Elder Russell M Nelson recently spoke at a YSA Devotional at the Marriott Centre. See the link here. His presentation was largely unremarkable; however his wife raised a few more eyebrows in her presentation.
Let me start by saying that speaking about sex within our religion is something that I support and think that we should do a lot more of. I know many who struggle sexually. This is an issue to many people in the Church.
This post will go through some of Sister Nelson’s suggestions and I will offer my thoughts, or thoughts that I have heard from others.
The Four Truths
1. The notion of “truth”
Sister Nelson starts with the notion that she (as “Auntie Nelson”) is presenting “Four Truths”. I’m not sure what religious and/or academic notions she is relying on to make that assertion. From a religious perspective, she hold no official church position, these “truths” have not been asserted by apostles, are not contained in any official church publication or scripture and are not otherwise self-evident. From a professional perspective (acknowledging that she was very successful professionally as a Family and Marriage Counsellor), I know of no one I associate with (I’m currently completing my PhD in Psychology) or have ever associated with in an academic way, that speaks of their position as truths. They will speak of their position as having support, that other studies provide strength to their position – but never that they have a truth – particularly when we are talking about psychology or the social sciences. My personal position on these truths is that I have significant concerns decreasing to normal concern as we move from “truth” 4, 2, 1 and 3.
She indicates that truth is brought to a person by the Holy Ghost through Heavenly Father. I have listened to what she says about this a few times and I’m not sure exactly what she is getting at. Strengthening her position regarding “traditional marriage” as opposed to gay, defacto and Tinder relationships was where I ended up. But I’m happy to hear your thoughts in the comments.
I was also rather concerned about her “Truth is truth and lies are lies” comment. Again, I’m not really sure what she meant by this, other than to strengthen her own position of talking in “truths”. In the specific topic of sexual intimacy, I am inclined to think less in “objective truths” and more in terms of “what works for you”. Even in the things Sister Nelson mentions, there is significant scope for how you might, for example, be pure, partake of the wonders of sex and how you might want to involve the Holy Ghost.
To sum up this section, I have concerns over:
– Sister Nelsons claim to religious truth
– Sister Nelsons claim to academic truth
– Sister Nelson setting up a dichotomous relationship of truth and lies, relative to marital intimacy
2. The notion of “Personal Purity”
I get what Sister Nelson is trying to get at here. Be the best and most righteous person you can be and you are in the best position to give of yourself and be in “true love”. Not everyone would agree wholeheartedly with that, but it is a nice idea. However, what starts as a nice idea quickly deteriorates.
She lists prayer and scripture study, avoidance of pornography, temple attendance – and even searching out family names – as ways to prepare for true marital intimacy. For my assessment this is taking it a little too far. In other words, the best thing you can do to prepare for sex is to be righteous. No mention of being a good communicator, becoming empathetic, dating people, developing the ability to be comfortable with various aspects of intimacy (social, emotional and physical). No mention of seeking advice and guidance from a counsellor like her or a psychologist or a doctor (if there are physical issues). No mention of speaking to friends, or trusted people around you. Just read the scriptures, pray and do temple work. I don’t get it. I do get that having similar goals and values as your current or future spouse is important, but when it comes to sex – and especially resolving issues with the challenging aspects of it – reading about the wars between the Lamanites and the Nephites probably isn’t going to help all that much. I have heard from people who have attended counsellors with LDS Social Services, that similar advice is often given in relation to a wide array of issues people present with.
To sum up this section, I have concerns over:
– The strength of the relationship Sister Nelson makes between personal purity and good sex
– The lack of listing any other help or assistance someone might engage with in an attempt to improve their sex life
3. The notion of “God approved Sex”
Whilst it sounds “icky” to talk about it, I have the least issue with this one. It does sound a bit silly to insinuate that God is up there looking down as a proud parent when his children are having His approved intimacy/sex.
However, indicating that this is a normal and expected part of married life is a good thing to say, albeit obvious. Although it is interesting that she prefaces her remarks about this that it will “Boggle your mind” because Satan and the world (I guess that means everyone who is not a member of the LDS Church) believe the exact opposite?? Again, I’m not sure exactly what she means by that (People believe it strange that God wants married people to have sex??).
Unfortunately, she reiterates the link between righteousness and good sex in this section as well.
In the end, though, I’m happy to get out of this section, perhaps what she intended. And to me that is that it is OK for married people to have sex.
