The Conditional Commandment

Disclaimer: I welcome comments on this post. However, I reserve the right to delete any and all comments that I deem to be inappropriate in nature. This is not a topic I broach lightly, but I firmly believe it can be discussed sensitively, without specific references to anatomy or anything else Google-able. Please remember that my children are frequently featured on this blog and do your best to protect them from creepy searches. And don't test me. I will delete your comment, with neither guilt nor compunction.

Also -- I have no credentials here. This post reflects nothing more than my own personal opinions.

A few years ago I read an article about finding your personal ministry. At the time, I had just finished serving as Young Womens president, and in my new calling in the stake Relief Society, I was in the midst of presenting the standards outlined in "For the Strength of Youth" to the combined adult groups of every unit in our stake. I joked that, especially in light of the Relief Society lessons I'd been assigned to teach lately, it seemed that maybe my personal ministry was to talk about sex to as many different groups of people as possible. For a while there, just about every Sunday I covered that most delicate of topics -- for youth, for Relief Society, for everyone.

I met a wonderful woman a few months ago named Natasha Helfer Parker. She is a therapist, and a Mormon. She has a blog, appropriately named The Mormon Therapist, wherein she answers questions submitted anonymously by people who would like to have advice in the context of the LDS faith. She provides a valuable service, and has proven to be an excellent resource on topics ranging from parenting to family relationships, and, yes, to marital intimacy.

Lately, Natasha has been fielding a lot of questions -- specific questions -- about intimacy, about what is or isn't appropriate in the marriage bed, about the church's stance or lack thereof on specific behaviors. While Natasha's answers are thoughtful and her research is impeccable, I have found myself thinking about the genesis for these queries in the first place.

Why are so many people asking for an explicit guideline regarding intimate, personal  behavior?  Why do people feel the need to get permission before engaging in certain acts of sexual expression?

The commandment we have regarding intimacy, that is, to not engage in sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage, is the only one we have that is conditional. It is the only "do not" we have that is followed by an "unless". It's not "thou shalt not kill, unless . . ." or "thou shalt have no other gods before me, unless . . ." or "thou shalt not bear false witness, unless . . ." Even the Word of Wisdom gives us a pretty specific list of substances that are or aren't okay for us to consume. But sex? Sex is conditional, circumstantial, situational. And once those conditions have been met, it's still pretty complicated. Or is it?

I have noticed a recent trend in General Conference talks: there seems to be a greater emphasis lately on development of personal spirituality. We are counseled to learn the doctrines of the church, and then apply them to our lives. It's that simple. We are counseled, in leadership training, to learn the programs of the church and then apply them to the special needs of local units. We are to learn the Gospel, developing a personal relationship with our Savior and an affinity for the Holy Spirit so that when we are prompted to do or to not do, we are prepared to hear  -- and then to follow.

I don't know why people have a hard time applying that counsel to marital intimacy. If we are ever entitled to personal revelation, isn't it there? Sanctioned exercise of procreative powers (and I do mean using them even when there is no chance of actual procreation) has the potential to both strengthen a marriage and bring a couple closer to their Creator. That union of man and wife is by its very nature sacred and holy, and the Holy Ghost need not leave your bedroom when the act is initiated -- should not, in fact. You can rely on his confirmation that your physical expressions of love for your spouse, and vice versa, are sanctioned by the Holy Spirit.

Every party who enters a relationship does so with baggage. Of course, some baggage is more difficult to deal with than others. It is this variation in experience that makes the constructs of sexual behavior so difficult to define. What may cross a line for one couple may be the pinnacle of union and a holy experience for another. But if you are maintaining your spiritual self, you can -- should -- expect guidance in every aspect of your life, including sexual activities. This requires a great deal of communication between husband and wife, and that kind of communication, when entered into in the spirit of love, exploration and compromise, can only strengthen a relationship and make it easier to apply the same principles of communication to other aspects of a marriage.

Why are we asking these questions? Why do we need specifics? I'm still not sure there's a clear answer. Maybe we like a laundry list of dos and don'ts. But that's a bit pharisaical, isn't it? That makes it easy to ignore spiritual promptings. We must trust in our own preparation to receive personal revelation in this most personal of realms. As I said before, if we can expect personal revelation about anything, isn't it intimacy?

This barely scratches the surface -- there are so many more ways to frame this topic. What say you?

PostScript: After writing this post, I found another excellent reference. I urge you all to go read  this BYU devotional given by Jeffrey R. Holland during his tenure as university president.

To Comment, or Not to Comment?

There's been a lot of stuff out there lately about this very topic, so here's my two cents worth. And this will be permanently posted on my sidebar (it's already there) in case anyone gets mad at me in the future for not commenting. Just so you're warned.

