without adding to its complexity by explaining ideas out of turn of the subject matter flow. I knew some would want to discuss ideas that would require long portions of repetition of the script not understood correctly. I have designed it to be as brief as possible. I have also used some of the material in other posts where discussion is invited.

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug Towers said...

Blogger and Anonymous

There are actually 3 comments that have been deleted. One was just saying, to each his own.

But as it seems that you didn't mean to have your comments deleted Blogger I'll answer your concerns as I recieved them as emails.

In saying that a pregnancy could be guaranteed by being able to guide the sperm to the egg I was referring to this being the main difficulty people face of appropriate age. Obviously if a female is too old to produce an egg or sustain a pregnancy it isn't going to be much use. If a man is just far beyond the age of being able to even produce sufficient sperm to even project one sperm (I don't know that anyone ever reaches that age) then he's not going to produce a child either.

You're very believing that the church is going to teach you everything you need to know to get eternal life. The temple disagrees with you. And so do MANY GAs.

When did the church teach you how to move mountains, even? How often has your priesthood class gone out for excersions and mountain moving practise?

D&C 119 heading tells us that because of FAILURE of the church membership to practise the higher law of consecration (the church doesn't teach how it is even practised anymore - in spite of the fact you think it does) we were commanded to practise tithing. The church has not raised its doctrine up so that we no longer need to live tithing.

D&C 89:3 has become a commandment and remained one to this day.

There is a long list of other things I could add to this but you either get it from those examples or you really don't want to know.

Its a great church. But it is filled with people - not Gods. Of course the doctrine is low. Think for a moment. We have a Telestial world outside. Do you really think that a Celestial church would last 5 minutes in that Telestial world?

If you study the temple things carefully enough you would see the answer right there in the symbols.

"There would be no point to sex according to the view if sex is only for having children."

I think you wrote before thinking there. Surely you can see that you have stated the point to having sex yourself - "having children."

I don't have "unofficial church views." If they aren't officially what the membership has sustained in the Standard Works of the church (not truth mingled with someones interpretation of people in high positions), then I don't present them as being offically accepted by the millions of members.

Beyond some extreme basics no one in the church can expound "official church doctrine." This is a complaint of Protestants constantly. When someone disagrees with me they just make it that it isn't what the brethren "say."

This is nonsense. I haven't opposed the idea that God has not made an official stance in this regard. Nor have I taught that God demands all to follow such a course.

I support the idea that sex in marriage should be taught to be a sacred and holy thing. If people wish to raise their spiritual standards then they should approach God as individuals.

Doug Towers said...

Part 2

You join the endless list of members who feel there is some disgrace in discussing personal experiences. Shame on you all. Even Jesus has seen that his personal experiences are shared in Scripture. But I suppose you are going to tell me that for some reason that is different.

Then I'd quote Paul being stoned and raising up. But of course HE's an apostle. That's different. Then I could quote the written experiences of Alma the Younger, Moses in parting the sea, and the list is endless.

But, hey, how dare I discuss this on the internet? These are sacred experiences that Satan doesn't want me telling anyone about. So I should not say a thing.

Well I've got news for you Satan. I don't mind talking about them. In fact I am pleased to say how much God loves us, cares for us and listens to us. So there you have it. Shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your argument is reasonable that I've never experienced it. But that isn't really true. Because all the things involved in it I have experienced. Its like proposing that I have no idea about anal sex because I've never done it.

And, yes, I have followed the advice of my Savior and become Scripturally perfect. I do not sin. Nor do I transgress.

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...

Ha, yeah, that sentence definitely needed to be re-phrased. I don't claim to be perfect and do make mistakes. But who knows if I really typed that sentence exactly as you quote (I don't remember my word for word sentence), you deleted my full comment.

I stand by sex not only for the creation of children in marriage in accordance with various official church sources (institute manual, church handbooks, official lds prophet teachings) all found on official church websites.

Obviously one important purpose of marital sex is for the creation of children. I just don't think that is the only purpose to martial sex.

You are within the minority that does not consider other Church approved materials official.

Anything with the Church's name on it has been approved and is official. All of the Church material I quoted in previous posts was from official Church approved materials. There are many other official Church approved materials, teachings in addition to the Standard Works.

People will sometimes take scripture, etc. and combine that with personal opinions and experiences to create their own doctrines. Even to the point of preaching their own doctrine.

Sharing deep, sacred spiritual experiences (if true) publicly online worries me. Discretion is so important! I hope everyone only shares such things when they have the promptings from the spirit. Satan will sometimes try to get sacred things shared when they should not be. I think of sharing certain sacred, spiritual experiences similar to the discrection of sharing a patriarchal blessing. I would not share my partriarchal blessing publicly online neither would I share certain sacred and spiritual experiences publicly online. In a private email is one thing but a public blog? But hey, it is up to each of us to decide when, where, what and how to share.

Your typings that I disagree with have only strengthened my testimony of official, approved Church teachings.

The way to eternal life and exaltation is officially taught in the Church. The temples are a huge part of the Church. If we follow the Church we will not be led astray. Christ is the chief cornerstone of the Church and the Church is true.

The fact that you deleting comments now says alot. I have deleted some of my own comments because of typos, etc. (not being able to edit comments after posting). But it shows deleted by the author in that case. No point in continuing with any site that ends freedom of speech/comments.

Doug Towers said...

Blogger

I don't know whether you are genuine and confused or whether you are just trying to lie to everyone. But I have not removed ANY of your comments.

As you also have stated, where the comments were you will see that it says, "removed by the AUTHOR." That means you. You are the author of the comment.