To sum up this section, I appreciated:
– The notion that sex is something to be enjoyed
But have concerns that:
– The link between righteousness and good sex is reiterated
4. The notion that the “Holy Ghost needs to be involved in your sex life”
OK. I get it. We always need the Holy Ghost with us. But during the hot, sweaty throws of passion – not for me, thank you very much. She again reiterates the notion that personal righteousness will increase the amount of the spirit in your life and will subsequently affect your sex life. She then lists things that will take the spirit away such as anger, lust, un-forgiveness, contention immorality and unrepentant sin. Again, I get that she is saying that we need to be the best people we can. But at the end of the day, we are all sinners and I’m sure that God does not have some way of ruining our sex lives if we got angry at that idiot for cutting you off at the last intersection.
This, to me, is just extremely clumsy language. What a ridiculous idea that you would associate sex and the Holy Ghost. And to think that “lust”, which is defined in the dictionary as strong sexual desire for someone, is somehow going to drive the spirit away. What a load of garbage.
To sum up this section, I have concerns over:
– The claim that the Holy Ghost needs to be involved (whatever that means) in our sex lives
– The claim that sin, which affects us all, deleteriously affects our sex lives
Worldly Sex vs Marital Intimacy
Sister Nelson then creates a distinction between “worldly sex” and “marital intimacy” – which presumably is sex that people have when they are not members of the church and sex that righteous church members have respectively. The idea of creating this distinction is confusing to me. Probably the biggest issue I have with this dichotomy is that she appears to be indicating that good, appropriate or respectful sex can only be had in the marriage of two people who are members of the LDS Church. This is clearly a ridiculous idea. What would non-members who attended this event think of this sort of divisiveness?
Sister Nelson goes on to mention some aspects of this distinction:
(These are not verbatim – I took notes while listening to the presentation)
| Worldly Sex | Marital Intimacy |
| 1. Under the influence of the world, adversary. Involves carnal, sensual and devilish passions | Under the influence of the Spirit
Spirit enhanced and purified passion |
| 2. Anything goes | Exquisite care taken to avoid anything that offends the spirit (language, music, movies) |
| 3. Lustful, kills love | Loving – generates more love |
| 4. Denigrates men and women. Body = plaything | Honours men and women. Celebrates body as a prize of mortal life |
| 5. Individuals feel abused and lonely | Feel more united, loved, nurtured and understood |
| 6. Damages and eventually ruins relationships | Strengthens marriages, supports, heals and hallows marriage |
| 7. Toot of the flute | Grandeur of the orchestra |
| 8. Obsession | Glorious – continues eternally |
I’m not sure where to start here.
In relation to (1) I don’t subscribe to the notion that Satan is in the bedroom of non-members, however, I find it hard to accept that sex does not involve carnal (relating to physical, especially sexual, needs and activities) and sensual (of or arousing gratification of the senses and physical, especially sexual, pleasure) feelings. Isn’t that what sex is?? As for devilish (like or appropriate to a devil in evil and cruelty), I believe this is not the norm in most relationships, and at the extreme end, would represent a criminal offence.
In relation to (2) – again, I don’t believe this is the norm. I believe that most couples work together in what they are respectively comfortable with, and enjoy that.
In relation to (3) Sister Nelson makes the claim that the notion of lust (defined above) is the antithesis of love. I don’t subscribe to that. A husband or wife having a strong sexual desire for someone is a part of love. I can’t see why lust and love can’t coexist.
In relation to (4) – Anyone can denigrate another person sexually. This is surely not, though, something that happens routinely in relationships of people that are not in the church.
In relation to (5) – I’m not even going to comment on this.
In relation to (6) – I’m not going to comment on this either
In relation to (7) – The fact that Sister Nelson doesn’t realise the inappropriateness of this analogy is the funniest thing here. In either case, I see no real way this information could assist anyone with their sex life.
In relation to (8) – I believe this is what they invented restraining orders for.
Conclusions
I think it is a good thing to talk about sex. We do not talk about it enough and lots of people have hang ups about sex. However, I have significant issue with the content and potential consequences of this talk. My main issues are:
– The presenting of these ideas as truths
– The notion that God and the Holy Ghost are far more involved in our sex lives that I thought
– The creation of a false dichotomy of “sex we are having and sex that the world is happening” – this is just not true
– The demonization of normal sexual feelings (even within marriage) like lust and sensuality
– The presence of musical instruments in any sexual analogy
Questions
– What are your feelings about this talk?
– Does the information presented in this talk accord with your experience?
