View Single Post
Old 08-29-2005, 03:07 PM   #36
LA Ute
Junior Member
 
LA Ute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 118
LA Ute is an unknown quantity at this point
Default I will now correct my earlier post

I cannot be sure but it looks like one letter from the Frist Presidency did mention oral sex explicitly. At least that's what this site suggests:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/d...exmarriage.htm

So maybe my memory is simply faulty. It has happened before!

The quotations at the above URL are pretty helpful in putting the whole subject in context.

Now, for those who really want to get some facts about that 1982 letter, this is an excerpt from a book by Romel Mackelprang, an LDS psychotherapist:

"A question I have frequently been asked concerns the propriety of oral sex. . . . On 5 January 1982, in response to numerous queries about oral sex, the First Presidency distributed a letter to bishops and stake presidents.28 In it, they characterized oral sex as impure. However, the letter specifically stated that church leaders were not to discuss intimate sexual matters with members. The letter was also not to be shared with the general church membership.

"Apparently, a number of the local leaders read the first part of the letter but ignored the second, choosing instead to delve into members' intimate lives. After the 1982 letter, several of my clients and a number of friends reported experiences in which bishops or stake presidents made such inquiries. Some reported local leaders using church meetings to counsel members about sexual practices. Almost all of the inquiries and counsel dealt specifically with oral sex. As a result of these intrusions, many members wrote letters to church leaders, protesting ecclesiastical meddling. In response to these reactions, on 15 October 1982 a second letter was sent to stake and ward leaders that reiterated the 5 January directive to avoid inquiring into couples' intimate sexual practices.29 Further, it directed leaders that even if asked by members about specific sexual matters in marriage they were to avoid giving direct counsel. The latest directive, in "Instructions for Issuing Recommends to Enter a Temple" (1989), directs interviewers to ask only, "Do you live the law of chastity?" They are further counseled: "When interviewing an applicant for a recommend, do not inquire into personal, intimate matters about marital relations between a husband and his wife. Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions. If, during an interview, an applicant asks about the propriety of specific conduct do not pursue the matter, merely suggest that if the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it. If you are sensitive and wise, you usually can prevent those being interviewed from asking such explicit questions."30 This directive makes it clear that couples, not church leaders, are responsible for their sexual conduct. They should take their questions to God, not to ecclesiastical leaders. The suggestion to "discontinue" sexual practices they have questions about may unintentionally lead to unnecessary guilt and restriction of physical intimacy. The most beneficial recommendation for couples, from a therapist's point of view, is to counsel and decide together. When necessary, couples can then seek God's guidance."

You can read the whole thing at http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/multiply.htm .

Let's move on, shall we?
__________________
"Always do right. It will annoy some people and surprise the rest." --Mark Twain
LA Ute is offline   Reply With Quote