In spite of me saying otherwise I see you are still trying to put words in my mouth. And it seems I needed to make some things more clear.

I have not claimed at any time that the church teaches false doctrine. You haven't answered the points I made before that prove that the church teaches backward doctrine.

I also didn't say that the church teaches doctrine contrary to the temple teachings. What I said was that the church teaches backward doctrine and that was demonstrated in the temple symbols.

I haven't said that the church isn't the true church of Jesus Christ, nor have I even intimated such.

The reason (as I have been informed, and I see the wisdom in that) that we don't share our patriachal blessings is that some may feel theirs isn't as good as this person's and begin to feel bad about it.

Again you haven't answered the point I've presented that almost the entire Scriptures are personal spiritual experiences of someone. Either that or what God communicated to them.

So for me to do the same as the Scriptures doesn't come over as something from Satan. You've lost me on that one.

You've claimed that manual etc are all official church doctrine. But this is one thing Harold B. Lee said on the subject _

President Harold B. Lee in a European area conference:

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.

I know some disagree with Harold and me, but that is their opinion, and they are entitled to it.

Manuals etc SHOULD represent those things already expressed in the Scriptures. And where they do I support them fully. I would also say the same of GAs.

In the law of Moses God gives no greater commandment than that a person have sex only within marriage vows: Something similar to what you are presenting. And I support this commandment in full. For those under the law (and even those not having come that far) I recommend a living of this. So don't bother claiming I don't support this doctrine.

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...

President Spencer W. Kimball declared that the Church continues to be guided by revelation:

“We testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day. We testify also that there is, since 1830 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and will continue to be, so long as time shall last, a prophet, recognized of God and his people, who will continue to interpret the mind and will of the Lord. …

“Expecting the spectacular, one may not be fully alerted to the constant flow of revealed communication. I say, in the deepest of humility, but also by the power and force of a burning testimony in my soul, that from the prophet of the Restoration to the prophet of our own year, the communication line is unbroken, the authority is continuous, a light, brilliant and penetrating, continues to shine. The sound of the voice of the Lord is a continuous melody and a thunderous appeal. For nearly a century and a half there has been no interruption” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, 115; or Ensign, May 1977, 78).

"..purpose of Church correlation is to preserve “the right way of God” (Jacob 7:7). Ultimately it is intended to help accomplish the mission of the Church, which is to invite all people to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him” (Moroni 10:32; see also D&C 20:59).

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve oversee correlation in the Church. Correlation includes:

a. Maintaining purity of doctrine.

b. Emphasizing the importance of the family and the home.

c. Placing all the work of the Church under priesthood direction.

d. Establishing proper relationships among the organizations of the Church.

e. Achieving unity and order in the Church.

f. Ensuring simplicity of Church programs and materials.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve said that correlation is a process “in which we take all the programs of the Church, bring them to one focal point, wrap them in one package, operate them as one program, involve all members of the Church in the operation—and do it all under priesthood direction” (Let Every Man Learn His Duty [pamphlet, 1976], 2).

"Church publications, such as lesson manuals and Church magazines, are produced to help members learn and live the gospel of Jesus Christ. The correlation process helps ensure that these materials are scripture-based, doctrinally accurate, and appropriate for the intended audience. All Church publications are planned, prepared, reviewed, and implemented under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All the above are from “Lesson 42: Continuing Revelation to Latter-day Prophets,” Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 243

Here is the lds.org link

(http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4b509207f7c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD)

Blogger said...

I do not agree that the Church teaches backward doctrine.

Anyone can say this or that official Church approved material is against the standard works based off their own interpretations/understandings from the Standard Works plus their own personal experiences, opinions, etc.

The Church has its official and approved teachings of the Standard Works. Such as official and approved Church teachings that are taught in seminary, institute, gospel doctrine, church publications, etc.

Scriptures are personal experiences of course!! But you are not in the Standard Works. Nor are you the President of the Church or a GA. You are not Church official or Church approved.

Unofficial and unapproved views, claims, doctrine, etc. can be helpful or harmful. Bits may be beneficial and other bits may definitely not be and need to be ignored. Everyone needs to carefully judge and compare the not Church official and not Church approved to what is Church official and Church approved.

Unofficial is peronal opinions/beliefs/views, personal experiences, personal claims and personal interpretations. The fact is your "deep doctrine" is not Church official or Church approved.

By the way, I am not confused, etc. or trying to lie to anyone. I honestly had a comment that was posted that I did not delete but yet it is gone. When I delete a comment it does say "removed by the author" and this was not the case. The comment just vanished. Maybe some blog malfunction?

I apologize for stating you deleted my missing post/ending freedom of speech if you did not. Perhaps I did delete it but think I didn't (lol, I really don't think I deleted it though!). But what happened to the anonymous "to each their own" comment? Did you delete that?

I do not intentionally try to put words in anyone's mouth.

Blogger said...

I am not necessarily saying you or anyone sharing personal spiritual experiences is automatically from Satan! I am saying discretion is important in the what, where, how, when and whom to regarding sharing personal, sacred spiritual experiences (if true).

Certain things may be too sacred to share. "Pearls before swine" situations. We can avoid pearls before swine situations by exercising caution and strictly listening to the spirit.

I am saying that certain experiences should not be shared unless we have clear promptings from the spirit to share them.

Another example is not talking about what happens in the temple. I think Satan wants us to share certain experiences when really they should not be shared- such as certain details of temple happenings.

Sharing is a very personal choice and opinions on sharing vary.

I just worry and wonder about what really should be shared. Not just what should be shared but especially the when and where and how and who to. I (personally) am cautious about sharing personal, sacred, spiritual experiences.