– Is this sort of information going to be helpful to couples with sexual problems?
– Implications for LGBT members?
Wheat & Tares 
This is what happens when a person with no real authority in the church is given a platform to speak to the masses. You end up being taught that threesomes with the Holy Ghost are ideal.
We need female leaders with real authority who think twice before claiming something as a “truth” because they know they’re speaking for the church. Instead we can just disregard what she (and most women excluding perhaps female general presidency and board members) say as more opinion than inspired church-wide truth, which sort of exacerbates the problem of women’s voices meaning less. She’s the visiting “fluff” speaker/opening act that was amusing and maybe you took a few notes but hey now it’s the legitimate Elder Nelson’s turn, let’s find out what God wants us to know. I don’t really see a male version of this scenario since we don’t have female GAs whose husbands get to speak to the big crowd as well.
We women have been encouraged to “speak up” but unfortunately this kind of stuff can be the result. Show me a woman with the weight of the church on her shoulders who communes with God, in a position of authority, on behalf of its members. I wanna hear what that lady has to say about marital intimacy.
I remember when I first encountered her book Purity and Passion (https://www.amazon.com/Purity-Passion-Spiritual-Intimacy-Strengthen/dp/1590384105) and thought that as a single LDS woman she had no idea what she was talking about. I’m not sure that being married to a 92 year old man has changed that significantly…
One of the reasons, I believe, Mormons tend to have a lot of hang-ups about sex is because, while we are generally uncomfortable talking about it, when we do talk about sex, we approach it the way Sister Nelson does here–using flowery victorian euphemisms, titillating ambiguousness, occasionally invoking deity, but never actually getting to the point or being direct.
Let’s keep God/Jesus/the Holy Ghost out of our bedrooms. Some of us have a hard enough time achieving a mutually satisfactory experience as it is, without the added anxiety of being watched, critiqued, spied on, or judged by some Eternal Voyeur.
When we create additional layers of guilt, trauma, self-loathing, despair and/or anxiety among our members who read or listen to talks like this, it is not surprising that we are losing many of our members to either inactivity or resignation. When speakers take harsh and shaming positions on such sensitive issues such as sexuality, members feel unworthy and inadequate. This is very sad.
Yeah, we need to have a conversation about sex, but increasing the purity obsession just feeds the “good girl” (good boy?) syndrome. I also lament that an opportunity was missed to talk about consent. Bringing it up in the context of marital intimacy would be helpful.
I am so, so tired of “the world” being set up as some sort of straw adversary to the obviously superior way Mormons do things. With ‘worldly sex,’ anything goes? I mean how many non-Mormons has she talked to about their sex lives? Even people who *gasp* don’t keep the Law of Chastity usually have some sort of sexual mores. Like, just because you are okay with premarital sex doesn’t mean you are okay with adultery, or abuse, or any of the other ways that sex can be misused. I’ve read about (not experienced personally!) the fact that the BDSM community, in particular, has a fairly rigid code of expectations to insure that no one, even the person being spanked, is being taken advantage of at any point.
I generally agree with everything everyone is saying, in that although I am still unmarried, I don’t think all the scripture reading in the world will prepare me for good sex and I do wish that we youth and adults could get better sex talks. I do think that the way you are reading “wordly sex” is unnecessarily uncharitable. I did not understand her then, nor do I see anything in the talk that says “anyone who is not Mormon is participating in worldly sex.” Rather, it seems to me she is commenting on the sexualized culture that we see in media. Like James Bond, Playboy, really any sitcom and a ton of different movies, not to mention magazines.While I think 1- wordly sex should be better defined, so as not cast the net too wide and 2- our response needs to be better than that above, I don’t think she is completely wrong in describing a media culture that at least I have some concerns over.
Our culture is definitely more sexualized than it was 100 years ago, but that’s not entirely a bad thing. A more sexualized culture is also a culture that is willing and able to TALK about sex in real terms and not euphemisms. This means, for example, that we are less accepting of rape; that we have a better understanding of sexual abuse; and that the field of sex therapy exists, among other things.
Here’s a worldly sex joke I wish she had made: What’s the difference between a chickpea and a lentil? Pres. Trump wouldn’t pay to have a lentil on his chest.
I think most conversations about sex in the church are worth having, but it worries me that there is so little conversation that when a church celebrity mentions it we hang on their every word. This book has already been discussed by my VTs, and as a trained therapist, even though I had little idea of what they were referring to, the attitudes promoted by the book didn’t feel healthy.
