Non-reporductive sex of married couples within Mormonism.

[_Coggins7]

Let me also state thta, at 48 years of age, and after a lifetime of activity in the Church, had there ever been any settled, official doctrine in the church stating that procreation is the sole purpose of human sexual activity, or that oral sex is wrong, I would very likely have heard something about it by now. Somewhere, in a Gospel doctrine class, a sunday school class, sesminary, Institute, Priesthood interviews, my Temple interview; somewhere I would have heard about it. I do know that my late uncle Reynold mentioned that his Bishop that told him that oral sex is of the Devil. Well, that Bishop was well beyond his calling and authority there, and nobody says this does not happen.

Spencer Kimball believed in and taught marital celibacy, or what he termed "continence". No one I've ever known took it seriously, and need not have, as this was his own belief. I'm afraid its Harmony here who is confused as to what is binding doctrine and what isn't. Please leave me out of that tightly knit commuity, however.

[_Runtu]

Let me also state thta, at 48 years of age, and after a lifetime of activity in the Church, had there ever been any settled, official doctrine in the church stating that procreation is the sole purpose of human sexual activity, or that oral sex is wrong, I would very likely have heard something about it by now. Somewhere, in a Gospel doctrine class, a sunday school class, sesminary, Institute, Priesthood interviews, my Temple interview; somewhere I would have heard about it. I do know that my late uncle Reynold mentioned that his Bishop that told him that oral sex is of the Devil. Well, that Bishop was well beyond his calling and authority there, and nobody says this does not happen.

Spencer Kimball believed in and taught marital celibacy, or what he termed "continence". No one I've ever known took it seriously, and need not have, as this was his own belief. I'm afraid its Harmony here who is confused as to what is binding doctrine and what isn't. Please leave me out of that tightly knit commuity, however.

I never claimed it was settled doctrine, but it indeed was "official" policy and counsel (both of which you explicitly denied), unless you consider FP letters to be unworthy of your attention.

On the one hand, you ridicule harmony for telling you what she was taught in Relief Society, and on the other you tell us that you can disregard a First Presidency letter because you never heard it preached in church. Amazing.

[_harmony]

Harmony, you have so little credibiltiy as to knowledge of LDS doctrine that taking your word on any of this would make a fool out of anyone attempting to do so. Its quite true that everything one hears in a local ward Gospel Doctrine class or Relief Society meeting isn't inspired and isn't doctrine. Its also true that the principles and keys to distinguishing between them are with the Church and can be used by anyone living so as to be able to use them.

The truth of the matter is, that you don't want to know.

Heavens, Loran... don't take my word for it. By all means, look it up yourself. This one came out with the signature of the FP, and was read from every pulpit in sacrament meeting. Maybe you just missed church that day. I remember it well because of the whoopdedo it caused in my ward (which is another of those funny stories I seem to collect).

[_harmony]

Let me also state thta, at 48 years of age, and after a lifetime of activity in the Church, had there ever been any settled, official doctrine in the church stating that procreation is the sole purpose of human sexual activity, or that oral sex is wrong, I would very likely have heard something about it by now. Somewhere, in a Gospel doctrine class, a sunday school class, sesminary, Institute, Priesthood interviews, my Temple interview; somewhere I would have heard about it. I do know that my late uncle Reynold mentioned that his Bishop that told him that oral sex is of the Devil. Well, that Bishop was well beyond his calling and authority there, and nobody says this does not happen.

Spencer Kimball believed in and taught marital celibacy, or what he termed "continence". No one I've ever known took it seriously, and need not have, as this was his own belief. I'm afraid its Harmony here who is confused as to what is binding doctrine and what isn't. Please leave me out of that tightly knit commuity, however.

Don't ya hate it when it turns out I'm right? And don't ya hate it when it turns out you're wrong? (not that you'd ever admit it, but it does tend to make me smile a bit).

[_Coggins7]

I see you've now effectively picked up Scratch's tactic of declareing victory before actually having even debated anything substantively.

As I say, there have never been official, settled doctines understood as binding on the LDS people regarding these matters. You have produced no evidence or rational argument to the contrary. It is also the case that counsel for one generation can be inspired even when left to atrophy in later generations. I'm sure that kind of nuance is beyond you, however.

One more thing. The church's official stance on birth control was that the Saints were not to artificially curtail or limit the birth of children. The leadership of the church, again, has never had a doctrine of large family size. That has always been left up to the couple involved and has always been understood to be between them and the Lord (and by the way Harmony, just for the record, the western demorcracies in general, including America, are smack dab in the middle of a serious birth dearth that no matter what we begin doing now, is going to have disastrous demographic, and hence, economic consequences well within out lifetimes. The swinging, liberated seventies have come home to roost, and wil begin laying their eggs well before mid-century. Its not the church's support for large families that has ever been a problem, but the refusal of my generation and subsequent ones to have enough children to replace and replenish the prior ones as they age. It is the rash and reckless self absorbed narcissism and materialism of the post WWII generation that has brought us to the present crisis, not the church).

Again, no doctrine, only your own frustration that the church doesn't look more like you.

[_Yoda]

Hi Cog! :)

I'm 42, and I remember the controversy surrounding this letter. There were actually two letters which were written in 1982. One came out in January, and was not to be read to the general Church population. The second came out to Church leaders in October of the same year.