Doug Towers said...

Blogger.

Enough said on the deletions. I accept your word and you basically accept mine. I have deleted some of the spaces where deleted statements existed so as to not have a collection of deletions there. I just left enough to show deletions had occurred. So I may have deleted where Anonymous had put his deleted comment. Though I don't know why a person would bother deleting such a comment.

Your comment from Spencer doesn't disagree with what Harold has said. And I don't disagree with what Spencer said either.

Get out of your head that I'm not in agreement with the church's authority to run itself. I'm not suggesting that those in positions aren't authorized to be there.

But my God ordained bishop came and gave me a "revelation" that he had recieved that if I didn't do what he said I'd die. Well, I didn't follow him and I'm still alive. You see he didn't agree with something on my site either. And so he proposed a "revelation" of his own. In fact it concerned me getting rid of this post. He concluded that because he was my bishop that this gave him authority over the internet.

He agreed with your statement that

"The fact is your "deep doctrine" is not Church official or Church approved."

If it was it wouldn't be "deep doctrine." You will also note at the top that I clearly declare that "Blogs are not an official church site." So I've never declared to the contrary.

If I put a label on something saying, "handle with care," and someone comes along and tries to use it as a football, it isn't my fault if someone gets damaged.

My site is labelled well enough as far as I can see.

I had one member come along and complain because she couldn't understand any of it. As I said to her, it says, "deep doctrine."

The deepest church official or church approved "deep doctrine" is "love one another."

You feel that the church is teaching the deepest of doctrines and yet the majority of the gold plates weren't translated. So why not? Unimportant? Mormon wouldn't have been told to include them if they weren't important. And they will one day be translated while they are still valid information.

How can you support such a stance when the evidence clearly opposes it? Its no use claiming it is my interpretation. The majority of the plates are not given to us yet. How else should I interpret this?

D&C 119 heading has us living the Old Testament law of tithing, STATING that this is because of "FAILURE" to live higher laws. How should I have interpreted this?

The Word of Wisdom was given as advice only, and aimed at the weakest of Saints and now we are so weak that part of it has become a commandment and part of it is abandoned. How should I have interpreted this to mean anything else than the church going backward in doctrine, and not having moved forward again since?

I have not at any time claimed that God has commanded those ideas that I have expressed relative to this subject. I have given it as a high principle that we should arrive at during our rise to become what we eventually hope to become. If you don't agree with me then that is your option. Just because you've never heard it before doesn't make it wrong.

Doug Towers said...

Blogger

I agree with your comments on sharing. Particularly when it is thrown out on the internet. There are just going to be those who aren't going to accept it. And even those who turn up the nose at it.

I am normally cautious about what I throw out on the inernet. But it seemed there were too many confused and worried about their eternal futures for me to hold much back. You are right that I have let a lot go here.

In regard the temple I do support the church's comment that it is "sacred not secret." So I don't feel concerned at telling the secret too much as long as the sacred parts are kept in cloth.

Blogger said...

Ha. Whatever, whenever, however and if I ever choose to anything out my head is up to me. I certainly won't take any orders from you.

To be fair I don't know your Bishop's side to that story. Just because he may have been wrong about something and agreed with me does not necessarily mean I am wrong.

President Benson stated:

“The Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the ‘fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ’ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 4; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 6).

Lesson 1: “The Keystone of Our Religion”, Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, (1999),1

(http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=1640cb7a29c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD)

I did not say the Church teaches every single deep doctrine there is but I think we are taught all we need to know for mortality. The Church does teach deep doctrine (LOL, definitely beyond love one another). We are taught the fulness of doctrines required for salvation. What is ultimately more important during mortality than knowing the ways to exaltation and salvation? We have the temples (within the Church) and are taught there too.

Yes, of course the majority of the gold plates were not translated. But interpretations of why vary. Interpretations can easily and vastly vary about anything. A scipture heading may state something and there is the WOW but yet again- interpretations vary. Also, some Church Members don't worry about the unknown and trust that it will be revealed at the right time.

You mentioned moving mountains. Do we really need to be concerned about literally moving large landforms in this life? Do you claim to have literally moved large landforms? Church Members can still move mountains so to speak and not literally. This can be done with personal trials, experiences, helping others, etc.

I bet certain deep doctrines are known but not taught by the Prophet and GA's. I think there are important reasons those deep doctrines are not taught.

Yes, just because anything has never been heard does not necessarily make it wrong but it also does not necessarily make it right.

I am glad we agree on something- sharing.

Blogger said...

The view of sex only for creating children has some flaws. What about sex during pregancy- no sex during those months? A child has already been created. What about sex after menopause- no more sex? What about a couple that can't have children and adopts- no sex between them ever? Same for a elderly couple that gets married- sex never between them ever? Sex is also for expressing love between husband and wife.

If pregnancy is guaranteed every time as you say then sex and sex is only for creating children/anything other than the creation of children is lust- the number of children should be equal to the total times of sex during marriage. So 8 kids= 8 times of sex throughout the whole marriage. And if you are against birth control and pregnancy is guaranteed every time- a couple should have a child for each year of marriage when physically able to have children. So 25 fertile years= 25 kids.

I think the pregnancy guarantee is false. While in mortality humans are subject to illness, disease, disorders- even of the reproductive system. Miralces happen but God does not cure every illness, diease or disorder. There are couples that medically can't have children and don't ever during this earth life.

Also, a women does not have to climax in order to get pregnant. Some women rarely or never experience climax during intercourse but still get pregnant.

Lee Stated:
"..The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."

