Non-reporductive sex of married couples within Mormonism.

[_Mephitus]

I think this can be tied into the masturbation topic. I don't think I've ever heard of a support (GA'S) of sex within marriage that was not geared towards the intent of procreation. Could such an act be equated to masturbation as it is only a methodology of vainly unleashing or using the powers of life? I've heard from several Mormon teachers that several sexual acts are VERY strongly discouraged. (oral, anal, mutual masturbation, etc) Does anyone have any information regarding any of this?

[_gramps]

Well, about oral: at one time, back in the middle 80's, I believe, the top guys sent a letter to the bishops about oral sex. Perhaps someone has the skinny on that one. By the way, it was a no-no. And I believe they were asking about it in temple recommend interviews.

However, I heard that was not so shortly thereafter pulled back off the question list.

I can't imagine they think anal is ok. Anyone heard anything on that?

About mutual masturbation: How on earth could there be something wrong with that? Except, perhaps, in the Mormon church.

[_Bryan Inks]

Here's my problem with this. Such a narrow and myopic view as "All sex must be for procreation" places undue stress on other people.

For example: I'm completely sterile. Physically and genetically incapable of fathering children. So sex for procreation is out. Does this now mean that I should abstain from sex? I'm now guilty of "masturbation"?

Now, because I'm out of the Mormon Mindset, things like this don't bother me. But can you imagine how something like this could affect someone who is still in the church?

[_Coggins7]

1. There is no official doctrine or counsel regarding oral sex in the church. I was never asked about such in any Priesthood interview I've ever had, including those for the Temple.

2. There is no doctrine in the church, official or otherwise, that claims sex between married people is only for procreation. This is someone's fantasy.

3. I clearly remember hearing conference talks and attending firesides as far back as the late seventies in which it was clearly taught that sex has a prime purpose as a sharing of intimacy and bonding between two people in a married relationship.

[_harmony]

1. There is no official doctrine or counsel regarding oral sex in the church. I was never asked about such in any Priesthood interview I've ever had, including those for the Temple.

Then you're too young to remember it, because I remember it very well.

2. There is no doctrine in the church, official or otherwise, that claims sex between married people is only for procreation. This is someone's fantasy.

"Raise up seed". How quickly you forget, Loran.

3. I clearly remember hearing conference talks and attending firesides as far back as the late seventies in which it was clearly taught that sex has a prime purpose as a sharing of intimacy and bonding between two people in a married relationship.

And yet you don't remember the famous oral sex letter? Now that's a selective memory!

[_Runtu]

1. There is no official doctrine or counsel regarding oral sex in the church. I was never asked about such in any Priesthood interview I've ever had, including those for the Temple.

There has certainly been "official" counsel, as follows:

"Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord."

"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it" (First Presidency Letter, January 5, 1982).

2. There is no doctrine in the church, official or otherwise, that claims sex between married people is only for procreation. This is someone's fantasy.

I agree. I've never heard anyone say that, either.

3. I clearly remember hearing conference talks and attending firesides as far back as the late seventies in which it was clearly taught that sex has a prime purpose as a sharing of intimacy and bonding between two people in a married relationship.

I've been taught that, as well.

So, 2 out of 3 ain't bad, Cog. ;-)

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:
1. There is no official doctrine or counsel regarding oral sex in the church. I was never asked about such in any Priesthood interview I've ever had, including those for the Temple.

Then you're too young to remember it, because I remember it very well.

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


Quote:
2. There is no doctrine in the church, official or otherwise, that claims sex between married people is only for procreation. This is someone's fantasy.

"Raise up seed". How quickly you forget, Loran.

This doesn't refute or alter what I said above in the least. The Church does not teach that sex is only for procreation. Again, there's no doctrine.

[_harmony]

Coggins7 wrote:
1. There is no official doctrine or counsel regarding oral sex in the church. I was never asked about such in any Priesthood interview I've ever had, including those for the Temple.

Then you're too young to remember it, because I remember it very well.

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

Well, it depends on if you believe in ongoing revelation or not, Loran. I guess you're part of the not group.

Quote:
2. There is no doctrine in the church, official or otherwise, that claims sex between married people is only for procreation. This is someone's fantasy.

"Raise up seed". How quickly you forget, Loran.

This doesn't refute or alter what I said above in the least. The Church does not teach that sex is only for procreation. Again, there's no doctrine.

You're going to have to figure out what doctrine is, Loran. Or maybe you're going to have to figure out that what the church teaches and what is doctrine are often too different things. I remember the hoop-de-do about using birth control and how we were told that it was a sin to use it, because sex was to be used to have large families. Maybe you weren't in Relief Society for that particular guilt trip, so you missed out.

[_Coggins7]

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.

[_Runtu]

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.

Speaking of not wanting to know, you've scrupulously ignored my citation of a First Presidency letter in response to your assertion that there has never been any counsel on oral sex. That is demonstrably untrue.