I did a quick search, and couldn't find copies of the exact letters, but did come across some research regarding the letters which is accurate:

question I have frequently been asked concerns the propriety of oral sex. To address this question, one must first define the term. Is kissing oral sex? How about a mouth on a breast? Or is oral sex limited exclusively to oral-genital contact? (These questions have special significance for persons with disabilities who have paralysis and lack sensation in their genitals, arms, and legs and for whom sexual expression is different from that of persons without disabilities.) On 5 January 1982, in response to numerous queries about oral sex, the First Presidency distributed a letter to bishops and stake presidents.28 In it, they characterized oral sex as impure. However, the letter specifically stated that church leaders were not to discuss intimate sexual matters with members. The letter was also not to be shared with the general church membership.

Apparently, a number of the local leaders read the first part of the letter but ignored the second, choosing instead to delve into members' intimate lives. After the 1982 letter, several of my clients and a number of friends reported experiences in which bishops or stake presidents made such inquiries. Some reported local leaders using church meetings to counsel members about sexual practices. Almost all of the inquiries and counsel dealt specifically with oral sex. As a result of these intrusions, many members wrote letters to church leaders, protesting ecclesiastical meddling. In response to these reactions, on 15 October 1982 a second letter was sent to stake and ward leaders that reiterated the 5 January directive to avoid inquiring into couples' intimate sexual practices.29 Further, it directed leaders that even if asked by members about specific sexual matters in marriage they were to avoid giving direct counsel. The latest directive, in "Instructions for Issuing Recommends to Enter a Temple" (1989), directs interviewers to ask only, "Do you live the law of chastity?" They are further counseled: "When interviewing an applicant for a recommend, do not inquire into personal, intimate matters about marital relations between a husband and his wife. Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions. If, during an interview, an applicant asks about the propriety of specific conduct do not pursue the matter, merely suggest that if the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it. If you are sensitive and wise, you usually can prevent those being interviewed from asking such explicit questions."30 This directive makes it clear that couples, not church leaders, are responsible for their sexual conduct. They should take their questions to God, not to ecclesiastical leaders. The suggestion to "discontinue" sexual practices they have questions about may unintentionally lead to unnecessary guilt and restriction of physical intimacy. The most beneficial recommendation for couples, from a therapist's point of view, is to counsel and decide together. When necessary, couples can then seek God's guidance.

This quote is taken from the online book, Multiply and Replenish by Brent Corcoran.

This is the website address:

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/multiply.htm

[_Runtu]

You started with this:

There is no official doctrine or counsel regarding oral sex in the church

Most would agree that there's no doctrine regarding oral sex. Counsel? Of course, and I even provided a citation.

Then you moved to this:

There never was an official doctrine of policy on the matter. Sources please.

Again, no doctrine, but the policy is there for you to read, unless you don't believe FP letters represent church policy.

As I say, there have never been official, settled doctines understood as binding on the LDS people regarding these matters. You have produced no evidence or rational argument to the contrary. It is also the case that counsel for one generation can be inspired even when left to atrophy in later generations. I'm sure that kind of nuance is beyond you, however.

And apparently, when backed into a corner, you change the definition again to "settle doctines [sic] understood as binding" instead of your earlier assertions that there was no counsel or policy.

[_Runtu]

Hi Cog! :)

I'm 42, and I remember the controversy surrounding this letter. There were actually two letters which were written in 1982. One came out in January, and was not to be read to the general Church population. The second came out to Church leaders in October of the same year.

I did a quick search, and couldn't find copies of the exact letters, but did come across some research regarding the letters which is accurate:

A copy of the letter is located at http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml. The part in question is on the second page.

[_Coggins7]

Very nice. And apparantly so obscure that nobody's ever heard of it or mentioned it since. I'm going to reiterate for you the following: I have never enountered this teaching on oral sex in any manual, any conference report, any Sunday School, gospel doctrine, Institute, or other church oriented teaching activity. I have never heard in taught by a single Bishop or Stake President I have ever known personally, it has never come up in a Priesthood interview with any ecclesiastical leader I have ever known in my lifetime, nor in counseling I've received from Bishops for personal issues.

Now. if it was all that bloody important, this teaching would be all over church manuals, in Conference reports, ensign articles, First Presidency messeges, and the like. It wouldn't have been left to languish on the Internet as an obscure artifact. In 48 years, I've never heard this taught from a single pulpit or any class I've ever attended while a Latter Day Saint.

My Father was a Bishop for ten years, and, after reading his own training manuals thoroughly, found nothing of the kind in those.

I have no explanation for that aspect of that letter, except to say that if it was binding church doctrine, and if the First Presidency expected the Saints to see it as such, the GAs would have made good and sure, as they are perfectly capable of doing, that the teaching received wide dissemination. Further, subsequent First Presidencies would have reiterated it from time to time if it was really important to them. Apparantly, it has not been.

Beyond that, I have nothing more to say on the matter. I don't think it can be resolved to the satisfaction of either eroticism obsessed liberals or ant-Mormons who are hostile to the church regardless of the issue.

[_Runtu]

Beyond that, I have nothing more to say on the matter. I don't think it can be resolved to the satisfaction of either eroticism obsessed liberals or ant-Mormons who are hostile to the church regardless of the issue.

I'm not sure you get much more widely disseminated than a First Presidency letter, but that's neither here nor there. I remember the letter, just as Liz does. Either way, you went from categorically denying that such counsel was ever given at any time to now saying that it was too obscure for you to have heard about.

It's OK to be mistaken once in a while. I'm wrong a considerable amount of the time.

I'm not obsessed with eroticism, nor am I a liberal. Am I anti-Mormon? I don't think so, but you never know. My issue wasn't with the church's right to say whatever it wants about sexuality but rather with your uninformed denial of well-known counsel.