Spencer stated:
“We testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day. We testify also that there is, since 1830 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and will continue to be, so long as time shall last, a prophet, recognized of God and his people, who will continue to interpret the mind and will of the Lord. …

“..that from the prophet of the Restoration to the prophet of our own year, the communication line is unbroken, the authority is continuous, a light, brilliant and penetrating, continues to shine. The sound of the voice of the Lord is a continuous melody and a thunderous appeal. For nearly a century and a half there has been no interruption” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, 115; or Ensign, May 1977, 78).

The quotes state revelation and new doctrine comes from The President of The Church. It also states a prophet, recognized of God and his people, who will continue to interpret the mind and will of the Lord.

"All Church publications are planned, prepared, reviewed, and implemented under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve."

The church publications I quoted from such as the church handbooks, manuals, and the strength of youth pamphlet I quoted from are church publications. These church publications have been reviewed and implemented under the First Presidency and the 12.

"Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife" (https://lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng).

Doug Towers said...

Blogger

In regard the Book of Mormon. You don't understand what you are quoting. And I'm not allowed to explain it to you in its fulness. So I'll do my best to explain it without saying what it means.

The "fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ" is delivered in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does make it more plain.

As he states, this doesn't mean that all doctrines are taught there. This "fulness" teaches us the steps to obtain exultation. But it by no means teaches all doctrines required to obtain exultaion. Yet the Book of Mormon teaches all doctrines necessary to obtain salvation from sin.

So, yes, we do have the doctrines necessay to salvation. So do the Protestants and Catholics. In fact D&C 76 tells us that all the Terrestials will have those doctrines necessary for salvation. But to obtain exultation requries us to find and apply the fulness of the gospel. Then it requires we continue to apply it and fill ourselves full of the deeper doctrines.

Alma states _

"...It is given to many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart, only according to the portion of his word which he grants to the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give to him. And therefore he that will harden his heart, the same receives a lesser partion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given to him to know the mysteries of God until he knows them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell."

In other words God only gives out information according to the church member's ability to accept that information. And thus the standard of doctrine is established for the church.

You've talked of "other interpretations" that can be placed upon these things I've quoted. Yet I'm still waiting to hear how "failure" to keep a commandment that we still aren't practising (practising the OT law of tithing) comes out to be us with high doctrine?

You've said _

"Also, some Church Members don't worry about the unknown and trust that it will be revealed at the right time."

You mean they are too darn lazy? Yes, I've noticed that.

In regard moving mountains we should at least have the power to move FAR more. It would be helpful for us to have demonstrated to ourselves (even) that we have power over matter even on some small scale.

In regard pregnancy both you and I aren't in disagreement that pregnancy isn't normally obtained in those unable to sustain such a pregnancy. And I am now saying this for the second time.

However I know a climax will happen for both male and female in doing sex the correct way.

Again I also state that Harold and Spencer aren't in disagreement.

Harold is talking about what we regard as Scriptures for doctrinal purposes and Spencer is talking of the revelation that comes up in planning programs etc.

You've quoted _

"All Church publications are planned, prepared, reviewed, and implemented under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve."

If this is meant to imply some perfection then you've got problems. The manuals used to be repleat with faults. With modern word processing being as it is the manuals don't have that many anymore. Yet they used to be woeful.

Not only that but what of Scriptures quoted out of context in manuals. A plain ignorance of the Law of Moses is displayed often enough. The vast majority of members really don't know much about the OT at all. Is it any wonder that texts aren't properly understood?

Doug Towers said...

Blogger Part 2

Are you implying there is something wrong with a capable person having 25 children? If you plan on being a God you must have billions upon billions. Are you one of these lazy would-be-Gods who think that somehow 10 children is too many?

Let me first ask you to consider what you think Gods and Godesses do? WHY do you think it is compulsory for a God to have a wife? Do you think it is so we can have a mother-in-law to keep us in the right path? It is for procreation, just as Joseph Smith stated. Not even a tree (he said) is born without parents. So spirit bodies require parents. It is the natural principle.

If you think you HAVE to have sex to keep your marriage working then let me ask you how people get on who suddenly lose their lower torso in an accident? You assure me that their marriage will fail because they can't have this (supposedly) compulsory sex. You have the wife or husband taking off with someone else because they MUST have sex or suffer a poor marriage.

And how did Keturah get on who married Abraham when she was probably 12 and he was 135? As he got older she wouldn't be able to have a good marriage anymore because he couldn't provide the sex. Obviously he was a dirty old man who thought nothing of his young wife having to go through the years without the compulsory sex to make the marriage work.

What a lot of codswallop.

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...

LOL! Oh my!

Wow, don't you love to put words in my mouth! How effective that is. Twisting the words of another far from and contrary to the meanings is also very effective. You only continue to totally misunderstand. No point in saying or explaining anything further.

LOL,

I'm so done. I've typed plenty. I've typed more than plenty.

I do wish you well and happy 2012!

I will end with these. Reading each paragraph closely is beneficial:

"Both husbands and wives have physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs associated with this sacred act. They will be able to complement each other in the marriage relationship if they give tender, considerate attention to these needs of their partner. Each should seek to fulfill the other’s needs rather than to use this highly significant relationship merely to satisfy his or her own passion.

Couples will discover differences in the needs or desires each partner has for such a relationship, but when each strives to satisfy the needs of the other, these differences need not present a serious problem. Remember, this intimate relationship between husband and wife was established to bring joy to them. An effort to reach this righteous objective will enable married couples to use their complementary natures to bring joy to this union.

