You don’t seem to be getting the point, so let me try one more time. In your system, if someone puts a gun to a woman’s head and convinces her to have sex lest she be blown to kingdom come, she hasn’t actually been raped (provided she wasn’t physically compelled): she always had the choice of resisting and risking death. But these two alternatives do not offer a fair choice. Hence rape is the only appropriate term.

Pulling the presiding-authority-tie-breaker trump card is the equivalent to a spiritual gun to the head. She can either submit to his will or risk spiritual death (hell). This isn’t a fair choice, and if this pressure is her reason for submitting, it’s rape. The end.

You’re right about one thing, though.

Martial rape has no part in this.

One offensive topic at a time, brother! Let’s stick to marital rape for now, and leave what armies do for another conversation, shall we?

It is the sort of choice that flows from a mature understanding that the two of you are in a symbiotic relationship that requires you to work together and support each others weaknesses with the eventual reward of becoming Gods.

Actually, no. That’s called “equal partnership.” If a man is “presiding all the time,” a woman’s opinions are being shut down. Don’t fool yourself into thinking patriarchy means women have as much freedom as men. Don’t flatter yourself that a subordinate wife defers to you because your ideas are superior and not because the structure puts that obligation on her.

And see, Howard, here’s the problem with saying since God commands us to multiply, there’s nothing wrong with a husband’s insisting on sex: you’ve categorically eliminated rape of fertile women as a possibility. They can’t be raped because it’s God’s will that they be reproducing. Is it also God’s will that they have no choice about with whom and in what circumstances they undertake that project???

Newsflash: women have a right to refuse sex. It’s not up to a man to make the decision to reproduce by himself. Sure, marriage should involve conjugal relations. But use persuasion. Trump cards have no place in a discussion of sex.

The only reason you’re convinced rape is irrelevant is that you think presiding over your wife’s sex life is not a form of rape. You’re wrong.

Howard, I’ve been more than indulgent with you. In theory I think anyone should be able to argue their perspective as long as it’s neither personally rude nor vulgar, and, if unacceptable, their views should be refuted rather than expurgated. But since your arguments are both morally repugnant and logically incoherent, it’s just not worth the time it takes to shoot them down. (I might also point out that, strictly speaking, not a single one of your comments was actually on the topic of the post, which I assume you never read.)

So I’m sorry to the rest of my brilliant commenters who have contributed here that I’m exercising my presiding authority and shutting the thread down.

On the contrary Ziff, “amen to the priesthood” occurs immediately when the priesthood is misused. It is not possible to misuse the priesthood, God won’t allow his power to be misused.

D&C 121 says that it’s the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, to exercise unrighteous dominion.
Sure but that doesn’t stop the church from calling men to leadership positions. If we follow your fearful direction we should immediately release all male callings, but the Lord continues to call men to leadership positions.

Kiskilili:

Balderdash. They may lose the Holy Ghost. They may jeopardize their eternal bliss. But, to paraphrase Starfoxy, no Spanish-Inquisition-style Amen Squad is going to bust down the door and handcuff them if they make an unrighteous request of their wife and pressure her by virtue of their God-given authority.

Howard:

This has nothing to do with leading the family in righteousness.

This has everything to do with how families are actually led by real, fallible men. When the (theoretical) check on men’s power doesn’t come into play immediately, and likely not until the next life of what good is it in this life?

I get the sense that we have very different ideas about how often men make mistakes or sin or dominate unrighteously. I suspect pretty much all of us husbands make mistakes constantly. This is why I think it’s crucial that husbands and wives work in a genuine equal partnership. Naismith’s #191 (third point) sounds like a good example. Howard, you sound like you think that men make mistakes so rarely that the “amen to the priesthood” can actually be applied every time, or at least that it’s practical to have a long round of fasting and prayer, followed by counseling with the bishop.

That’s not how we men are. That’s not how people are. D&C 121 says that it’s the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, to exercise unrighteous dominion. I think that’s a very good description. It’s not that some people are prone to unrighteous dominion, or that we’re slow to get into it. As soon as we get a little authority, we pretty much drift right into it. So “humbly share your opinion with your husband and hope he takes it into account” and “go to the bishop” and “wait for his priesthood to be taken away if he sins” are not helpful answers for what a wife should do if dominated unrighteously. She needs something immediately useful, like a genuine equal partner relationship.

In any case A Proclamation to the World doesn’t give us any indication when to stop multiplying. So, “never” has no place here, does it.

I’m still honestly curious about what your wife thinks about this conversation. Have you discussed it with her?

Thank you for endorsing A Proclamation to the World because it provided an opportunity to demonstrate that God commands us all to have sex, at least during the child bearing years.