Jason Bourne wrote:Coggins, The FP issued a letter on January 5, 1982 which, among other things, defined oral sex as an unholy and impure act and that it if married couples are involved in unholy and impure acts it may mean denial of a TR. Following that letter many SPs and bishops starting asking specific questions about oral sex. Members complained and the FP issued another letter telling leaders not to get so specific. But they did not revoke the prior advice.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Well Styleguy, too bad I suppose, that no Bishop or SP, not one in some 35 years, has ever mentioned the term "oral sex" in an interview, for the Temple or anything else. Never. Its never been taught from the pulpit, not once in my experience. Never. not once, ever.
I have no explanation for this (and I'd like some other TBMs to chime in here with some ideas) except that the First Presidency's interpretations of all Gospel principles are not necessarily meant to be understood by the membership as binding or official.
Holy hell Coggy it was a FP letter on FP letter head!!! But nope, not binding or official at all. This is the problem I have with apologetics. When confronted with a problematic FACT then wave the old "it is not official or binding" wand and away it goes. Well SWK THE PROPHET FELT it was official enough to send a letter about it, or his counselors did since he was failing then. And the main counselor back then is now Prophet today.
But no it was not binding at all. And there have been other talks and articles about thing unholy and unatural not being proper in marriage. BKP gave one and said we all knew what he meant and he did not need to define every detail.
Sheeesh. On FP letter head, but not official or binding. They just mailed it to every bishop and SP for the hell of it. Great funny joke it was.
the opening post may or may not be factual, I honestly don't know. As far as the oral policy, I most definitely think it had a short life span as policy.
Apparently that was the case. I cannot imagine my having missed it over the span of the last almost four decades.
yes i do agree. It was short lived though some out there still may cling to it. But it did mean something when the letter was sent.
Jason Bourne wrote:yes I do agree. It was short lived though some out there still may cling to it. But it did mean something when the letter was sent.
And apparently those "some" included area authorities.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
As I read these letters I can't help but think that things would be much simpler for the LDS Church if they just ceased meddling into the finer private details of people's lives.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Maxrep wrote:If we can't produce proof from the Ensign or a conference, then it never even happened.
Even the Ensign is not an impeccable source, since the famous changing of the conference talk to read what the GA should have said instead of what he actually said.
Imust have missed that little gem. Are you saying that now the printed editions of conference are edited to fix any errant message a speaker may have delivered? How long has this practice been in play?
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013
