08-28-2005, 07:48 PM | #31 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Re: I have been thinking about this . . .
Quote:
I say the letter is genuine until proven otherwise. This should be easy to do if in fact it was doctored.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
08-28-2005, 07:55 PM | #32 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
most of the people "disturbed" by this letter are folks who don't credit General Authorities with being inspired men of God anyway.
|
08-28-2005, 09:18 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
To me, the letter is good for a chuckle, and outside of that its significance is pretty much nil. I'd be surprised if it carried any significance except during a snapshot in time.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
08-28-2005, 11:52 PM | #34 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 118
|
Seattle, we have failed to communicate
Here's what I am saying:
1. A letter like that one was definitely read, and I remember much of it. I am not saying the letter was never sent; I am questioning the accuracy of the copy everyone is referring to. 2. Why? Because I clearly remember discussing the letter with a couple of people at the time and all of us remarking about how elliptical it was. In essence, we were kind of chuckling about it and asking, "Well, if they're talking about oral sex why don't they just come out and say so?" (There have been-- and still are-- apostles who teach a lot about sexual conduct but may never have uttered the word "sex" in public.) So-- it struck me as odd that this version of the letter explicitly mentions oral sex, because the one I recall danced around that topic. 3. It raised my antennae even further to know that the purported copy of the letter being cited appears on LDS-Mormon.com. If you spend 2 minutes on that site you'll see that it is devoutly and thoroughly anti-Mormon. So, counselor, put yourself in my shoes: Faced with a document with that provenance, in light with your own contrasting memories of the document's contents, would not just a little skepticism be warranted? I am shocked-- shocked!-- that a litigator of your experience would be so credulous about such a piece of paper. ;-) It is true, by the way, that the letter (as I recall it) was a blip in time and I have heard nothing about it since-- until now. I do know that LDS priesthood leaders now have practically no latititude on the questions that may be asked in temple recomend interviews. I may be all wet. But I'm asking the right questions!
__________________
"Always do right. It will annoy some people and surprise the rest." --Mark Twain |
08-29-2005, 04:32 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
A simple question for Seattle
If the letter is indeed authentic why is it no longer in circulation?
|
08-29-2005, 03:07 PM | #36 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 118
|
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 |
08-29-2005, 04:00 PM | #37 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
the second letter is the one I never saw
thanks, that's what I was looking for.
I knew the interpretation seemed to have been withdrawn almost as quickly as it was sent out. |
08-29-2005, 04:32 PM | #38 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Re: I will now correct my earlier post
Maybe the referenced "unnecessary guilt and restriction of physical intimacy" is the result not of the small still voice or one's healthy natural predilections, but of meddling including guilt complexing by forces external to the marital relationship, a perfect example of which is the very letter we've been discussing, or quack psychoanlysts who must mix psycho-analysis with religion.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
08-29-2005, 04:36 PM | #39 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Re: A simple question for Seattle
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
08-29-2005, 04:38 PM | #40 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Re: the second letter is the one I never saw
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|