New Order Mormon

(A New Hope)
It is currently Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:32 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Oral Sex
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:22 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Erie, PA
It's the age of the internet, and I cannot seem to get a honest non-vague answer on this.

So let me ask it here in this way.

You don't want to lie to your bishop. You are going for a TR interview. You are married. You mention that you never knew if oral sex is truly officially ok and you practice it with your spouse.

Will you get your TR?

_________________
"It doesn't have to be true to be true."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:18 pm
Posts: 554
Location: Faint Gorge, UT
I realize it's been a few years since I've been through the TR questions, but I don't remember the subject of oral sex ever coming up. Why would you even say anything to your bishop about it? It has no bearing on your worthiness to hold a TR. (and if it does then your bishop is a %&#@! %*&!@$% $^%#@! *#&$%!@)

_________________
ScottyDoo
Blending Zen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oral Sex
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:54 am
Posts: 836
Location: Springville, Utah
thatjimguy wrote:
You don't want to lie to your bishop. You are going for a TR interview. You are married. You mention that you never knew if oral sex is truly officially ok and you practice it with your spouse.

Will you get your TR?


The short answer is the LDS church presently has a don't ask, don't tell policy; however, your Bishop and Stake President may or may not have gotten the memo, and has pretty much complete discretion to do whatever he wants to do and ask whatever he wants to ask and deny whoever he feels like denying. Some wouldn't bat an eye. Some would probably freak out.

On 15 Oct 1982 the First Presidency instruction to all stake and mission leaders that many letters from church members "indicate clearly that some local leaders have been delving into private, sensitive matters beyond the scope of what is appropriate.... Also, you should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between a man and his wife." Letter continues that even if a church member volunteers such intimate information, "you should not persue the matter but should merely suggest that if the member has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it." In response to widespread complaints from married couples being asked if they have oral sex.

http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oral Sex
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:39 pm
Posts: 390
Location: AZ
Enginerd wrote:
"you should not persue the matter but should merely suggest that if the member has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it."


What a terrible response. So, if a person feels he/she feel they would lke some assurance that what they are doing isn't specifically precluded that means it is wrong and the behavior should be discontinued? That is ridiculous. They must realize that many members are full of guilt about every little thing and sometimes need to hear that somethings are up to you and God/church doesn't care. The problem with this response is that most members are already so sheltered and so inexperienced and uneducated about sex that the most benign of activities may cause anxiety - especially when tried the first time.

By way of example, I've heard some offer the theory that you shouldn't necessarily take off your garments to have sex. Given the advice above, a person who holds this opinion and has some anxiety over having sex without their garments, then they probably shouldn't take off their garments. Ridiculous. This would also apply to things like leaving the lights on or engaging in any position other than missionary (clearly the lord supports this position given the name).

Eff the church. Even when they take no position, they word it in such a way as to take a position. Eff them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oral Sex
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:43 pm
Posts: 1428
thatjimguy wrote:
It's the age of the internet, and I cannot seem to get a honest non-vague answer on this.

So let me ask it here in this way.

You don't want to lie to your bishop. You are going for a TR interview. You are married. You mention that you never knew if oral sex is truly officially ok and you practice it with your spouse.

Will you get your TR?


Oral sex after marriage? If i was your bishop i would deny you a TR as a liar. :wink: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:22 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Erie, PA
Oops. I knew a lot are going to assume that I talking as if the bishop asking the question. Let me re-iterate what I said and get my idea across.

I do not want to lie. This has nothing to do with the bishop asking me, this has to do with saying I am worthy to enter the temple. Since I do not want to lie my way through. I also do not wish to use ignorance as an excuse either.

So, I would ask. I would let him know I was unsure of it was right or not.

The reason is, I have been thinking. If I get a wife, I really doubt it will be plain vanilla sex for procreation. It's going to be rocky road with sprinkles and syrup in a waffle cone and Cool Whip topping and a Nilla wafer stuck in the side. This is something I need to find out now.

For me, as a convert, this whole LDS thing has been a journey of finding truth and self-improvement. Lying just to get a TR would be hypocritical.

_________________
"It doesn't have to be true to be true."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:15 pm
Posts: 532
Quote:
Oral sex after marriage? If i was your bishop i would deny you a TR as a liar.


Now that is FUNNY (and true) right there!!! :lol:

_________________
No success in the family can compensate for failure in the church. - Hagoth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:43 pm
Posts: 1428
Wondering2myZelph wrote:
Quote:
Oral sex after marriage? If i was your bishop i would deny you a TR as a liar.


