My Reorganized LDS ancestral family mostly lived in Wheeler's
Grove, Iowa and attended the RLDS branch there for generations.
For that reason, while doing family history research, I had
more than one occasion to pour through the stacks of old branch
records for that administrative district.

In one branch record, in the mid-1870s, I came across a set of
strange entries regarding one particular family. The pages
documented that the father had been excommunicated -- evidently
at the request of his wife. Thereafter only her name and the
kids' names appeared in the branch record.

The reason for his dismissal was entered in obscure language,
but included the words "abomination," "Book of Mormon" and
"buggery." The best I could make out the charges made against
him was that he had asked the wife to engage in anal intercourse.

There was no mention of a court trial, or a verdict, or even
documentation of any evidence that the man had engaged in
that prohibited act. It all looked like he had brought up
that possibility, and that his wife was so outraged that she
had him summarily kicked out of the church, in violation
of ecclesiastical law and practice.

Does this sort of thing occur in the Mormon Church as well?
I had never heard of such a thing, until I looked through
those old, old pages.

UD

I haven't heard any talk of Jodi Arias facing excommunication.

A hearing in the case you reference above would have been interesting, but I guess there was no acceptable defense like mistake, negligence . . .

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven't heard any talk of Jodi Arias facing
> excommunication.
>
> A hearing in the case you reference above would
> have been interesting, but I guess there was no
> acceptable defense like mistake, negligence . . .

Maybe a defense based upon "failure to read the Book of Mormon."
Although I've read it through many a time, and still can't
figure about what its recurring references to abominations mean.

UD

She says she's been helped by her Mormon church and regular visits from a Baptist preacher.

Which is like saying your mentors are Christopher Hitchens and Joel Osteen.


Anagrammy

anagrammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She says she's been helped by her Mormon church
> and regular visits from a Baptist preacher.
>
> Which is like saying your mentors are Christopher
> Hitchens and Joel Osteen.
>
>
> Anagrammy

Um, I guess that there must needs be opposition in all things;
even inside Arizona jail cells.

Were Jodi a male, who confessed to that same "alternative"
style of intimacy with Travis, no doubt they both be cut
off -- one while living, and the other posthumously.

UD

<< Which is like saying your mentors are Christopher Hitchens and Joel Osteen.>>

Oh you made me break my covenants, Anagrammy! All this loud laughter. Now I'll NEVER be the prophet.

Mother will be so disappointed...

I have busted a gut over some of your posts, thus self-inflicting the disemboweling I promised to give the church should I tell someone my temple name is....is...IS... H..H..Hanna!

It's pathetic when you get old enough to forget the temple secrets you promised to remember not to tell.


Anagrammy

Couples married in a Mormon temple are told to “refrain from every unholy and impure practice.” While the ceremony doesn’t specify what those unholy and impure practices might be, in January 1982 the church president at the time issued a letter stating, "The First Presidency 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." Eventually, the letter was withdrawn, apparently due to complaints by local leaders that the instruction was too explicit and intrusive.

However, the prohibition against “unholy and impure practices” remains, with oral sex implicitly continuing to be one of them. Gordon B. Hinckley said, "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. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord." Anal sex is certainly included among the "unnatural, impure, or unholy practices" Hinckley referred to.

I was unfortunate enough to run afoul of this Mormon purity rule when I was a newly married husband. As a convert, I wasn’t raised Mormon and was unaware of the prohibition and inhibitions of Mormon sex. (Not that it would have helped much had I been raised Mormon, as there seems to be very little frank talk about sex in Mormonism, anyway.) Naturally, I was excited about sex with my wife. I hadn’t had sex before becoming a Mormon. I admit this was due to my being quite shy and anxious rather than my great moral rectitude; in fact, I felt relieved Mormonism provided me with a comforting rationale for my fear of sex. Still, I was looking forward to trying some things out and one of those things was oral sex.

It was after this experimentation the condemning letter from Salt Lake City was issued. My wife and I, duly embarrassed and ashamed, made an appointment with our bishop and confessed our sinfulness. The bishop, an elderly and kind man, to his credit seemed as uncomfortable and embarrassed to have to deal with this issue as we were. Rather than lecture or condemn us, he gave us a light penance and told us to try not to do it again. In spite of the bishop’s kindness, the effect of the experience on me was to curtail my joy of sex, raise my anxiety, and to create a wedge between my wife and me on the issue of whether or not anything I wanted to do beyond missionary-vanilla was “church approved.” For several years I had a recurring nightmare of being watched by church leaders while I had sex and being chided for it. The Mormon marital bed gets crowded when you start including God, his prophets, and the bishop.

It wasn’t until some time after I left Mormonism I started to become relaxed about sex and started to figure out what I like and don’t. My sexual ethics these days are straightforward and not overly-complicated (although I think some people would characterize my standards as “low”): Sex is consensual for all parties and none of the activities result in medical or psychiatric intervention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2013 09:06PM by robertb.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>"unnatural, impure, or unholy practices"
...

I suppose it was much the same for the Reorganized LDS, but
I had never heard of a summary excommunication for thoughts
(or desires) that were counted as terrible "iniquity."

Nobody ever taught me what abominations and iniquity were;
so I just figured they meant murder, or worshiping blood
soaked idols, or some such thing.

At least it sounds like the Mormon officials try to work
these matters out with couples, and don't simply cut them
off for revealing the content of their marital difficulties.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:

> At least it sounds like the Mormon officials try
> to work
> these matters out with couples, and don't simply
> cut them
> off for revealing the content of their marital
> difficulties.