If you’re interested in this subject, please seek out a trained, reputable therapist who has access to proper research, and don’t delay. I suppose we could take some encouragement from the sex positive conversation, but please don’t think that real therapy will be this dismal. Sex therapy can be fun.It will make your life richer.
“The fact that Sister Nelson doesn’t realise the inappropriateness of this analogy is the funniest thing here.”
I thought the same thing.
I’ll bet sex therapy is long and hard, but ultimately satisfying.
My feelings? She is strange.
Accords with my experience? Although I can describe some sexual experiences as almost spiritual, the only participants were my husband and I. I just double-checked my memory, and I feel very sure of that.
Her talk helpful to couples? I doubt it. Couples with technical issues, medical issues, relationship issues, fertility issues, porn issues, etc, need to talk to the appropriate person – not just ask themselves, ala Sis. Nelson, Am I pure enough? I’m not against purity; I’m against her defining it for all of us and telling us that every problem can be flogged and solved with MORE purity.
Final thought: My college-aged kids listened and were left very cold. No love developing there for this person. Sad.
Wasn’t she the one who wrote the clueless book for elementary school kids urging them to never sin. Not even once?
So much for her grip on reality…
Many years ago (40 +/-) the ward invited a “professional” to talk to the young men about masturbation.
The first thing the guest speaker said to those gathered was “Raise your hands if you don’t masturbate.”
Shocked, nobody raised their hands to which the speaker then said, “good, we don’t have any liars here.”
I think we have a Wendy Watson problem.
This talk, “The Not Even Once Club” , and the gospel of wealth drivel she was peddling at a devotional a year ago:
“Consider President George Q. Cannon’s approach to tithing when he was an impoverished young man. When his bishop commented on the large amount of tithing poor young George was paying, George said something like: “Oh bishop, I’m not paying tithing on what I make. I’m paying tithing on what I want to make.” And the very next year George earned exactly the amount of money he had paid tithing on the year before!”
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-the-person-you-were-born-to-be?lang=eng
Ahh, the gospel of prosperity! Isn’t it great! Never mind about that pride cycle in the Book of Mormon…
That gal teaches some dark doctrine. And soon she’ll have the ear of the president of the church.
I do think we should cut her a little slack, noting that all she did to qualify for this position is marry a very geriatric man. That said, it is worth remembering that marrying a very geriatric man does not imbue one with sudden wisdom or qualifications even if it does instantly add a listening audience. Once again, if we had more than 9 total (rotating!) women in positions of authority in the church, we might actually hear from qualified women on a regular basis.
I share many of the concerns raised, but highlight a few positives which shouldn’t be overlooked. At least the talk wasn’t “the little factory” talk. Gina Colvin’s podcast on the topic went into a brief anthropological analysis of positive sex attitudes in cultures with female leaders and a divine feminine. So, if we’re headed in that direction, that’s not a bad thing. I raised an eyebrow at the HG in the bedroom idea, which is fairly standard in Christian marriage counseling. I’ve heard ministers from several Protestant and Catholic Churches say the same thing and I just don’t get it. However, I wonder if her Victorian euphemisms and restraint on the topic limited her from fully describing what is meant. For example, tantric sex is a spiritual experience involving a connection to universal energies and spiritual principles to heighten and prolong the sexual experience and the couple’s spiritual connection. . Was she trying to develop or elaborate on a Mormon version?
The other thing that hangs on the back of my mind when I hear her speak about marriage, love, intimacy, God, is polygamy. She married Elder N. less than a year after his wife’s passing and they have both testified of their celestial/eternal marriage. They live spiritual polygamy. I always wonder what this means to them, what intimacy is in that arrangement, especially as they connect to heaven and the godhead. There is another person nearby. All I have to say is that if I had 10 children with someone and if I died and he married a virgin sex therapist who talked about their sexual intimacy all the time, I would not be a happy camper upon our reunion or find watching this unfold any sort of “heaven”.
‘A virgin sex therapist’ ?! Like a chef who’s never eaten. This so needs to be just quietly disregarded.
The talk struck me as fetishism. Perhaps that’s true of many pastors and ministers also in their counseling on sex as Mortimer points out. It is IMO a dysfunctional obsession on spiritual ideas, conflating the sexual with the spiritual. I guess some people lie back and think of the Holy Ghost instead of England. That doesn’t mean it’s good advice, especially not for those who are unmarried and celibate who might think she knows what she’s talking about. She has some very strange ideas that don’t hold true to my life experience at all. I recognize that she has education in this arena. I just don’t know where these crazy ideas originated–certainly not in her schooling, so I assume mostly in her imagination.
