My Porn is Okay, Your Porn is Not Okay – Avoiding the Double Standard Part 1

WARNING: This post contains a topic of a sacred sexual nature and is intended for married couples only. Viewer discretion is advised.

One of the greatest challenges in today’s world for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is finding good entertainment that doesn’t compromise the moral standards we strive to abide by.

This search for good entertainment can affect our marriages. We may seek to watch or read romance because we want something to give us that spark to get us in the mood to be close to our spouse. The Church has made it very clear that pornographic images (the kind men are generally drawn to) are definitely out, but the line on what is pornography for women is not so clear, or taken as seriously, and some become ensnared in moral traps as a result.

In order to define a problem, we must first start with a practical definition of what pornography is. The HBO documentary "Sexual Intelligence" tells us that porn comes from the Greek word porne meaning “female prostitute”, and was later coined as the word pornographos, meaning “writings about whores”. The word was created by a Greek scholar who gave a title to the large cataloged sexual artifact collection found in Pompeii.

The word pornography stuck as a term to describe any sexual images or writing intended to cause sexual excitement. The term later expanded for Church members when pornography was defined as sexual images, or writing, or dressing in a way, or speaking in a way or looking at people in a way that sexually stimulates or arouses.

For those who are married, Elder Oaks also said that pornography is “images and words [originating from sources outside a husband and wife] that are intended to arouse sexual desire.” A sexual stimulus that is generated from within the marriage relationship does not fall under the general definition of pornography and is better classified as marital intimacy.

Within the genre of romance, there are works with more artistic qualities versus popular forms of romance that could be classified as “female pornography”.

Artistic works portray people with many characteristics beyond the physical, and not all of these characteristics are glamorous or sexually attractive. In “female porn”, everyone is from LA in the looks department. At least the main characters are highly sexually attractive, and much of their description is focused on the physical.

“Female porn” characters are often forgettable, or almost interchangeable from book to book or movie to movie; they are cookie cutter in nature. Although the determination of what is good writing and what is bad writing is largely subjective, those works with artistic merit are written well, and those of a popular quality that could be classified as “female porn” are characterized by poor writing quality that is dull or monotonous.

Marilyn Arnold, an LDS English teacher, offers these clues to determining art from pornography:

“[Female porn] is comfortably predictable, and real life is not…difficult problems [are] easily solved. It never disappoints us, never tells us that to live is also to suffer; never tests our values or our moral and spiritual stamina. What it does is this: it allows us to live vicariously the lives of people for whom everything works out happily, invariably. Unfortunately, the relief we get through romance fiction…only lasts as long as the book lasts.”

Another point she makes is that these works are

“…almost totally devoid of art…the person is left essentially unchanged, uninspired, unmoved, un-enriched…It has no interest in truth or in values that endure, and it is essentially without moral content…the descriptions of [the hero and heroines] are canned and superficial.”

All of this is also true of the visual male porn.

Finally, in works that lean more towards artistic, the human condition is portrayed with a sense of authenticity. Life is complicated, and artistic works explore this complication. The consumer comes away from the book or movie with a sense of being changed or inspired or uplifted or enriched. Artistic works help us to deal with our reality more effectively than before. Appropriate entertainment leaves us with a feeling of appreciation for our spouse and family and inspires us to exhibit those qualities or activities that bring us closer to our spouse and family.

By contrast, in “female porn” or even male porn, the scenario is written according to a calculated formula that has been drawn from what each gender wants to see and read. Biologically, words and images are formulated to what will most likely trigger dopamine releases in the brain. This formula is also designed to have little to do with reality. It distorts reality in order to stimulate us sexually. It inspires our thoughts and actions away from our spouse and family and leads us to read or view in secret in order to release the chemical potion in the brain that activates those desires.

When the scenario is finished, the frustrations of life are still there. Nothing has changed about us from coming into contact with the story. Indeed, the individual is left feeling more frustrated than ever. He or she has been given nothing to help cope with the ethical and moral and emotional difficulties of life. Relationships are not edified by the experience, but become instead a stumbling block, because they stand in the way of going back for another quick sexual “high”.

To separate female pornography from literature, a woman can ask herself, “Is this book’s purpose to fill an emotional need that leads me to feel sexually aroused?” A woman can know she’s being aroused if:

* she puts herself in the place of the heroine who’s falling in love with the hero
* if she imagines herself kissing or making love to the hero
* if she goes back specifically to the sexual parts repeatedly while skipping
the rest of the story, or
* if she begins to fantasize about being with the hero in order to become aroused
enough to have sex or orgasm while having sex with her husband.

Under these conditions, she can be relatively certain that an intimacy problem with her husband exists and needs to be addressed.