The intimate relationship between husband and wife realizes its greatest value when it is based on loving kindness and tenderness between the marriage partners. This fact, supported by valid research data, helps newly married couples recognize that the so-called sex drive is mostly myth. Sexual intimacy is not an involuntary, strictly biological necessity for survival, like breathing and eating. Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife can be delayed or even suspended for long periods of time with no negative effect (for example, when the health of one or the other requires it). Husbands and wives are not compelled to mate because their genes or hormones order them to do so. Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule. While sex drive is a myth, husbands and wives do have physical and emotional needs that are fulfilled through sexual union. If they perceive and appreciate their masculine and feminine natures as important, complementing, but not controlling, parts of their lives, becoming as one flesh can be one of life’s richest and most rewarding experiences.

There are times within the marriage when complete abstinence is appropriate for extended periods of time, such as during ill health, difficult pregnancy, separation due to employment away from home, or a need to restore respect and mutually decent emotional and spiritual relationships. There also are times when a spouse’s emotional and physical needs would make it desirable for the other to be especially affectionate."

http://lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-6-mature-intimacy-courtship-and-marriage?lang=eng

x said...

"You're very believing that the church is going to teach you everything you need to know to get eternal life. The temple disagrees with you. And so do MANY GAs."

The LDS temples not temples of any other faith. Temple teachings can be considered within "The Church". The Church teaches all we need to know to get eternal life and the Church teaches how essential and important temple ordinances are. The Church temples we need to go the temple.

I don't consider temple teachings to be disconnected from or not in harmony with the church teachings. Do you?

I am waiting to hear if sexual touching can be part of celestial sex.

Also, if a couple can't have children, is elderly or during pregnancy or if medically advised to wait to have another child or other situations- you think the couple should practice abstinence?

You would tell a elderly couple, perhaps a elderly couple that just got married, those pregnant, those that can't have children, perhaps those who just got married and can't have children those that must or feel they should wait for other reasons to not have sex? After all you say sex in marriage is only for creating children and anything beyond that is lust. You also say celestial sex is done with the thought of creating children first. So the elderly, the infertile, the pregnant, those that are advised to medically wait to have another child, those that feel they should wait to have a child for other reasons, those that have gone through menopause- only have "lust" and can't have your "celestial sex".

I feel sorry for you that you don't understand sex beyond creating children and that you think anything beyond that is lust. Perhaps you do understand but have changed your views and won't consider anything beyond them.

You can have deep spiritual love for your spouse, a incredible marriage full of the spirit and serving The Lord, not neglect other aspects of marriage and still enjoy/notice the physical in addition to the other aspects of sex during sex. Spirit love can still strongly flow while noticing and delighting in the physical during sex. I have experienced these things.

If a couple feels having 10 kids is too many they are not necessarily lazy. You don't know the couple's circumstances. Or do you claim to? You say you can see anything you want about another person such as self-esteem, etc. Do you think you are a God?

If a couple decides to have 25 kids it is not wrong and blogger never stated it was wrong. Blogger seems to respect that how many kids a couple has is personal. It is between the couple and the Lord and we should not judge others. I think the point was if you are against birth control and if pregancy can be guaranteed every time then the fertile years should equal close to the number of kids kids. So 30 fertile years would be close to 30 kids.

How many kids do you think a mortal women is capable of having? How many kids do you think a couple can afford? Not everyone is rich. With the costs of living rising, pay staying the same, good jobs hard to get and any job hard to get- how can every couple afford 10 kids? Do you think every woman can mentally and emotionally handle raising so many children? What about those fathers and mothers with mental and/or emotional problems?

How many kids did you have?

x said...

Edits:

*The Church teaches we need to go the temple.


*You would tell a elderly couple, a elderly couple that just got married, the pregnant, those that can't have children, those who just got married and can't have children, those that are medically advised to or feel they should wait to have another child for whatever other reasons- to not have sex? After all you say sex in marriage is only for creating children and anything beyond that is lust. You also say celestial sex is "done through the desire to have children being foremost in their minds".

So the elderly, the infertile, the pregnant, those that are advised to medically wait to have another child, those that feel they should wait to have a child for other reasons, those that have gone through menopause, any other situations- only have "lust" and can't have your "celestial sex".

Doug Towers said...

Blogger

An interesting collection of conflictinig statements. My objective isn't to pull that collection to pieces.

My post was in regard to disposing of lust from the human sex action. I still hold to that idea. If you wish to read the parts of these statements to support what you desire to do be that to you.

Interesting that LOL used to mean "lots of love." How things change.

Thanks for your well wishes, and I wish you well for the new year.

Doug Towers said...

I didn't say that the temple disagrees with the church. What I said was that the temple disagrees that the church will teach you everything you need to get eternal life. To put it in plainer English, the temple presents that the church doesn't teach you everything you need to know to get eternal life. To put it in even plainer English, the temple teaches that doctrine is given on levels and that the church is teaching a lower level. Is that clear enough?

You've asked _

"Also, if a couple can't have children, is elderly or during pregnancy or if medically advised to wait to have another child or other situations- you think the couple should practice abstinence?"

You just aren't getting the message are you? You keep talking of all these poor people suffering by going without this important sex that is required for a better lifestyle and marriage.

When I was young I looked at and asked people about love and their marriage. I noted that people were in love when they were younger, but as time went on and the wrinkles began to show that the love died off somewhat (though they didn't confess this). This seemed a contradiction to me. It must have been that eternal being in me that made me aware that there was something wrong with that.

In spite of all their claims that their marriage was improving with time I could easily see that they were struggling with the question. And that deep down they knew they didn't have the relationship that they were professing. They looked at each other and realised it was missing.