I give her some credit for trying to bring up a neglected topic, even as I disagree with some of her framework. I think the general idea of purity and seeking to have love and not worldly objectification as the basis of our relationships is a good thing and common across other religions as well. I think Sis. Nelson may be unaware of some of her blind spots due to lack of experience.
The larger question for me is what is the best venue to have more in depth discussions, with more specifics or practical advice? I’m not sure a devotional such as this is the right place, you can only go so far in this setting. Is it the role of the institutional church to provide the venue at all? Should this be church-wide, something at the local level?
Wow. I think if you came away from Sis. Nelson’s talk with “threesome with the Holy Ghost” or “fetishism”, it says more about you than about her.
She’s an old woman married to an old man trying to communicate certain points about marital intimacy (which includes but is not the same thing as sex) that she understands based on her professional and personal experience. I don’t think she’s weird, I don’t think she’s out-of-touch with reality, and I think that pretty much everything she said is true — I just don’t think her talk was particularly effective with the people she’s trying to reach. For example, I think I know what she means when she talks about needing the Holy Ghost involved in marital intimacy, but I doubt YSA’s do, since bloggers obviously don’t either.
Because these sorts of talks end up addressing extremely disparate audiences, church leaders (and wives) seem to talk in a way that isn’t explicit (and I don’t just mean when they’re talking about sex). They seem to want to communicate general ideas in vague ways rather than specifics, because the specifics might vary for any given listener. In one way it can be good: those who are seeking enlightenment can be led by the Holy Ghost to get from the talk what’s useful for them. But it also also allows for a lot of confusion, because if you don’t already know what they’re alluding to, you might assume they’re alluding to something else entirely. It also allows people who are pre-disposed to be critical to come to any conclusion they want and use it to further their dissatisfaction. The biggest problem, imo, is not the critics, but those who genuinely don’t understand what is being said, and whose misunderstandings can genuinely cause problems. For example, I think talking about “purity” to those living in a society saturated with porn and licentiousness can definitely help them come closer to true marital intimacy, but it can also lead to “good girl syndrome” and sexual frustration for those who are already obsessing over these things. It’s difficult to address all these people at once.
Clearly a much better job could have been done on her talk. I don’t think she was trying to produce a treatise (she spoke, what, 12 minutes?), but to provide a reminder and encouragement. I also think a much more constructive post could have been written. At least, if the objective wasn’t to criticize the doctrine but to improve the dialog . But I think it would have to be written by someone from a position of strength — someone who understood the points she was trying to make, who understood better how to relate to her audience, and who was more focussed on accomplishing the task at hand than on correcting the faults of the person being corrected.
I have to say this also struck me as fetishism, but perhaps that is because I am still traumatized after learning more about Warren Jeff’s fetishes (sex with 12 year old girls -in front of witnesses- was the highest ordinance in his FL DS temple). The sad thing is, I would have eaten this up as a YSA, not knowing how damaging it was. More purity will not heal a broken sex life, and can, in fact, damage it further as the women takes on the role of martyr instead of owning her sexuality, communicating her needs, and dealing with her own insecurities.
We are so drenched in our highly sexualized culture that any attempt — however appropiate — to place boundaries on it seems like a platitudinous display of naivete.
I guess my big problem with it was the generalized use of the term “intimacy.” If you read it just as intimacy=physical sex, then the talk sounds bizarre. I can kind of get on board with some of her ideas as long as she means a much broader definition of marital intimacy including emotional and psychological aspects. In those areas I can understand how being honest, straightforward, kind (all kinds of Christlike traits) improve intimacy. I can even agree that both individuals on the same spiritual wavelength can increase this broader definition of intimacy by cooperating in shared religious activities (praying together, couple scripture reading). I just have a hard time attaching those types of activities to better physical sex. In this framework, I would then define the worldly intimacy as carnal sex devoid of any emotional or psychological intimacy (one-night stands and such).
Unfortunately, I don’t think her message was very clear, even to those who “get” what she was talking about. This weird spiritual view of sex plays into the good girl syndrome – not only does it make it more difficult for a girl to enjoy sex (because she expects it to be spiritual, not carnal), but I’ve heard from LDS women who get flat out disgusted by physical sex, and it becomes a major impediment to the marriage.