Spencer W. Kimball said in The Miracle of Forgiveness,

“’Thou shalt love thy [wife/husband] with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto [her/him] and none else’ (D&C 42.22). The words ‘none else’ eliminate everyone and everything. The spouse then becomes pre-eminent in the life of the husband or wife and neither social life nor occupational life nor political life nor any other interest nor person nor thing shall ever take precedence over the companion spouse…If love wanes or dies, it is often infidelity of thought or act which gave the lethal potion. I plead with all people, young and old, bound by marriage vows and covenants to make that marriage holy, keep it fresh, express affection meaningfully and sincerely and often. Thus will one avoid the pitfalls which destroy marriages.”

REFERENCES:

Catherine, Annau, dir, Sexual Intelligence, HBO documentary, 2005
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/porography
“Pornography” Elder Dallin H. Oaks Ensign >>2005>>May
Arnold, Marilyn, “A Look at Popular Romance Fiction (Confessions of an English Teacher.) “ Ensign, Feb. 1987
Kimball, Spencer W. The Miracle of Forgiveness, pg. 250-251, Bookcraft, Salt Lake: 1992.

The Sexual Spectrum - Where Do We Lie?

WARNING: This post contains a topic of a sacred sexual nature and is intended for married couples only. Viewer discretion is advised.

I have observed through listening to people speak, through music lyrics, through what screenwriters write as reality about sex, how couples interact, and from various Internet posts that there are many conflicting beliefs about sex in the world today.

Where do these conflicting beliefs about sex come from? What are their origins?

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we learn from Genesis in the Bible and modern-day revelation that God gave Adam his wife, Eve. Like all the life forms on the new earth, Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. They were taught their purpose for being on the earth and they were given additional commandments so that they could show their obedience to God and live life in harmony with one another.

After partaking of the forbidden fruit, they gained mortality, the ability to have children, (2 Ne. 2: 22-23) and were cast out of the garden. In the world, Adam and Eve found no supermarkets, no schools, no governments, no churches, no welfare programs, no hospitals or midwives to assist with birth, no jobs, and no tools or weapons. They literally had nothing but the clothes on their backs.

They had to make their own tools, build their own shelter, produce their own heat source, and make their own food. Neither Adam nor Eve had any training in any of this. They were utterly and completely dependent on God to teach them everything they would need to know to survive.

Having known God in the garden, they knew they could trust him. They knew he was real. They taught their children to trust God. They taught them that the world and all its creations came from God and they taught them the commandments that God gave them to keep.

One commandment that stood out and was the easiest to relate to was that commandment given to all living things – to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28; Gen. 9: 1; D&C 132: 63; Moses 2: 28; Moses 5: 2; Abr. 4: 28).

This was an easy one to keep and understand, because of the tangible benefits. When the plants had sex, there was food. When the animals and fish had sex, there was food. When there was food, the people could have sex and have children. Where there was lots of food and children to make more food, there was prosperity and happiness.

Conversely, when plants and animals didn’t have sex, there was starvation and death. Adam and Eve taught their children that all living things were commanded to multiply, and the prosperity they enjoyed as a result came because of God. Therefore, they should worship Him only.

Adam’s family prospered. They had many children and those children had many children. As families grew, they formed family groups and moved away. Many of these groups forgot about God, but they never forgot the first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

Their ability to have food was everything. When the things of the world had sex, there was food and prosperity. Over time, as they forgot about God, the procreating forces of nature were worshiped as gods. This is evident in the pagan cultures of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hindu, and the Celts.

The additional commandment of sex to remain between a husband and wife was reduced to the easier commandment; the only one given to all living creatures. Have sex and lots of it. Marriage was not a requirement given to animals. Physical prosperity became the pagan man’s greatest aspiration, and engaging in sex was their way of influencing nature and the gods to have sex and thrive.

Public festivals such as the Festival of the Egyptian god of sex and fertility Min flourished. Egyptian priests and priestesses had sex continuously in their temples as a fertility rite to ensure the prosperity of the crops and people.

The Mahashivratri is a Hindu festival where their gods Shiva and Shakti (symbolized by a giant phallus penetrating a vulva) have a grand wedding ceremony. When the ceremony is complete, Shiva and Shakti copulate constantly for one hundred of their God-years. When they do, all living things have sex and everything prospers. (Ereira, Grabsky, and Jones, The Nature of Sex) One of the many names of these gods (lingam and yoni) literally translates to mean penis and vagina. (Elwood and McGraw, Many Peoples, Many Faiths, Pearson Education, 2009)