Now that is FUNNY (and true) right there!!! :lol:


thatguy jimmy said
Quote:
If I get a wife


that explains it.

Jimmy. chances are you won't have to lie about that question if it comes up. Unless it's around your birthday :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:05 pm
Posts: 2146
Location: Pacific NW
thatjimguy wrote:

I do not want to lie. This has nothing to do with the bishop asking me, this has to do with saying I am worthy to enter the temple. Since I do not want to lie my way through. I also do not wish to use ignorance as an excuse either.

Lying just to get a TR would be hypocritical.


Please rest your mind at ease. What you and your spouse do within the confines of your relationship is up to the two of you. I would have a good intimate life with her and when you go to your recommend interview, be able to say very calmly that you are worthy to enter.

Now... the one exception to this IMHO would be if you are forcing your spouse into doing things that are against her will. Even then, I think this would fall into that question of "Is there anything in your conduct that would exclude you from the temple".

Rest at ease. Nothing wrong with Oral.

In fact, there is a common saying among many LDS youth.
"Oral is Still Moral"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:48 pm
Posts: 517
thatjimguy wrote:
Oops. I knew a lot are going to assume that I talking as if the bishop asking the question. Let me re-iterate what I said and get my idea across.

I do not want to lie. This has nothing to do with the bishop asking me, this has to do with saying I am worthy to enter the temple. Since I do not want to lie my way through. I also do not wish to use ignorance as an excuse either.

So, I would ask. I would let him know I was unsure of it was right or not.

The reason is, I have been thinking. If I get a wife, I really doubt it will be plain vanilla sex for procreation. It's going to be rocky road with sprinkles and syrup in a waffle cone and Cool Whip topping and a Nilla wafer stuck in the side. This is something I need to find out now.

For me, as a convert, this whole LDS thing has been a journey of finding truth and self-improvement. Lying just to get a TR would be hypocritical.


I personally don't think it is lying at all. When I got married my stake president told me that as far as sex goes we should only do what makes both of us comfortable and that was his advice. I am sure before marriage if it was a sin your SP would mention this. Mine made it clear we should not'force' our spouse to do anything they don't want to do...but if we are both OK with it it is fine.

I don't think the small details of sex in a marriage need to be shared with your bishop....that is personal and private and none of their business. I think the church realizes how common it is now so they don't discourage it anymore or discuss it. If it was 'wrong' they would be telling young married couples. I am sure that a large group of LDS are doing it and it is nothing to worry about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:22 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Erie, PA
That be true, it may not be enforced, however, there is official stuff said by prophets and apostles talking about how it should not be done. That's why, even though bishops may not say anything, I want to know the official party line.

This is why...a letter from Phrophet Kimball about being worthy for Temple Recommends

"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency [including Gordon B. Hinckley] has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."


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

View the whole letter here...

http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml

So I guess I shouldn't even be asking if the bishop will be more lenient, what I really want to know is if this official stance has changed since 1982?

_________________
"It doesn't have to be true to be true."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 6185
Location: Lindon, UT
thatjimguy wrote:
So I guess I shouldn't even be asking if the bishop will be more lenient, what I really want to know is if this official stance has changed since 1982?


The official stance is that "there is no official stance." Just like evolution. You have general authorities with a variety of strong opinions on both of these subjects, and therein lies one of the big problems of Mormonism in general: just what constitutes "official doctrine?" Joseph Smith proclaimed that one of the great things about Mormonism was the lack of a catechism and members having personal access to deity and inspiration. Over time the organization (like many other religions and even secular organizations) has evolved a culture based on rules and expected behavior. People want to know exactly what they can and can't do. They want the checklist to make sure they can get into heaven when they die; thus, the legalistic interpretation of the rules by many in the church. And Mormons often like to make fun of the Pharisees... Anyway, the fact remains that what is "official" is open to interpretation, and no one should feel that they are condemned by the church for oral sex in their marriage. Most importantly, you should do what you feel is right and comfortable within your relationship with your spouse and justified by whatever your personal concept of God is.

fh451

_________________
I doubt, therefore I am.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:48 pm
Posts: 517
thatjimguy wrote:
That be true, it may not be enforced, however, there is official stuff said by prophets and apostles talking about how it should not be done. That's why, even though bishops may not say anything, I want to know the official party line.