Today I know the truth of it. The marriage can grow because the outside becomes irrelevant. Whether the woman is sexy or pretty has no significance. Am I missing out because I don't go out and marry one of the young, attractive females that show interest? No. I am extremely happy and content with the angelic females that are showing interest in me that I truly love inside.

They have tremendous love for me and I have tremendous love for them without a single solitary physical touch. They touch me as no woman ever has before. The power of it has to be experienced to be believed.

As to children, I had only 7. But we did attempt more. There were times when we used condoms due to her ill health at one point.

Am I missing the raging sex I had with my wife? No. Not at all. If I were back there I would not repeat it. What I have is far beyond what I had. Interestingly my wife did make reference to this idea once or twice considering whether we should practise the idea. At the time I rejected it.

You've said _

"If a couple decides to have 25 kids it is not wrong and blogger never stated it was wrong."

What I said _

"Are you implying there is something wrong with a capable person having 25 children?"

You'll note that mine was a question. Not a statement.

You should also note that your question is answered as to whether I'm implying that sick people etc have problems because they don't have more children - "a capable person."

You've said _

"You say you can see anything you want about another person such as self-esteem, etc. Do you think you are a God?"

No. Just a son of one. What kind of a question is that???? Jesus Christ managed to do that before he became a God. We are our father's children when we do as he does.

In regard Celestial sex:- any detracting from the beautiful and wonderful feeling of spiritual love and bringing it down to scratches and itches removes the great wonder that it is and brings it back down to the natural man.

Anon E. Mous said...

Doug

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are saying that sex is fine in marriage and can be helpful until you eventually reach a higher plain. Then you will find a greater thing than doing sex with physical emotions.

Freemont said...

So celestial sex is only available to those capable of having a child and only during the fertile years? Would you only marry a women if she was in her fertile years? Would you not marry a women past menopause since you could not have celestial sex with her? Would you not have any sex with a women beyond reasonable able of having children?

You state you want to make women mothers.

This celestial sex seems to go along with polygamy. A man can have celestial sex with multiple women until they are past their fertile years and then he stops having sex with women who no longer can have children. He then can have sex with other women in their fertile years. Tons of children are the result.

This celestial sex and sex only for creatin children view also makes sense for jealous women who to be able to handle, cope with polygamy.

Doug Towers said...

Anon E. Mous

I would only qualify that by saying in regard the first sentence that it refers to sex with added interest in producing physical effects.

Doug Towers said...

Freemont

You've asked _

"Would you only marry a women if she was in her fertile years?"

No. I look more toward the eternal. After all this life is almost nothing time wise.

There isn't a point to having Celestial sex with a woman who can't have a child through that action. That is the whole way Celestial sex works. Its like trying to drive a cart without a horse.

You've said _

"This celestial sex seems to go along with polygamy. A man can have celestial sex with multiple women until they are past their fertile years and then he stops having sex with women who no longer can have children. He then can have sex with other women in their fertile years. Tons of children are the result."

This could be interpreted into some type of orgy of young maidens. This seems to be taking my idea into the opposite direction from everyone else. They have me in sexual poverty while you have me ragging through a vast collection of young females.

For me to have sex once a day would require me to have 365 younger wives if I got one pregnant each time (as I've stated to be possible). In addition to that I'd have all those wives past bearing age. Move over Brigham Young.

You've said _

"This celestial sex and sex only for creatin children view also makes sense for jealous women who to be able to handle, cope with polygamy."

Yes, talk of polygamy before you marry a woman is one way of acheiving 2 things. One she will reveal her jealous heart (if she has one) and you'll know not to marry her. And 2 she will balk at thew idea because in her heart she wants to rule the home like virtually all women do in reality. So you know not to marry her either.

Freemont said...

"No. I look more toward the eternal. After all this life is almost nothing time wise."

Agreed. This life is a speck of existence. Eternity is after all eternal.

"There isn't a point to having Celestial sex with a woman who can't have a child through that action. That is the whole way Celestial sex works. Its like trying to drive a cart without a horse."

So then I take it celestial sex is not possible unless pregnancy is possible.

"This could be interpreted into some type of orgy of young maidens. This seems to be taking my idea into the opposite direction from everyone else. They have me in sexual poverty while you have me ragging through a vast collection of young females."

Sexual poverty if only one wife. I am only thinking of the more women, the more children produced. But each wife would have to be taken care of throughout her life. Surely each man would have a limit to how many wives he could afford.

"For me to have sex once a day would require me to have 365 younger wives if I got one pregnant each time (as I've stated to be possible)."

So I take it celestial sex is strictly one time every year during the years of fertility (pregnancy possible each time). Or maybe twice a year because soon afer birth a women can become pregnant again. So strictly no more than twice a year. In the case of polygamy the addition of per wife would be added.

Doug Towers said...

Freemont

The reason people are saying that I'm suffering from sexual poverty isn't to do with plural marriage. It is because I've suggested sex only once or twice a year. A person practising monogamy with sex twice a day is going to get far more then I would unless I had over 7 hundred young wives.

As to numbers of wives and children, Jesus promised us that if we observe the principle of consecration he will supply us with our needs (though he will give us difficult times to learn from when necessary).

The biggest problem with multiple wives (and monogamy for that matter) is learning how to be an effective husband (for a man). If the man has multiple wives he has to keep harmony and happiness among the wives as well as the children. From a woman's point it is for her to be effective at helping the other wives with their problems, being a loving wife and raising the children.

Naturally I'm not suggesting people should practise plural marriage until it is either legal again or the world is in such a mess that no one could care less who was married to whom.

Freemont said...