The Celts held that same belief that sex was directly linked to prosperity. They worshiped Mother Earth and Father Sky. Mother Earth was symbolized by a great mound of earth like a womb. When penetrated by the shaft of light by Father Sky, their joining caused fertility in the earth. The kings of the land would become king when they engaged in a marriage ceremony with a hag who would transform into a beautiful woman when they had sex. When they had sex, everything had sex and there was prosperity. (Dugan, Sex and the Celts)

The Roman and Greek gods also followed this pattern of sex and prosperity. The penis (because of its procreative power) was viewed as a symbol of luck, protection and prosperity. It was hung and found on their person as a charm, on the walls of their homes, their public buildings, and in their art. (Ereira, Grabsky and Jones, The Nature of Sex, Discovery Channel, 2009)

The Hebrews held tightly to the teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses and the prophets. They had a correct view of sex and sexuality because they worshiped the one true God. They understood that when all living things copulated, there was prosperity and they rejoiced in it. They understood that sex was from God and must be good. They also understood that sex was only to be between a husband and wife and to be enjoyed in all its forms in marriage, except when it conflicted with their laws of health. Sex was only condemned if engaged in any form outside of marriage or if abused within marriage.

Many of the original Hebrew doctrines about sex became warped and perverted by outside influences as they did what God commanded them not to do – such as marry outside the religion. (Mal 2:11, Neh. 13:27) Their interactions with the Egyptians, Romans and other cultures along with corrupt leaders led to misinterpretation and perversion of the gospel. An example would be that a woman having sex outside of marriage would be stoned, but there were exceptions made for men.

When Christ came, he and his apostles reorganized the gospel. The true religion that Adam knew was once again on the earth. They worked to teach correct principles about God’s plan for his children, including how we should treat each other, and what our attitudes should be toward sexual relations. No sexual activity of any kind in the bonds of marriage was ever condemned by the Lord; only those sexual practices and lusts and lasciviousness engaged in outside of marriage or sexually abusive practices in marriage.

After the apostles died and the Church fell into apostasy, followers of Christ attempted to keep Christ’s church alive on their own. Without the authority and continuing revelation, they took the gospel as well as the beliefs about sex in another direction. Early Christians’ interpretations went in the opposite direction of the pagan. Rather than viewing sex as a gift from God, sex and desires of the body were esteemed as evil.

The pagans believed that sensuality and sexuality were divine gifts that gave life and richness to the world and empowered mankind when expressed in any form. Unfortunately this belief gave license for considerable sexual deviancy. Sex outside of marriage, sex with your own gender, sex with children, sex followed by human sacrifice, sex with animals in any way imaginable, and sex with animals followed by their sacrifice and consumption became the norm.

The pagan beliefs completely contradicted this belief of control of bodily appetites. Early Christians, in order to separate themselves from the pagans, forged beliefs that would take them in the complete opposite of the pagan beliefs; especially about sex.

Primitive conditions of the time encouraged the adoption of these anti-sex sentiments. Birth control was practically unheard of in those early times. Medicine was not what it is today. Pregnancy often brought death to women. Sex brought unwanted children that taxed the economic systems and transmitted poverty and misery. No one wanted to associate misery with Christ, who was supposed to bring peace and happiness to the world.

Early Christianity became the gospel of exercising self discipline and the control of bodily appetites. Many monks blazed the trail to new beliefs about sex by denying themselves of all bodily desires. Some took their aestheticism to extremes. The Instructions of King Carmoc, written by an anonymous monk around 1390, made the extraordinary claim that it would be better to kill a woman than to live with her. “Green martyrdom” drove men into the woods to live in isolation from temptations of the flesh. A notorious Irish monk who popularized this practice was St. Kevin, who was also praised for actually killing a woman who made him feel tempted. (Duggan, Jimmy, Sex and the Celts, Pathfinder Home Entertainment, 2004)

The appearance of a female (no matter how modest she may be dressed) stirred the natural biological responses in men and led them to the misogynistic point of view that women were creatures of the devil sent to lead man into bodily sins against God. This belief eventually led to the denouncement of the first commandment given to Adam.

Marriage was now not of God. Tertullian (cir. 160–220) taught that “…marriage is a moral crime, more dreadful than any punishment or any death.” St. Ambrose (cir. 340 -397) also taught “marriage is a crime against God…a prostitution of the members of Christ.”

Early Christian leaders couldn’t stop the members of the church from having sex, so they sought to control it. For example, they could only have sex in the missionary position, and sex on holidays or fast days was forbidden. A person could never have sex without clothes on, and enjoying it was definitely out. The penalties were eternal damnation. Abstinence was the preferred state until the 16th century when marriage was only to be performed by a priest.

Bodily desires became so repugnant that even the thought of God having a body or being associated with sex had to be rejected. Mary, the mother of Jesus, and her “sexless conception” of the Savior was held up as an example that if God intends you to have children you will conceive immaculately. It didn’t take long for women to make the biological connection that conception doesn’t work that way.

