Mark E. Peterson Never Saw His Wife Naked

[_asbestosman]

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.

Imust have missed that little gem. Are you saying that now the printed editions of conference are edited to fix any errant message a speaker may have delivered? How long has this practice been in play?

Ronald Poleman had his talk edited. In fact, he gave it twice--once live, and once more to be re-recorded and distributed on video-cassette.

[_Trinity]

Poleman's talk, with the edits.

[url=http://mormonmessenger.org/2002/the-gospel-and-the-churchelder-ronald-e-poelman-of-the-seventy[/url]Edits[/url]

[_karl61]

I always thought "unnatural" and unpure should have been written by them as natural but unpure. And then they write that if they ask about it then it must bother them so stop it. I mean given the standards and tradition of basically dictating everything else, why wouldn't someone brought in the church ask if it is right. why if they ask must it be an issue.

[_Trevor]

Don't gaze at your navel too long Shady, it may start gazing back at you.

You should know!

[_Trevor]

I always thought "unnatural" and unpure should have been written by them as natural but unpure. And then they write that if they ask about it then it must bother them so stop it. I mean given the standards and tradition of basically dictating everything else, why wouldn't someone brought in the church ask if it is right. why if they ask must it be an issue.

This is the fun part... when people arbitrarily decide what is natural and what is not. If it exists or occurs, it is in some sense natural.

[_Infymus]

Well thanks for coming close to admitting that the entire RFM story is flat footed urban legendry perpetrated by a bitter little twit

I did not note, but two other persons came forward and stated that yes, on Sunday, May 25th, 1975, Mark E. Peterson did appear in the Seattle East Stake (Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah), and did indeed give said talk.

I see that I've been away from the thread a little too long and really, this wasn't about the credibility of RFM posters, but really your inability to accept that one of your leaders actually told a group of missionaries that oral sex was forbidden - and that he'd never seen his wife naked.

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

Your Corporation has a bad habit of weeding out anything that is unsettling, unappealing or no longer jives with the world. This can directly be seen in all of the "I don't know that we teach that" statements, the "He was speaking as a man", or as you put it, "That isn't doctrine." Or a better one I've heard - "The scribes got it wrong". You can see this in the January 2005 changes to the Mormon temple ceremony where naked touching is now prohibited. Prior to that, a temple worker touched the naked body of the patron. Before that, the temple patron washed the naked body of the patron.

Now back to the bathroom Infy, you left the centerfold out and you don't want your Mom to find that now, do you?

Who uses paper anymore? The Internet is for porn. Besides Coggins, my mother was not someone as hard-core as say Gaz here. She would never have told me it was "wrong to touch my little factory" - or don't you believe in that doctrine either? It looks like it took half a dozen posters here just to prove to you that the oral sex doctrine actually existed.

of the kind that provides the bulk of the membership of that clearinghouse for personal neurosis.

I'm going to ask you the same question that is constantly asked of me. Why so much hatred? Your life must be full of hate and bitterness.

[_Trevor]

I'm going to ask you the same question that is constantly asked of me. Why so much hatred? Your life must be full of hate and bitterness.

It's because you are part of a grand conspiracy of Marxist, atheist, postmodernist, hippy-types.

[_Infymus]

It's because you are part of a grand conspiracy of Marxist, atheist, postmodernist, hippy-types.

Can these four groups even co-exist?

[_Trevor]

Can these four groups even co-exist?

In Coggins' imagination, anything is possible.

[_guy sajer]

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.

Yes, this strikes me very much as an urban legend also. I don't believe it.