Yes, sex once or twice a year does seem sexual poverty. But celestial sex seems to be strictly once or twice a year. Anything beyond sex for the creation of children is lust, no? So have sex more times a year than a women is capable of being pregnant is lust. With pregnancy being guaranteed every time in celestial sex furthers proves having sex once or twice a year is lust. So its seems either practice celestial sex and have "sexual poverty" or have lust.

Freemond said...

Conclusion and thinking about loud here- celestial sex is sex once or twice a year in addition to ignoring all physical and focusing solely on creating a child and the spiritual. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Freemont said...

"I am extremely happy and content with the angelic females that are showing interest in me that I truly love inside.

They have tremendous love for me and I have tremendous love for them without a single solitary physical touch."

So you are in love with multiple women and multiple women are in love with you? Can I ask are you talking humans or spirits? If human, do you date multiple women now? Can I ask how many women? It seems you practice polygamy already in your heart?

I think polygamy would be beneficial to especially women. There would be help in raising children and keeping house. There could be deep friendships. All the wives could be best friends. But someone would certainly need to be full of the spirit always for it to harminously work. Also full of the spirit so no jealousy or anger would emerge. And in the polygamy situation I think jealous and anger could easily emerge if not living righteously enough.

Doug Towers said...

Freemont

Celestial sex has to be built up to. It won't happen straight away unless you aren't married at present and have the time to prepare yourself before marriage.

Also having the ability to get pregnant immediately requires working up to.

My reference to the women I love are those still alive.

In regard my dating habits my dating isn't conventional. Though I have recently come to feel I should date someone conventionally to avoid others being confused. I haven't had a normal date since my wife died.

Since really accepting to follow Christ and be led by the Holy Spirit at 20 the amount of females interested in me at any one time has expanded and expanded. Also as I changed my understanding of sex and altered my way of feeling this expanded the situation even further.

For years now my "love life" has consisted of many females expressing their desire to be with or marry me. I don't put any restriction on anyone, and tell them that I have a standard I desire. And that if they reach that I would be happy to marry them, IF God is in agreement. And when I say I have no restriction I actually mean no restriction. I don't bar any female from friendship with me.

Even if the female doesn't make it I guarantee her that by making these changes her life will be improved.

Thus I have females ranging from 8 to into their 80's. The 8-year-old's parents have thanked me for my understanding of their daughters feelings. I had this also with twin 10-year-olds whose mother is very thankful of the faith that I am promoting in her daughters (they are now 14) (the father is still trying to come to terms with it).

While those are unusual, 13-year-olds and on are quite common. As these females are growing up in the church (for those who are church members) I am glad to be keeping their focus on marrying a church member.

Mixed feelings have existed among parents and I have even had one who firmly believed I'd run off with her lovely 15-year-old daughter - A lot of drama there. Her daughter is now well beyond 18 and I still haven't been inspired to marry her though she is quite a catch and loves me quite a lot.

As I always say to those parents that are concerned, their daughters come to me, I don't go to them. Nor have I invited the relationship. I have accepted the relationship however. I don't believe in being rude to or hurting them or taking away their self-confidence in romantic situations.

Females in the higher ages have sometimes had a successful marriage and are already married for eternity. I accept the friendship but can't really work on establishing an eternal marriage.

Many of the ones in between have had quite rocky marriages and haven't really let go of it.

In addition to this I also have some young females from outside the church who try to turn me to lust. Unfortunately you can't just have all the good side without the bad. But these things teach me patience and longsuffering.

Then there is the fact that in dealing with females there are strange quirks to deal with: Dramas that come along.

So my love life is more packed than my writing on the internet.

But those who really love me make it all worth while. And of those in the upper bracket I don't sense any jealously. Jealously comes from a sense of desire to control and own.

Anon E. Mous said...

Of those presently interested in you how many females have actually reached what you desire?

And how many have you been inspired to marry?

How many have ever reached what you are looking for?

Don't you feel anything about a female looking pretty?

Doug Towers said...

Anon E. Mous

1. While there are several who have shown a white glowing spirit at times, I can only confirm 2 as definites.

2. I've been inspired that I will marry one of them so far, though not yet. I'm not really looking to be inspired that I'll marry any other particular female at this time. I think the idea of plural marriage is a bit heavy for some. Even though people know that I theoretically believe in it. But looking at several real females and me saying I will marry them some day would be a bit too realistic for some.

3. So far only 3 have reached what I desire.

4. I think its nice looking at a pretty female. A bit like looking at a pretty scenic view. The scene can look good on passing, but living up there may be very impractical. There is nothing to compare with what I see inside one of those females I've mentioned. It just leaves the other emotion for dead.

Anonymous said...

Do you not think a female can be beautiful on the inside and outside?

Anonymous said...

In regards to celestial sex, not everyone has to achieve that in this life? Do you even think many can even achieve that in this life? I mean you said God has not commanded it, right?

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

If a female is beautiful on the inside she can always look beautiful to you if you look using your spirit.

If a female is beautiful on the inside you can actually take that forward and show that beauty on the outside. Its very simple. Once you've set that it remains for the whole time you are looking at her. Regardless of how she looks physically she will always look beautiful to you. Even if she is 110 years old. Its an amazing thing.

Anonymous said...

I know what you are saying. I have worked with those who are physically disabled and generally considered unattractive on the outside. But, their inner beauty makes them beautiful to me on the outside too (but not in a romantic way. I am married and not interested in polygamy).

Think of my question in the superficial way I guess. You know people generally think of beauty on outward appearances. Your views of lust prove that.

So, with the lustful/superficial/outward appearances thinking- you agree someone that is physically pretty/appealing on the outside can also be beautiful on the inside?

You did not answer my other questions about Celestial sex.

