Mark E. Peterson Never Saw His Wife Naked

[_harmony]

It will probably be too much for the choir here if I mention that there has never been any official Church counsel regarding oral sex, and I have never personally heard of or received such counsel.

Where were you in the early 80's? Lost in a fog somewhere? Because you obviously missed out on one of the most impactful bloopers the 20th century church has ever known.

[_harmony]

Whether they are doctrinal or not is really beside the point. The Church could conceivably have lots of horrible policies that are never reflected in doctrine, and they would still be horrible.

Yes, it is the point, and since the Church has never had any horrible policies (although one could argue mistakes have been made from time to time), the point is moot.

Horrible policies:
1. the priesthood ban
2. closed financials
3. restricting access to temple sealings
4. polygamy
5. pressure to serve missions
6. obedience as the first law of the gospel
7. all or nothing
8. bishops interviewing teenagers without a parent present
9. mandatory yearly tithing settlement
10. no mechanism for feedback from the members

And that's just off the top of my head.

[_Trevor]

Another fun one I heard of this past year was the recent requirement from one area authority that women wear pantyhose to church.

[_karl61]

It will probably be too much for the choir here if I mention that there has never been any official Church counsel regarding oral sex, and I have never personally heard of or received such counsel. The only time I ever heard of such was from...stories...that float around LDS culture from time to time. I've never seen it in an Ensign, never heard it mentioned in Conference, and throughout my youth; all the time I was active, it was never taught to me by a Bishop, an SP, or anyone else. It never came up in a worthiness interview for any position, including reception of the Priesthood.

RFM is well known as an intellectual and ethical asylum. Its credibility is zero, corresponding to its general tenor of intellectual dishonesty and shrill hysteria.

Which is why, of course, Infy feels right at home there with the other Morlocks.

And with that, all you Mormons can now bow your head and say, yes, and go back to believing. Coggins and Mormons will never be intellectually dishonest and will always be fully credible.

Gag.

don't forget to click page 2.


http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml

[_Coggins7]

Another fun one I heard of this past year was the recent requirement from one area authority that women wear pantyhose to church.

At least he didn't ask the men to wear them. Must not be much of a liberal...

[_Coggins7]

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.

My feeling here is that if it were, there would be plenty of references to it in Ensigns, Conferences, and in Priesthood and Relief Society meetings and manuals, but I've never encountered it once. I couldn't have told you what the Church's position is on it ever during my lifetime, because, as far as I knew, it had none. If they had wanted this to by publically and generally understood, they certainly could have, as with other aspects of the Law of Chastity. They never chose to do so, however.

I never knew of this letter until I found it on the internet some years ago, which should tell you something about the aspect of it in question. I've had a lot of Bishops, SPs, and interviews, and its never so much as come up at all. Never. Do with this as you will.

[Guest]

RFM?

Sorry, I only have three words: consider the source.

While we're on this subject... I remember once in the Atlanta singles ward the bishop held a conference for just the men and he was telling us stories about people coming to him who had anal sex, and thought that it was OK. We're talking about single guys who though anal sex didn't count as premarital sex.

I inadvertently laughed out loud.

[_Maxrep]

Coggins,

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.

[_Coggins7]

1. the priesthood ban

I have no knowledge what the origin of the ban was, or why it lasted as long as it did. The one thing I am not at all convinced of is that is was a "mistake" or that the Lord did not have his hand in it. The various theologiacl explanations put forward in an attempt to understand it are another matter. As I've said a million times before, most peoples of the earth have undergone a "Priesthood ban" for most of human history, and the case of Black people is not an exception but the overall rule.

2.

closed financials

Tough titty.

3. restricting access to temple sealings

All worthy members can worship in the Temple. I do not know what you are talking about.

4. polygamy

Polygamy is a doctrine of the Gospel, period. It is well attested in the Old Testament among a number of Prophets and Patriarchs and it is never condemned in that context, unless one attempts it outside the Lord's boundaries. There are any number of "hard doctrines" that I would rather not deal with too, but the question is whether one is going to live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" or delimit oneself at some point. There are kingdoms and "mansions" for all those who feel they cannot receive the light and knowledge offered. That is, of cousre, our choice.

5. pressure to serve missions

Serving a mission is a commandment and official counsel from the Lord's servants, period. It is incumbent upon male members and a nice idea for young sisters as well. It is a testament to your fatuous claims of love of the Church that you see no point in extending its teachings to others.

6. obedience as the first law of the gospel

Your God is yourself; you are a homotheist. Your ilk is well attested in the Book of Mormon (but since you don't accept that book as scripture, no point in holding forth on its claimed authority).

7. all or nothing

Anything below the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is a form or degree of damnation. If that is the goal, than, anything less than that; any form of damnation, or damming of one's potential and progression, is "nothing" as compared to perfection.

8. bishops interviewing teenagers without a parent present

Most parents in a Ward trust their Bishops implicitly to deal with anything that might come up in a psychologically and spiritually mature manner. He who does not trust, will not be trusted, said Lao Tzu. Your cynicism and smarmy self righteousness are so charming, Harmony.

9. mandatory yearly tithing settlement

My my, aren't we stingy...

10. no mechanism for feedback from the members

Now you've just devolved into flat footed lying again.

Now, I want you to take each and every one of these claims back to your Bishop and SP and let's see if you get your Temple recommend renewed.

[_Coggins7]

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.