I write for personal enrichment. It forces me to use my brain, improve my vocabulary, focus my energies, and exercise my talents. Even if there is only one person out there besides my blood relatives who reads a word I've written, I want my writing to be as clean and polished as possible for that one person, and for myself -- because I am a bit of a perfectionist, and because I have found that it is a singular pleasure to go back to old posts and reminisce about what my kids were doing, or what I was thinking about. I am grateful that even though I can't remember what was happening in my life six months ago (precisely) I have recorded something of the thoughts and events I was experiencing then.

I also read for personal enrichment. Sometimes I comment, sometimes I don't. But I never (can I say it louder? NEVER) comment just because I want someone else to comment on my blog. I would call that insincere. I would call that fake. I would call that a bit too much like middle school for comfort.

I comment when I feel moved to comment; when I have some valid question, or an answer for someone else's; when I feel inspired by someone's post, be it hilarious or harrowing or heartfelt. But I don't not comment because I disliked something. Sometimes it's just the opposite, and I feel like anything I could say would seem trite next to the extremely wonderful post I've been reading.

I expect the same of you, dear readers! Don't comment on my blog just because you want my comments. You may or may not get them, and if you do, it will have nothing to do with reciprocity. The only thing that will get me to comment on your blog is content.

So. I write for me. I read for me. Sometimes I comment. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I get comments. Sometimes I don't. But either way, I'll still be writing. And either way, I will have many happy days of reminiscing and remembering in the future because I had the wherewithal to write down some stuff about my life.

My Declaration of Independence

Long post alert. Consider yourself warned.

Those who don't want to hear about politics on a blog, stop reading now. Or don't. It won't be what you expect.

I like to consider myself an independent thinker. I pride myself on my ability to think. I like to think -- in fact, thinking keeps me up most nights way past my bedtime. And lately, I've spent a lot of time thinking about politics and economics -- two things closely tied in this current climate of market instability. I discovered that I didn't know that much about economics, so I educated myself, and then I did some more thinking. (Something must occupy my mind when I'm folding all that laundry. My brain retreats from The Backyardigans in futile efforts of self-preservation. Into the thick of it! Into the thick of it!)

Here's where I landed: I'm taking this independent brain of mine right on down to the Board of Elections and changing my party affiliation. I am not a Democrat. I disagree with most of the basic planks of the Democratic party platform. But nor am I a Republican -- and it takes a lot for me to say this.

I do not look forward to the implementation of Barack Obama's healthcare reform initiatives, nor am I sure how our small but incorporated business will bear the new corporate tax structure. I disagree with Democratic stance on many social issues, but not as many as you might think. And I cringe every time a new (soon-to-be-dysfunctional) government agency is created to once again relieve people of their personal responsibility. I resent the fact that so many people are dependent on our government for basic needs, but I also know that there are people who legitimately need to take advantage of these services.

I do believe we should be good stewards of our environment, but I am only willing to take that so far. I mean, trees over babies? I still can't believe the party that espouses protection of the environment is also unwilling to protect unborn children.

I cringed to see John McCain's healthcare plan as well. I questioned his ability to bring this country out of the economic doldrums (isn't he the one who said he should have listened in his college Econ 101 class?), and worried about Sarah Palin's obvious lack of knowledge about things she should have already known, or, at the very least, researched before subjecting herself to nationally-televised interviews.

I take great issue with legislators who, when they leave office, either by their own choice or the action of voters, are so ill-prepared for the real world that the only way they can provide for themselves is as lobbyists. While public office is a time-consuming job that deserves to be compensated, I suspect there are too many in office of both parties who will prostitute themselves in any way it takes to maintain a seat.

So where does that leave me? I think it leaves me unaffiliated. Goodbye, Republican Party! No more straight party tickets for me. I will research the candidates -- every one of them -- and vote according to individual platforms. I will not assume that just because we belong to the same group, we are like-minded individuals. If I don't like the Republican candidate, it doesn't matter -- I'm an independent now! If I criticize the Democratic candidate, it's not because I'm biased -- I'm my own political machine, not swayed by party-line persuasions. There are many issues that baffle me -- poverty, corporate greed, illegal immigration, countless others. And so, from now on, my vote will have to be earned. Period. How about you?

Side note: CPod and I looked at a county-by-county election map of the whole country, a sort of red-county, blue-county map of the US. We've decided the parties should be renamed City Mouse and Country Mouse.

And here's what my Y-chromosomed family members look like when I ask them to show me their muscles:
Cowboy, rugby player, race car driver, ninja warrior. Love it. I was a gypsy, but you'll never see a picture, because I'm the only one that takes any!