Anonymous said...

I'm probably not asking and saying things right. Let me try again.

You stated

"I think its nice looking at a pretty female. A bit like looking at a pretty scenic view. The scene can look good on passing, but living up there may be very impractical. There is nothing to compare with what I see inside one of those females I've mentioned. It just leaves the other emotion for dead."

So someone we may think is nice to look at, someone we think is pretty or a pretty scenic view- can that same person NOT be just as beautiful on the inside/spiritually?

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

Our life with our parents begins with commandments to follow.

As time goes on those commandments become advice.

And eventually parents hope that it is no longer necessary to give advice because we learn to live correctly (if they were righteous parents).

Our experiences with our Father in Heaven should be almost the same (though we will always need to learn something).

"For see, it is not right that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receives no reward. Surely I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness." D&C 58:26-27 (altered for those with literacy problems)

God makes commandments for those on a Telestial level. It is to bring them up to a Terrestial level. But we are wanting to not only rise even further to a Celestial level, but to, in fact, get to the highest degree within it. I know its a bit heavy, but the reality is that talk of "commandments" is for spiritual juveniles.

Our Father in Heaven is looking out for our interests. If you want the greatest you have to become it: You are what you make yourself. Trust him and you life WILL be happier.

Talk about putting things off until after the resurrection is like saying, "yeah, I'll do that tomorrow." Those "tomorrows" never come. You set your course every day. Which direction will you make it TODAY?

You've asked if I think many will acheive it in this life? The answer is, "no." But I also know how many males will obtain eternal life. And if you asked me if that was many, my answer would be the same.

But one thing the Holy Ghost told me many years back in asking about my chances of getting eternal life were, is that they are the same as everyone else's. Its my choice.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

If they really are a beautiful person on the outside they may have a vanity problem to overcome. But this may not be the case. Yet to get to the point, there is no reason why they can't be beautiful on the inside also.

Anonymous said...

Commandments are for spritiual juvenilles. Interesting. Those with literacy problems?

Anonymous said...

You stated: "Our Father in Heaven is looking out for our interests. If you want the greatest you have to become it: You are what you make yourself. Trust him and you life WILL be happier."

I agree with that. I do trust him and God has not told me some things that you are telling me.

If these things are so essential why does the Church not teach it? I am a endowed member of the Church but I have never heard these things taught in the temple either.

Are you saying if you don't ever practice/reach/believe in celestial sex in this life and/or don't believe that celestial sex is as you explain it- then you won't ever obtain eternal life?

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

"Those with literacy problems" means that I changed the text to fit in with modern English.

Anonymous said...

Okay, makes sense. You fail to address my other questions/thoughts.

Doug Towers said...

Anonymous

Sorry about the delay on the response: Internet problems.

Let me say in regard the church (and the temple included) that it is a wonderful organisation. Don't misinterpret me there. Whether you are born into the church or find it that can be the way that leads you to eternal life. But it is only a beginning or stepping stone. Not that you should ever leave it. The things taught in it are wonderful. The job of the church is to be there for support, instruction, friendships, ordinances, etc. And these are great.

The thing is that it must be remembered that they are also there for people to begin with. They are there for those who are in deep spiritual struggle. They are there for those who have committed serious sins. They are there for those who are new members. They are there to find those who don't know of the truth yet. The church's roll has to be as universal as possible. So it cannot be totally geared to all. The doctrine has to try and cover it all enough to be of some service to all. Yet it must remain simple enough for the nonmember walking in the door.

In our growth we must step beyond the foundation (not leaving it) and start to build the walls of our own personal church with God. This requires us to take the Holy Ghost as the guide to our doctrinal position.

"For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived - Surely I say to you, they shall not be cut down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day." D&C 45:57

We have to learn and apply the mysteries to get eternal life.

"If you shall ask, you shall receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowlegde, that you may know the mysteries and peaceable things - that which brings joy, that which brings life eternal." D&C 42:61

This, to some extent, answers your final question. For a full answer you would have to discuss that with God.

Kim said...

I would like to Thank Doug for posting this. For the fact that it made me realize more about why masterbation is wrong. I would also like to Thank CoriAnton for making excuses to why it was ok. I have realized that I have wormed around the truth of why it was bad for so long that I had created loop holes just like CoriAnton. I realize now that it was just me hurting my family, and the ones that I love. If I love myself and have respect for myself, then I need to stop beating around the bush and take the higher road. Thank you again Doug for helping me realize that.

Doug Towers said...

Kim

I'm glad the message has reached out and touched you. I wish you well as you persist in making your personal improvements.

As you continue in the fight, you will win. Any one can get there with persistence.

Posted on your blog before in disagreement but now I agree with some things said...

Thanks for posting this blog entry against masturbation. I have struggled with masturbation for a little over a year. I am almost breaking the habit (the past two months I have had one slip up each month). I have come a long way and am proud of myself. Still have a little ways to go. It is hard but I know I can stop for good. I am tempted sometimes but it feels great when I resist and that temptation fades away. I am really aiming for my last slip up to be the last. Masturbation is addictive, enslaving and deceitful. Part of my problem was self-treating my depression and anxiety with masturbation which is not effective. Self-stimulation only made my anxiety and depression worse. Sorry for my long comment. Happy Turkey Day to you this week.

Doug Towers said...

Posted on your blog

Its great to hear you are persisting with getting rid of the problem. People have only failed when they give up. Persistence will get anyone there.

In reading your comment I would only add that spiritual focus will bring in a new person to help replace the old one. Thoughts of loving and caring relationships will help you enjoy the change.

Thanks for the well wishes. And a happy Turkey Day to you.