As a fan of the OT, I think God has far fewer hang ups about his children getting it on than the Church currently teaches. I fear a misreading of Alma’s “sin next to murder” verse coupled with Victorian era prudeness makes for a rather frustrated people. I’m not suggesting we run around and sleep with everyone in sight. I’m merely suggesting that perhaps Heavenly Father is pleased when His children learn how to help one another experience the joy of sex.
Maybee – great point about authority. Thank you.
Anitawells – very funny. This idea of purifying our passions is crazy. It’s calling good evil.
Jack Hughes – “titilating ambiguousness” is the best phrase I’ve heard this week!!!
Jan – “additional layers of guilt”. More calling good evil, me thinks.
Moss – thanks for the mention of consent. Not something that came immediately to mind in reviewing her presentation, but yes, perhaps a missed opportunity.
Joni – Your comment raised one of the big issues for me in this talk, which was the demonisation of the world – aka the 99.08% of the population that is not a member of the LDS church. Crazy..!!!
Jason B – thanks for your comment. Re:the world – fair comment, however – and I did think about your position on this – however, if the only way to have marital intimacy ie not worldly sex, is to have the Holy Ghost with you, technically speaking that’s only confirmed members of the church. She is pretty emphatic about this, and she quite specifically – especially in the early part of her talk – sets up the dichotomy. Also, this dichotomy is present in many other recent talks by apostles etc where the demonisation of the world is used to set us, as church members, apart.
Ange – an edgy joke that Sister Nelson probably wouldn’t have got.
Handlewithcare – yes, we should be happy believing that people can receive help (for sexual issues) outside the church environment. It wood a while with mental health issues, but I think we have advanced somewhat from the “pray the psychosis away” feelings of the past.
Ruth – loved your comment about your memory..! Lol. The practical applicability of her information – for me – approached zero.
Lois – wow..!! What an interesting situation. Never heard of anything like that!!
Lemuel / Mormon Heretic – agreed. Like an LDS version of Karma.
Liz – a good point. Thanks.
Mortimer – thanks for your comment. To be brutally frank, I tried really hard with this post (perhaps you disagree) to be balanced. There is some good in what she is saying. But there is a hell of a lot of crap, guilt and falsities as well. But if you get out of this talk that she is going anywhere towards tantric sex, well, my friend, you have a hell of an imagination – nothing wrong with that, either. Thanks for your commentary on the polygamy issue. That is front and centre to this conversation also.
HG – good points. Let’s keep sex in the bedroom (or whatever room you choose) and the Holy Ghost out of it.
AJ – you make a valid point. As a branch president, we ran a couple of District Firesides on this subject, where youth could write anonymous questions as well as other talks that were specific but respectful. The youth came up to me after these events and said that they had never had such good instruction and were grateful.
Martin – thanks for your comment. In relation to writing a more positive post, I can only work with what I’m given. I speak as a life long member of the church, a prior branch president, a husband of 23 years, a father of four teenaged children and as one completing the highest educational qualification in a similar field to Sister Nelson. I’m sure there are those differently and more qualified to comment on her talk, however I’m more qualified than 99% of the people in the room to which she was speaking. In the end though, qualification means very little – she was speaking to the worldwide church, with a focus on young, unmarried people. Maybe we should ask them what they think of her “truths”.
Laurie – interesting points. Thanks for commenting.
Jack – platitudinous display of naively – keep these brilliant phrases coming….love it..!!
Even if that involves tooting a flute every now and again
Although I agree with most of your thoughtful analysis, reading that this woman has no authority to truth b/c she is not an apostle in a church that does not allow her to be comes across as unfair and a little…maybe it’s not the right word exactly but “classist” comes to mind. I get (and agree with) what you’re saying about her overall lack of authority and backing for her truth claims, though.
I am glad that female voices are given a forum, but when speakers are chosen on the basis of who they married, as if the authorotative light.reflected from the GAs to their spouses is stronger than any from a woman of another calling, you get talks of commensurate quality.
I should finish my story……
After the speaker asked the attendees to raise their hand if they don’t masturbate, he then proceeded to tell them that it is a natural activity and okay.
With the frequent over emphasis/focus on sexual sin and calling it in some cases as the greatest sin next to murder, I can’t help but think the notion of involving the Holy Ghost is just going to really going to mess things up for many people in their ability to enjoy sex.
Just a note, this was a devotional for both single AND married young adults ages 18-30. “All young single adults (ages 18–30), students who will be finishing high school or the equivalent by the end of April 2017, and married young adults are invited to attend.”