Unfortunately, Christianity has a long history of condemning if not actually punishing "thought crimes," anything from lusting in your heart to getting your theology wrong. It is one of its features I found most unattractive.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Couples married in a Mormon temple are told to
> “refrain from every unholy and impure
> practice.” While the ceremony doesn’t specify
> what those unholy and impure practices might be,

See, this lets TSCC incorporate whatever it wants (which is likely to be "whatever our surrounding culture has forced us to accommodate") as being prohibited -- or not being prohibited. They statements about oral sex was clearly labeled an "interpretation," not a revelation, so they have an out there.

Thanks for this matter-of-fact description of your experience.

Would you have any objection to my quoting you on another board discussing oral sex/Mormonism. I would omit your handle.

Thanks for sharing

Anagrammy

"Buggery" I have not heard that one in a while. Usually that word is used to describe a catholic priest and an alter boy.

I don't care what other's do in the bedroom, I hope they don't want to be too interested in what I do in mine. :).

I guess I was not a good TBM, when I was a TBM and I was no virgin when I married my first husband. He did not mind receiving oral, but when I suggested he perform it on me....he said, like a good little Peter Priest holder, "Well, you can't make babies that way." I had to wonder why we were having all that sex, since we were doing having a lot during times I was definitely not fertile. If you look at having sex for strictly procreation, there is only about an 18 to 24 hour period (by the book) one should have relations. OMG, I am so glad I had my tubes tied.

If anal sex is prohibited by the Brethren, how do all the TBM a*#holes have any sex at all?

Always been under the impression that "buggery" was male on male anal intercourse.

Dictionary defines buggery - to sodomize, defines sodomize as to engage in sodomy, and defines sodomy as "abnormal" intercourse, especially bestiality or male on male anal sex.

I'm voting that the husband was caught having gay sex....

goatsgotohell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Always been under the impression that "buggery"
> was male on male anal intercourse.
>
> Dictionary defines buggery - to sodomize, defines
> sodomize as to engage in sodomy, and defines
> sodomy as "abnormal" intercourse, especially
> bestiality or male on male anal sex.
>
> I'm voting that the husband was caught having gay
> sex....

That is certainly one possibility. As best I can recall there
was nothing in the record to indicate otherwise. But, rather
than his being "caught," the entries seem to indicate that
he was simply trying to convince his wife that what he was
proposing was OK. Maybe he was trying to come to some sort
of unusual personal agreement with her.

Back in the 1870s, in mid-America, what would have been the
term for the same activity, between a male and female?

Sodomy was used at that time for male on female nonvaginal sex. Oral as well as other (cant use word which begins with a, ends with l and is spelled like canal). Buggery referred to male on male (c)anal sex. Peder_asty was sex between a man and an underage boy.

Being a bit pessimistic about women/the priesthood/and the 1870's I have doubts about a woman complaining to the priesthood that her husband wants anal sex and then that the priesthood blame him and not her. Now, to be honest, I truly have no clue how a sex conversation like this would have gone down with the people involved, but when I project to how I imagine things happening today, I have my idea how things would turn out. I kind of think that back in the day, a husband could take what he wanted from the marital bed and the woman just needed accept it. So if he did want anal sex, and the wife went to her priesthood holders, I don't see them rushing to protect her honor - he'd deny it, she'd be a pervert. During that time, I can't imagine a woman really talking about it. I can see a lot of homosexual paranoia though. That is primarily why I think it was most likely male/male. I wonder what happened to him. There are some pretty gruesome things that were done to heterosexual men who had interests in females that were interesting to higher ups in the priesthood. I can only imagine his fate may have been pretty unpleasant.

Here is something written about homosexuality in the early church. I don't have time to read it all right now, but did scan and see the word buggery. It might have some info about the early church that can help you.

http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2013 12:39PM by goatsgotohell.

goatsgotohell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being a bit pessimistic....
>
> Here is something written about homosexuality in
> the early church. I don't have time to read it
> all right now, but did scan and see the word
> buggery. It might have some info about the early
> church that can help you.
>
> http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html

Yes, Connell is a friend. We exchange info on William Smith,
who is a shared research interest.

I'm beginning to think that there must have been some
same-sex dynamic going on, that the old records were
purposely obscuring. Back in those days, in an RLDS
branch, it was the duty of the ordained Teacher to
root out any unacceptable behavior and bring members
to trial. There were only a few priesthood holders in
the branch at that time -- all relatives of that wife,
and none of the husband's relatives in positions of power.

Since Emma Hale Smith was then still living, and polygamy
was never practiced, I get the impression that RLDS
women had a much higher status than did Mormon women.

I'm mostly interested in how the excommunication was
handled, though. There were no stakes at that time. All
membership decisions were either exercised by the
presiding elder ofa branch, or by traveling elders
and high priests -- who could exercise summary justice
without checking in with headquarters.

Excommunication without a church court trial, own the
report of the branch teacher (brother of that wife)
seems to have been the process. I have to conclude
that the branch leadership knew in advancetst the
problematic husband would NOT try to appeal the decision.
made against him.

So, all things considered, some very shameful act or
planned act must have been involved. Attempted sodomy
with the wife would have been enough together him cut
off -- but the other members would have typically
demanded a church trial. This was a unique case.

UD

Below is the definition for buggery from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

Buggery n. The unnatural and detestable crime of carnal intercourse of man or woman with a beast; or of human beings unnaturally with each other.