The New For Strength Of Youth Pamplet

[_bcspace]

It's more anti-gay than before, If I recall correctly.

Good. Let there be no mistaking LDS doctrine on the matter.

[_Runtu]

I worked on the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet back in the early 1990s. Originally, the pamphlet included definitions of things such as masturbation and petting, but it came back from review from the 12 with all the definitions excised. Each change in the text was annotated with the initials of the apostle who had made the change. The removals of the definitions had "BKP" in the margins.

When we asked about it, the secretary to the 12 said, "We don't want boys and girls carrying definitions of sexual sins in their wallets."

[_Shulem]

Paul, I hope you dedicate your next act of gay lovin' to Mr. Packer. Lord knows he needs some lovin', even vicarious lovin'.

Well, I've dedicated many a private moment with myself to Spencer W. Kimball -- and laughed my ass off doing it! Try it. You'll like it.

Paul O

[_zeezrom]

When we asked about it, the secretary to the 12 said, "We don't want boys and girls carrying definitions of sexual sins in their wallets."

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you decide to bring up the whole subject in the first place, you are faced with that difficult decision of what to actually say. I remember looking up some naughty words in the dictionary during a break in the Elementary school library. Kids will be kids with definitions in the FSoY pamphlet too, I suppose.

Now, back to my raspberry chiffon pie! Very challenging!

[_Blixa]

I've never looked at this pamphlet until now.

I thought this was interesting in light of certain discussions here:

Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings.

I assume that is "with or without clothing" of any kind of fabric.

[_just me]

I've never looked at this pamphlet until now.

I thought this was interesting in light of certain discussions here:

Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings.

I assume that is "with or without clothing" of any kind of fabric.

I think you are correct, Blixa. There does not appear to be a fabric clause written into the pamphlet.

[_Shulem]

Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings.

I was a closeted homosexual while dating prior to looking for a wife. How the hell was I suppose to get a chick to marry me if I didn't at least make out on top of her? And, I did rub myself (crotch) into her with clothes on. It seemed to be the natural thing to do if you're trying to get a women interested in you and take her to the temple to marry.

The Mormon church really is a stupid church. It's that simple. Jesus Christ. It never ceases to amaze me. Mormons and Jesus are just stupid.

Paul O

[_just me]

Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings.

I was a closeted homosexual while dating prior to looking for a wife. How the hell was I suppose to get a chick to marry me if I didn't at least make out on top of her? And, I did rub myself (crotch) into her with clothes on. It seemed to be the natural thing to do if you're trying to get a women interested in you and take her to the temple to marry.

The Mormon church really is a stupid church. It's that simple. Jesus Christ. It never ceases to amaze me. Mormons and Jesus are just stupid.

Paul O

And what the hell with "no passionate kissing?" Is that kissing with tongue or something else? What does it mean? Too vague to be useful.

[_zeezrom]

And what the hell with "no passionate kissing?" Is that kissing with tongue or something else? What does it mean? Too vague to be useful.

If it arouses the procreative powers within you, it is too much. I have come to learn (after much study of the subject) that this is what LDS is trying to boil it all down to.

It doesn't matter what the subject or act is. If it arouses celestial, procreative powers, it is wrong... unless you first shake masonic hands in the temple with slippers on.

Before my wife and I got married, we started kissing the wrong way (i.e. the way FSoY says not to) and realized we should not after hearing leadership at BYU tell us not to. After that, our upcoming wedding became all business. crap.

[_just me]

Ok, so what if looking at someone "arouses" those feelings?

Are we supposed to walk around with our eyes closed or gouge them out?