Mark E. Peterson Never Saw His Wife Naked

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Mark E. Peterson Never Saw His Wife Naked

Post by _Infymus »

Good old Mark E. Peterson, the anti-masturbation, anti-oral sex, anti-anything that had to do with sex other than in a dark room, under the covers, with your garments on, in a missionary position, and you had better not enjoy it - was an asshat.

A poster over on RFM named Chimes claimed the following:

Apparently the question was raised in prior weeks/months, and bishops and the Stake Pres were attempting to give counsel. The Regional rep of the 12 got wind of this, and guess what? They immediately scheduled Mark E. Peterson to address our Stake at the next Stake conference!

During this "meeting", actually a dictator-style lecture by Elder Peterson, it was said very sternly that oral sex is an abomination, and had no place in marital relations. wow, you could have heard a pin drop. Peterson wielded a mighty, authoritative presence. And he was a bit cranky. He seemed displeased that this was even an isssue!

He also spoke during our regular conference meeting. A long, boring tirade. He somewhat carried this "purity in marriage" theme over. I clearly remember him saying "you know, I've been married to my wife for 44 years, and never once have seen her body uncovered". Again there was silence. What a joke; implicit in his remarks was the idea that sex is ONLY for procreation, and the visual enjoyment of bodies is dirty, not beautiful.


You can read the whole post here:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html#pub_-1120786195

Out of the mouth piece of God, Mark E. Peterson reaffirmed that Sex is a dirty, nasty affair. If you are enjoying yourself, you're doing it wrong.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

"you know, I've been married to my wife for 44 years, and never once have seen her body uncovered". Again there was silence. What a joke; implicit in his remarks was the idea that sex is ONLY for procreation, and the visual enjoyment of bodies is dirty, not beautiful.


Are we to assume that any one of us would want to see his wife in the nude? I'm guessing if a husband doesn't, then I don't either. ;)

Perhaps, he understood that visual enjoyment in his household is "not beautiful"?
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Post by _karl61 »

I bet they did it twice a day for 44 years.
I want to fly!
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Mark E. Peterson Never Saw His Wife Naked

Post by _Trevor »

Infymus wrote:He also spoke during our regular conference meeting. A long, boring tirade. He somewhat carried this "purity in marriage" theme over. I clearly remember him saying "you know, I've been married to my wife for 44 years, and never once have seen her body uncovered". Again there was silence. What a joke; implicit in his remarks was the idea that sex is ONLY for procreation, and the visual enjoyment of bodies is dirty, not beautiful.


This sounds eerily like a quote I made up for Joseph Fielding McConkie in a Salamander Society fictional news piece I once wrote:

Dismayed at Professor Bradshaw's misunderstanding of LDS doctrine, BYU Professor of Religion Joseph F. McConkie weighed in on the controversy, "I have taught the Atonement at the Lord's University for the better part of my natural life. Now, regrettably a wolf has entered the flock denying the ability of the Infinite Atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in overcoming biological problems – in transforming the natural man with all its "genes" and "cells." Men who in their weakness fail in the struggle against biology should not be allowed to teach the youth of Zion. I bear you my solemn witness that I and my dear wife have had numerous children in accordance with the Lord's commandment to Adam and Eve, and we never even wanted to have sex. Nor did we have it!" Despite attempts to contact her throughout the night, Sister McConckie could not be reached for comment.
“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.”
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Good old Mark E. Peterson, the anti-masturbation, anti-oral sex, anti-anything that had to do with sex other than in a dark room, under the covers, with your garments on, in a missionary position, and you had better not enjoy it - was an asshat.


Injymus, who has seen everyone's wife naked (or at least, made every attempt to do so) comes to us with an utterly classic bit of anti-Mormon urban legendary the aim of which is to mock and slander an Apostle of the Church. Let's look at Infy's magisterial investigative journalism:

I was 18 years old and just completed my first year at BYU. It was time for me to be ordained an Elder. I was home for the summer (BYU semester ended late April). I was in the Seattle East Stake (Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah)

In our stake, there was some kind of stir, some talk going around. I was young and naïve, but learned it had to do with whether oral sex was OK among married couples. Apparently the question was raised in prior weeks/months, and bishops and the Stake Pres were attempting to give counsel. The Regional rep of the 12 got wind of this, and guess what? They immediately scheduled Mark E. Peterson to address our Stake at the next Stake conference!

It was Sunday, May 25th, 1975. They quietly scheduled a meeting for all ADULTS, to be held 3 hours prior to regular Stake conference. I showed up early, and it was amazing, the parking lot was totally full at 6:30am, with cars parked clear down the street. The chapel was packed to overflowing.

During this "meeting", actually a dictator-style lecture by Elder Peterson, it was said very sternly that oral sex is an abomination, and had no place in marital relations. wow, you could have heard a pin drop. Peterson wielded a mighty, authoritative presence. And he was a bit cranky. He seemed displeased that this was even an isssue!

He also spoke during our regular conference meeting. A long, boring tirade. He somewhat carried this "purity in marriage" theme over. I clearly remember him saying "you know, I've been married to my wife for 44 years, and never once have seen her body uncovered". Again there was silence. What a joke; implicit in his remarks was the idea that sex is ONLY for procreation, and the visual enjoyment of bodies is dirty, not beautiful.

Putting this in context, can you imagine the power & influence of a bigshot apostle coming from SLC, enjoying the unquestioned favor of 2500 people? And all this in the name of God? Can you say, "brainwashed, cult"? He put that sexual issue to bed, for years to come!

By the way, I had requested in advance through my Stake President that apostle Peterson personally ordain me an Elder, while he was in town that Sunday. At the last minute, I was handed a note "request denied, Elder Peterson much too busy"...... I remember being hurt and disapointed.



Oh goody, more stories.

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.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Post by _Infymus »

Coggins7 wrote: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.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

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.



Well thanks for coming close to admitting that the entire RFM story is flat footed urban legendry perpetrated by a bitter little twit of the kind that provides the bulk of the membership of that clearinghouse for personal neurosis.

Even if true, Peterson's personal views are not, and can never be, without unanimity among the Brethren, Church doctrine.

Now back to the bathroom Infy, you left the centerfold out and you don't want your Mom to find that now, do you?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Coggins7 wrote:Well thanks for coming close to admitting that the entire RFM story is flat footed urban legendry perpetrated by a bitter little twit of the kind that provides the bulk of the membership of that clearinghouse for personal neurosis.

Even if true, Peterson's personal views are not, and can never be, without unanimity among the Brethren, Church doctrine.


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.
“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.”
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

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.

I can fish any Church, any philosophy, and any individual for intemperate, inaccurate, or wrongheaded statements or beliefs, and then blow them up into urban legendary for the purpose of defamation and denigration. I could easily do it to you, and Infymus is a virtual treasure trove for such activities.

The critics will never learn to stop swallowing two edged swords.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Coggins7 wrote: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.


Well, I suppose that is subjective, isn't it? Personally, I think they have had a number of policies one could call unfortunate, or deleterious, or even horrible.

As for the thing on oral sex, I have another 'story' for you. One that corroborates the 'story' of this other person whom you deride with apparent glee.

In the mid 1990s, I had a conversation with one of my BYU professors about his calling as bishop. He solicited the conversation. He asked me whether I would do as I was told if the stake president asked me as bishop to inquire into whether married couples were engaging in oral sex. I told him that there was no way I would do it. He informed me that this came from an area authority. He also said that he was doing it, and would continue to do it, although he felt somewhat uncomfortable about it. That was the last time he ever spoke to me about the Church.

I guess I didn't pass the hypothetical obedience test.
“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.”
Post Reply