Mark E. Peterson Never Saw His Wife Naked

[_Trevor]

Your God is yourself; you are a homotheist.

For those who do not share Coggins' staggering depth of knowledge:

"If aggrandizemental, physical anthropic exclusivism (X.20) involves anthropomorphism. The divine operational manifestation of this form of speciesism is anthropomorphic homotheism (X.20.05.10). As a cognition this is the belief that the supreme being (if monotheistic) or the gods (if polytheistic) necessarily and exclusively have human physical characteristics, such as corresponding to the parts of the human body and such as determining its/their power, possibly only gradually exceeding what is normal for earthly human beings. This divine belief is an anthropic extension of narcissism: human homotheists who thus create the supreme being or gods in their own image have the divinity of mere being. (It is a piteous sight indeed to see homotheist man pine away for love of the god upon whom he so piously reflects while looking at him in the water.)"

[_Trevor]

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.

I think the truth is that it was never preached from the pulpit that consistently matters: the Tabernacle/Conference Center pulpit. I first heard of this policy in the 70s, and the last time I heard of it was this decade.

One thing that I have learned about apologists is that they love to talk about what they never heard in church when a critic brings up something unpleasant that most of us have heard in church. It's as though we had belonged to completely different organizations that happened to be uncannily parallel in most respects.

[_Coggins7]

One thing that I have learned about apologists is that they love to talk about what they never heard in church when a critic brings up something unpleasant that most of us have heard in church. It's as though we had belonged to completely different organizations that happened to be uncannily parallel in most respects.

All it really indicates is that you perhaps lived in Utah or Idaho and were privy to some obscure teachings or putative policies that never made it beyond a regional audience.

[_Trevor]

All it really indicates is that you perhaps lived in Utah or Idaho and were privy to some obscure teachings or putative policies that never made it beyond a regional audience.

Wish I had a consolation prize for you Coggins.

[_Coggins7]

I wish I had a booby prize for you, but for that, I'm afraid you'll have to go to the sex thread (ducking...)

[_Trevor]

I wish I had a booby prize for you, but for that, I'm afraid you'll have to go to the sex thread (ducking...)

Ducking would be a good choice right now.

[_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.

I think the truth is that it was never preached from the pulpit that consistently matters: the Tabernacle/Conference Center pulpit. I first heard of this policy in the 70s, and the last time I heard of it was this decade.

One thing that I have learned about apologists is that they love to talk about what they never heard in church when a critic brings up something unpleasant that most of us have heard in church. It's as though we had belonged to completely different organizations that happened to be uncannily parallel in most respects.

Yes, I hear ya!

If we can't produce proof from the Ensign or a conference, then it never even happened.

Its like the cookie package caper. Four young siblings arrive home after school. Three of the siblings are apologists, the forth is the critic. Being hungry, the critic finds a new package of Oreo cookies in the cupboard. He opens the package and helps himself to some cookies, then returns them to the cupboard. After the critic exits the kitchen, the three apologist children help themselves to these same cookies without the critic kid observing.

Mom arrives home later and discovers the half empty package. Mom inquires about the missing cookies. The critic confesses, but is bewildered at the number of cookies missing. Since the confession has been made, the apologists see no need to recognize their role in the depletion of the Oreo's. They allow the critic to take the fall for all of the missing cookies, despite his protests that he only had a few.

So, if there is no evidence, then the policy never existed. The apologists lived happily ever after.

[_Trevor]

Yes, I hear ya!

If we can't produce proof from the Ensign or a conference, then it never even happened.

And ya better hope the Church didn't already cover its tracks by editing the record. I've seen it happen a number of times.

[_harmony]

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.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

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.

You can see a copy of the letter here:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml