What do you think are the chances that some of the GAs and their wives do sixty nine and backdoor and different kinds of stuff even while preaching to the flock that sex is only for procreation?

I was never taught that sex was only for procreation. When/where have the GA's "preached" that?

References?

"Obtaining a celestial marriage" probably has some references

While they didn't always come right out and explicitly say certain things were forbidden, alot was implied. And at a certain point in time the 1st presidency actually came out and said that couples who engaged in oral sex were not to receive a temple recommend unless they repented first. At least according to a former stake president I had in the nineties.

Neolithic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While they didn't always come right out and
> explicitly say certain things were forbidden,
> alot was implied. And at a certain point in time
> the 1st presidency actually came out and said that
> couples who engaged in oral sex were not to
> receive a temple recommend unless they repented
> first. At least according to a former stake
> president I had in the nineties.

I remember when they took their short-lived stance against oral sex. I don't recall it being tied to a temple recommend though (at least I was never questioned about it).

Still, I was NEVER taught or heard a GA say that sex was for procreation only. Some may have had that as their personal goal, but I NEVER heard it preached.

Since nobody has provided a reference...I'll provide one. From the Church Handbook of Instructions (2010), page 165 -

"Married couples also should understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife."

{sigh...} Keep recovering boys and girls.

recreation … and yes I grew up in Petersens's stake.

I you knew his wife you would be celibate too.

From "On This Day in Mormon History:"

Jan 5, 1982 - First Presidency repeats its 1978 instructions for
"interviewing married persons" but adds: "The First Presidency
has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure,
or unholy practice."

Sex was at one time seen as solely a procreative act, probably by Mark Petersen's wife.

Mark E. Petersen, The Way to Peace (1969), p. 143

"The laws of nature – and of sex – are immutable and unfailing. Death will still continue to be the final wage of sin. Life and joy are the rewards of righteousness. Sex is for the procreation of the species, not for sensual pleasure. God made it clean and sacred. He intends that we shall keep it so."


But then, it got loosened up just a bit, to primarily a procreative act. Recreational sex was OK, as long as you didn't get too much of it.

The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball (1982), p. 311

"The union of the sexes, husband and wife (and only husband and wife), was for the principal purpose of bringing children into the world. Sex experiences were never intended by the Lord to be a mere plaything or merely to satisfy passions and lusts. We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sex experience between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation effort, but we find much evidence from Adam until now that no provision was ever made by the Lord for indiscriminate sex."

Book of Mordor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sex was at one time seen as solely a procreative
> act, probably by Mark Petersen's wife.
>
> Mark E. Petersen, The Way to Peace (1969), p. 143
>
> "The laws of nature – and of sex – are
> immutable and unfailing. Death will still continue
> to be the final wage of sin. Life and joy are the
> rewards of righteousness. Sex is for the
> procreation of the species, not for sensual
> pleasure. God made it clean and sacred. He intends
> that we shall keep it so."

From "On This Day in Mormon History:"

May 25, 1975 - At a special early-morning "Adults only"
fireside in the Seattle East Stake Apostle Mark E. Petersen
states that oral sex in an "abomination." Peterson also tells
the congregation, "I've been married to my wife for 44 years,
and never once have seen her body uncovered".

Well they don't teach that anymore. But back in the 70's when they were actively discouraging oral sex for married couples, I wonder if they practiced what they preached? There were at least fantasizing about it. How else would they have an opinion on it?

Just a hunch but I'm pretty sure Oaks rubbed

all his hair off on the headboard!!

Cokeisoknowdrinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just a hunch but I'm pretty sure Oaks rubbed
>
> all his hair off on the headboard!!


I think you just...um...pegged it!

My mother was taught that courtesy of Joseph F. Smith. Was written in some book i.e. Teachings of.... I was also taught that at YBU circa early 70's.

Edited for spelling. Oops



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2014 03:28PM by cwpenrose.

I was never taught it was for procreation only.