This is why...a letter from Phrophet Kimball about being worthy for Temple Recommends

"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency [including Gordon B. Hinckley] has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."


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

View the whole letter here...

http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml

So I guess I shouldn't even be asking if the bishop will be more lenient, what I really want to know is if this official stance has changed since 1982?


Well I guess you can flat out ask your bishop if it makes you feel better. However, if you start digging through the past and the old documents of the church, you will find that many things past prophets believed are no longer the case at all.....we used to teach balcks were not worthy for the priesthood (you can find tons of talks on that alone. There are many other examples just like that). Luckily our church is slowly modernizing little by little and comments made by prophets in the past no longer are considered doctorine today.......I am quite glad I don't have to read Brigham Young's sermons and take them seriously today.....or we would all be in trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 8:52 am
Posts: 290
Location: Halfway There....
I actually did ask 2 different bishops in TR interviews about oral sex (I also had questions about unhealthy eating as I was trying to live a "perfect WoW" life and had an eating disorder :? ) Anywho, both told me that if hubby and I were comfortable and no other people or porn were involved have at it ( and there is nothing in WoW against it either :wink:).

_________________
"Your talent is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift back to God." Leo Buscaglia

"You could be universally acclaimed for your undying coolness and your children will still find you mortifyingly lame." wisdom of a sister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:10 pm
Posts: 2691
Is this a poll?

If so, I vote "yes".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: My thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:13 pm
Posts: 817
The idea that oral sex is forbidden is persistent and active among LDS people I know. In fact I had a discussion on this with someone a couple of days ago and they think it is "wrong" and that the church believes that way also. As has been pointed out, many things were "wrong" if you read statements of GAs from 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. The current CHI apparently has identified a vasectomey as evil, which surprised me, I know several members who have had one (me also). None of us even knew it was "wrong". My point is what is the value to have "official" stands on things like oral sex or vasecomties if they NEVER talk about it now so we don't know their thinking? Anyway, sex is not even the Bishop's business in my opinion. Whether you like to give or receive oral sex or use hand cuffs or swing from the chandaliers, it just is out of bounds for other people to know, unless you want to share the details. Then of course, we are all intently interested, so please share all the details! (Ha, Ha!)

_________________
There was no deity involved, it was my cross circuiting to B that saved them!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:08 am
Posts: 5781
Location: Seattle Area
This is definitely something that a lot of members still have issues with of course. Mostly the older generation as it was actually discussed back then. I haven't heard anything about it in church for years and years though, so I get the feeling that the church is basically in a "don't ask don't tell" mode on this issue. I do remember my mother in law making a comment at one point about how oral sex was immoral and wrong, and I remember thinking that I felt sorry for her. ;)

Really, it all comes down to a husband and wife. If one is pressuring the other to do things that they are uncomfortable with, then that is a problem. If both feel good about whatever they are doing, then fire the torpedoes!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:22 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Erie, PA
Quote:
People want to know exactly what they can and can't do. They want the checklist to make sure they can get into heaven when they die; thus, the legalistic interpretation of the rules by many in the church.


Yeah, I can remember that from a tithing discussion. We used to be under Mosiac Law, but 10% the way we interpret it is between us and the Lord.

But this is so confusing, in one instance they give a law of thunderous NO! But when it turns more to our own judgment, it is stated with a whimper.

_________________
"It doesn't have to be true to be true."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:13 pm
Posts: 151
These kinds of topics can make bishops, etc. uncomfortable. It wasn't directly on the point of this thread, but once while I was interviewing an elderly sister for a temple recommend she answered the question about wearing her garments by stating that she and her husband had taken to sleeping naked recently because the husband had recently undergone surgery for some urinary problem, rendering him impotent, and they were trying to "work on it." I quickly went on to the next question, hoping with all my heart that she wouldn't give me any further information.

She didn't.

_________________
Flat Lander


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:49 am
Posts: 595
Location: Northern Utah
Flat Lander wrote:
I quickly went on to the next question, hoping with all my heart that she wouldn't give me any further information.

She didn't.


Thats funny.

Good to see you FlatLander. I have not seen you post anywhere for awhile and have wondered what had become of you and your story. I hope that you and your family are doing well.

Back to topic. I agree with what has been said about the sexual activities that one engages in should be mutually agreeded upon between yourself and your spouse, and are no one elses business. I do not understand why the church, most churches actually, seem to be so interested in the sex life of married adults.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!