Here's a very sensitive subject

[mpfunk]

That is the same impression that I got from it as well.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's less controversial that I originally thought. It more implies that if someone seems to be troubled by it, they ought not do it.....nowhere there does it say to ask about it.

Here are the parts I focused on:

"Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. . . . The First Presidency [including Gordon B. Hinckley] has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice."

- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church - Including Gordon B. Hinckley, January 5th, 1982

Sounds pretty unequivocal to me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just when you think you have seen everything. Never heard of that quote before.

I suppose I would throw this in the category of birth control. You can find some old quotes where GA's preach against that but they eventually came around.

Just don't let my wife see that quote. :wink:

[MikeWaters]

however, the letter was addressed to the rank and file. It was only addressed to leaders.

<phew> no mention of S&M.

[tooblue]

This was a letter directed to leadership and is not meant for general membership consumption. Attemps to discern what is meant, pull it apart piece by piece, quote by quote is pointless.

IMO the quote I read Is gentle, very direct and wise in its intent ... the letter removes the burden of quantifying what is appropriate intamate behaviour from the priesthood leader and places the onus, where it rightfully belongs, on the member.

Each individual member is responsible for what he or she considers impure.

What's more I am not confident that the wording in letter as we now see it is EXACTLY the same wording delivered to leaders in 1982. I question the validity of it.

[SoCalCoug]

I remember having a conversation with another LDS teenager years ago when I was about 15. It went something like this:

Friend: "You know, even when you're married, there are ways of having sex that you're supposed to not do, if you want to keep a temple recommend"
Me: "Really? Like what?"
Friend: "Like doing it on a pool table."
Me: "Oh, ok."

According to that interpretation, I think I'm still okay.

[SteelBlue]

Was the double entendre intended in the title of this thread?

[UtahDan]

I remember him telling me that the Stake President shared with the that the church had given a directive that the oral sex question was not to be asked in recommend interviews or in other contexts.

The stake presdient then told the bishops that this would not be the case in THEIR stake and that they were to continue to ask that question. My father asked for clarification in that meeting that the new policy applied to every stake but ours and the stake president simply reiterated his position on this.
I believe he was a brand new bishop at the time and IIRC he told me that he never asked that question and wouldn't have regardless.

Another funny story from my father: when he was bishop a relatively young couple came in seeking clarification as to whether they could "take off" their garments during sex. My father's reply was "you can take them off or you can tear them off."

A few of you here know him and might find that amusing.

[LA Ute]

We had a special priesthood meeting in my ward and a former member of the stake presidency was asked to teach a special lesson on the 1st Presidency letter. He did a good job and used a C.S. Lewis quote as his focus: "God is love, but love is not God." The message he gave was essentially "be guided by what feels right to you." I was newly married and in law school at the time and really quite innocent. I remember how interesting it was to me that the most outspoken members of the class were old codgers, who had been real pillars of the ward for decades, who were quite offended that the Church thought such things were any of its business.

Anyway, I have not heard a word about it in the ensuing 23 years. The subject does not sond like one that President Hinckley would push. It does sound like one that certain members of the Twelve would push, but I'll just leave it at that . . . .

[LA Ute]

And a lot is coming back to me after all these years.

First, I think the letter on LDS-Mormon.com may be doctored. I am pretty sure that the words "oral sex" did not appear in the letter that I heard read to my group back in 1982. I would have remembered that. Instead, the letter was quite oblique on the entire subject. It was nothing like an "Official Delaration," either, although someone above referred to it as such. LDS-Mormon.com is an anti-Mormon site. Skepticism is warranted.

Another thought: The reported reasons for the letter are important. It came at a time when the Church leadership was trying to get control of the temple recommend interview process. Back then every bishop and stake presidency member conducted a general worthiness interview that was very free-wheeling-- it could range from "Is there any reason I shouldn't sign this?" to "Well, I'm going to give you the Celestial Kingdom temple recommend interview, not just a run-of-the-mill chat." Lots of priesthood leaders were probing into matters that were not appropriate for such settings. For example, in my stake in L.A. the stake president had every bishop ask if the candidate ever watched R-rated movies. Doing so was grounds for denying a recommentd. On the question of whether the interviewee paid a full tithe, often the interview would delve into exactly what that meant-- did you pay on your gross or your net? In my Salt Lake stake the stake president wanted to know how often the candidate had been in the temple in the past year, and if atttendance wasn't high enough for him he'd give the person a recommend, but on condition that they went, say, 8 times in the next month.

Apparently, the 1982 letter was in response to the problem of bishops and stake presidents probing deeply into the personal sexual practices of members. There were (justified) complaints, and the First Presidency tried to get a better hold on the process.

All of this is the primary reason why the temple interview questions are written down now, and interviewers are strictly instructed to ask only those questions and no others.