Matter of fact, my LDS meetinghouse in Bakersfield was protested by a group of hard-core Christian fundamentalists that felt that sex for anything outside procreation was wrong. They felt that the LDS church, despite its rules against fornication and cohabitation, was still too soft.

I guess they discount the Bible book Song of Solomon??

Dunno. Seems like every Christian religion has to pick and choose from the Bible what they want to use.

They were mostly handing out literature of the kind that was popular in the 90's. You know, misaligned text on cheap 8.5x11 copy paper with the smell of toner still wafting off of it. Wished i'd thought to keep some of it for historicity's sake, but I didn't.

We were part of a circuit they hit that day -- including the much larger Baptist church and a Nazarene church on the same block -- so they really weren't around too long.

On May 25, 1975, at 9:45am in Bellevue, WA.....Apostle Mark E. Peterson told our conference-goers, that he has never once seen his wife in the nude (naked) and that they "had children and that is all".

He held this up as somehow being "spiritual" and as an example for others.

What a ridiculous, false, corrupt teaching....

that story makes my both my brains hurt!

Yep, my generation. Heard that one too.

That screams of closet homosexual.

Sorry -but that is not a man.

I can recall it as well. In my > 30 years married as a TBM, never used contraceptives. Having children was part of sex and you knew the chance was always there. Birth control was to protect the life and health of the woman. Mental health was not really an issue addressed clearly by the church at that time as a "health" issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2014 03:53PM by baneberry.

When the 1st Presidency puts out a letter that states oral sex is impure and unholy, then I would imagine many TBM's would also imagine that other variations of sex would also be off-limits. As always YMMV, as there are always extremes and lots of gray areas in a lot of things taught, ie, WoW-caffeine OK or not. Sex is the same way.
Here is a shot of a Jan.5,1982 letter that was sent out.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml

This sort of thread really harms the credibility of this board.

A 12 year old would find it immature.

Flame on!!^^^^

Is Mr. Happy a full time clown doing children's parties or is he just a clown troll here.

Mr. Happy made a very nice attempt at revisionist cultco doctrine, but too many profits, asspostholes, and local douches, have made statements through time have said too many things that indicate Mr. Happy's troll efforts are in vain. Quel cloon!!!!

Mr. Happy definitely did not attempt to revise history and you are wrong to make that claim. At worst he didn't know that 40 years ago Mormons preached against recreational. Most Mormons today would have no idea what was taught 40 years ago either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2014 08:21PM by snb.

templeendumbed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is Mr. Happy a full time clown doing children's
> parties or is he just a clown troll here.
>
> Mr. Happy made a very nice attempt at revisionist
> cultco doctrine, but too many profits,
> asspostholes, and local douches, have made
> statements through time have said too many things
> that indicate Mr. Happy's troll efforts are in
> vain. Quel cloon!!!!

BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!

I've been around these parts a LOT longer than you have. LOL!!!

Since "too many profits, asspostholes, and local douches, have made statements through time have said too many things", you should have NO PROBLEM producing a talk from a General Conference of a G.A. saying sex is for procreation ONLY.

When I was a member I used to accept statements as truth at face value. I don't do that any more. I have "recovered" from that part of my Mormon upbringing.

Don't give up on your "Recovery from Mormonism" efforts. You ain't quite there. Not even close. Good luck with that.

Mr. Happy = Troll...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have my doubts any of the big 15 have sex. It is icky...

Okay, except for the German. That guy has toys and paraphernalia you wouldn't believe. He is a sex maniac. No doubt about it. And when he ditches the garments he wears a tiny speedo. I'm pretty sure about that.

I think it is odd that anybody would care about who has anal sex and who doesn't.

Married 44 years and never seen his wife uncovered???? Come on now!!! REALLY? I wouldn't go around admitting that!

I DO remember having a temple recommend interview in the early 80's and having the bishop actually ask me the oral sex question. I was flabbergasted and highly embarassed. So was he. Of course, I answered an astonished "NO!" That was certainly not anything that was ever considered in my marriage. Pity.

BKP= tie your hands to the headboard....