Here's a very sensitive subject

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by 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.

LA, I respect your views and your intellect, needless to say. There is much about which we see eye to eye. But I've got to say that I think your assertion (apparently based on a 23-year old recollection of something read over the pulpit one Sunday) isn't worth crediting. The weight of the evidence is that the letter is genuine. I don't know the folks behind the lds-mormon.com website, and have not extensively read the website, but they don't seem to be those kind of people. On the other hand, your "doctored" assertion (on such flimsy, self-serving evidence) seems to me potentially counterproductive if your desire is to reassure those who are disturbed by this hair-brained correspondence. A cover up tends to be worse than the original offense--something the LDS Church has sometimes appeared slow to learn--and your offhanded accusation that the letter was doctored is just that.

I say the letter is genuine until proven otherwise. This should be easy to do if in fact it was doctored.

[MikeWaters]

most of the people "disturbed" by this letter are folks who don't credit General Authorities with being inspired men of God anyway.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

most of the people "disturbed" by this letter are folks who don't credit General Authorities with being inspired men of God anyway.

In that case why would an apologist try to down-play it by questioning its authenticity without any foundation?

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.

[LA Ute]

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!

[tooblue]

If the letter is indeed authentic why is it no longer in circulation?

[LA Ute]

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?

[Archaea]

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.

[SeattleUte]

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

If the letter is indeed authentic why is it no longer in circulation?

Boy, does this ever sum up how differently I view the world from some of you. I'd say it's out of circulation because it IS authentic. (By the way, see LA's post below now acknowledging it's authentic.)

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

:lol: I think what you were really looking for was to stir the pot.