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.
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).
Jason, I've already dealt with this above, and given my two cents. My "official" position on this is as follows: I've never heard this counsel given in all of my 48 years. I've never seen it in a General Conference, First Presidency messsage, Preisthood manual, or other church publication, nor have I ever enountered in in counsel or interviews with the Bishops and SPs I have known. If the GAs subsequent to the administration of Kimball's had been interested in perpetuating this point, they would and easily could have done so. This whole thing is a complete mystery to me. Was that particular tidbit in the letter inspired? Well, perhaps to each his own. I have no further thoghts on the matter because apparantly, no subsequent GAs have either.
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.
I agree. I've never heard anyone say that, either.
Quote:
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. ;-)
The letter above was quickly retracted because bishops and SPs were asking specific questions about oral sex and members were none to pleased. However, the counsel of unatural acts remained.
And I have no problem with that (and that, at least, in this whole mess, unlike the oral sex fossil, is something I've been well aware of for much of my life). Married couples should approach sex with each other in a manner that is sexually fulfilling for both but yet with the understanding that, in a very real way it is a sacramental emblem of their love for one another and their sexual behavior should relflect this. In other words, BDSM or other bizzare sexual fetishes are out, as would be, I would think, anything degrading or, for that matter, a sense that sexual "performance" takes precedence over the bonding and oneness that are the emotional and psychological constituents of sexual love in marriage.
Coggins7 wrote:
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.
Coggins,
You lose on this one. Just admit it. There was a letter stating policy about oral sex being unnatural. Later another letter came out telling leaders not to ask specific questions. If you search, there are numerous quotes by GAs about sex. I agree that nobody teaches that it is just to make babies and indeed many teach it is for more then just that. But, there are also comment frequently about unnatural and un-holy acts, though nobody says anything about it. I recall a quote along these lines from Elder Packer in a recent LDS book about sexuality in marriage and Elder Packer said that we know what he means by unholy and unnatural and he did not need to spell it out. Also, there are quotes by SWK that support the idea that sex in marriage is good and not just for baby making. In fact he taught that divorce among LDS couples is often due to sexual problems and this needed addressing. But he also taught that it is not anything goes behind bedrooms doors.
Doctrine? Nope. Policy? Yea man it was posted right before your eyes. There was a letter. Suck it up. Just because you never heard about it does not mean it was not or is not there. Many here have just as much experience and year LDS as you so stop acting like your time and years and experience mean any more then ours.
I have no idea why you are beating this dead horse in another post. I've already admitted it was policy, and you agree with me that it wasn't' doctrine. Now, on to the next shibboleth.