Here's how it went down:

Tanner, who was an even worse speaker than Kimball if that was even possible, gave a very ominous talk in GC about sexual sins within marriage, so depraved that he couldn't even mention them. He also said that bishops should ask probing questions about them. (Most likely no pun was intended.)

At a subsequent conference, he claimed that depraved bishops were asking sexual questions in interviews that they had no business asking. Well, guess where they got that idea?

If you do exactly what they say and believe exactly what they say, they will come after you eventually and encourage other people to despise you. What they really want is for you to ignore most of what they say but never criticize it. Image is everything, it keeps the tithing dollars flowing.

I do remember when the probing questions got worse, and then they kind of faded away after a while.

Good grief. Bishops already want 10% of what's in your wallet, now they want to be in your bed.

I once had one of those temple recommend interviews. The bishop asked if there were any "unclean" practices in my relationship.

In the back of my mind, I thought, "We always take a shower first." So I was able to answer truthfully "NO."

None of his business.

'Funny' how different leaders deal with similar situations & circumstances...
Of Course they've never claimed consistency except when a leader does the Real Naughty ... and the next guy finds out about it.

In one case an uppy-upster did the Naught & was glad to be granted the most mundane calling possible as part of his supposed 'Repentance' process. Ja Ja!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2023 01:40AM by GNPE.

Was Tanner projecting? Sometimes the guilty accuse others of what they are ashamed of. Was Tanner feeling guilty about his carpet munching and demanding his wife give him a good teaming with the strap on?

Honestly who cares what people do unless it’s against someone’s will or abusive.

jealousy. He knew he could never get the job done properly with a forked tongue, so he wanted to deprive everyone else of fun as well.

To better explain. One fork goes to the left, the other fork goes to the right and neither finds the target audience.

I don’t see anything deep about this, or scandalous, and it is certainly not astonishing.

Mormonism is sexually repressive. No surprise there. This is the group that has “no bare shoulders” written into their BYU dress code. They just went a bridge too far on oral sex.

I think it's hilarious that the married membership said a collective, "no" to this at the time. The church loses a battle every now and then, and this was one of those times.

Prior to getting married, I remember that an already married member told me that after I'm married if the Mrs & I engaged in oral. I suppose it had only been a decade since "the letter" (https://imgur.com/a/ME6ST), and some bishops were still asking.
Anyway, we get married, comes time for our first interview. No question about oral.
I even followed up with "aren't there more questions that you are going to ask because I'm married?"
He said "would you like me to? Do you treat your wife with respect?"
And that was the end of it. I guess I was, in a way, a little disappointed.