Even after Protestants rebelled against the Catholic Church and attempted to bring their faith in Christ closer to what he originally taught, many of the new puritanical faiths held tightly to the practices of abstinence and restraint from the enjoyment or discussion of sex.

In modern societies, the strict anti-sex view of early Christian teachings (being an act or desire that will send you to Hell) caused men to question their faith. Their choices were either to have sex and go to hell, or not have sex and go to heaven. But sex felt good, and they liked it, and didn’t want to go without it. This false paradigm caused further dysfunction, with people believing that they must either “laugh with the sinners [or] cry with the saints”, as Billy Joel popularized in his song, “Only the Good Die Young”. This also leads to the rationalization that, since they’ve gone this far, they might as well go all the way, causing people to abandon their faith entirely, or seek a faith that conforms closer to their own desires.

Here we have discussed three patterns. To the pagan, sex linked you to God. To the Dark Age and medieval Christians, sex cut you off from God. To Adam, the Hebrews, and Christ’s restoration of the gospel, sex was a gift from God to be performed only in the bonds of marriage (The Nature of Sex. Alan Ereira; Phil Grabsky, Terry Jones, Discovery Channel, 2009)

In psychology, there are spectrums for what is considered normal and what is considered dysfunctional. When it comes to gospel teachings about sex, the truth was established with Adam and Eve in the beginning. Pagans held strong beliefs about sex and their bodies, but became dysfunctional in sex’s proper relationship to God. Early Christianity (in order to separate themselves from the pagan) took the dysfunction to the opposite end of the spectrum and attempted to eradicate sex from the gospel completely.

In reading the apostle Paul or any of the gospels in the light of revealed knowledge, it becomes apparent that the eradication of sex was never intended by Christ, but rather to be reeled back in to be governed again by the laws the Lord had set in the beginning.

This spectrum would look something like this:

Sex is not of God_____Sex is joining with God_____Sex is God

When the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in 1830 through Joseph Smith, the sanctity of marriage was also restored. It linked us to God by helping Him to fulfill his plan for his children. Through marriage, families are sealed together for eternity. The spirit children of God are provided with bodies so they can know the joy that God has from having a body, and become like Him by learning to control it and keep appetites and passions in the boundaries He has set. (Alma 38:12)

God has provided our bodies with special sexual functions that not only give intense pleasure, but when (and only when) exercised in marriage, bind us together completely body and soul.

Jeffrey R. Holland taught:

“...sexual intimacy is not only a symbolic union between man and woman…but it is also symbolic of a union between mortals and deity…a rare and special moment with God himself and all the powers by which he gives life in this wide universe of ours …may I suggest that human intimacy, that sacred, physical union ordained of God for a married couple…was ordained to be a symbol of total union: union of their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their future, their everything…It is in that act of ultimate physical intimacy we most nearly fulfill the commandment of the Lord given to Adam and Eve…as all (married) couples come to that moment of bonding in mortality, it is to be just such a complete union.” (Holland, Jeffrey R., Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments)

Many married members of the Church carry with them combinations of either pagan or strict puritanical Christian paradigms towards sex. Mormons were not always Mormon – especially in Joseph Smith’s time. Most of those who joined the Church brought with them their family’s ancestral beliefs about sex and taught them to their children, or didn’t teach their children about sex at all. If not properly educated, we naturally gravitate toward assimilating the beliefs from our surrounding environment. Like an infant's desire to stand and walk, our thirst for knowledge about ourselves and our sexuality is inherent and strong.

As shown on the spectrum above, the beliefs on opposite ends are dysfunctional and were not what God had originally intended for his children. As we evaluate our sexual relationship with our spouse and find our self with feelings of uncleanness, uneasiness, disgust or revulsion toward sex with our spouse, we must try and understand where those paradigms come from. Seek the teachings of men of God and the scriptures about sex and seek the Spirit in what they teach.

We will find a whole world of sexual exploration and pleasure in our marriages that is not only permissible but encouraged. This exploration will help us fill the measure of our creation and bring us great joy in our marriages.

The question of oral sex in LDS marriage: Part 2

There’s more to say about the mysterious 1982 letter on oral sex from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

There is no way to view the original document. It cannot be retrieved from LDS Church Headquarters without proper authorization. A copy of the letter can be found online, but be aware that this letter was not intended to be released to the public and any copies found may have been doctored. Most importantly, it was never canonized as any kind of scripture.


After analyzing a more complete copy of the letter that is being circulated, it is my personal conclusion that the letter itself may have been tampered with.

Grammatically the whole sentence starting with “The First Presidency has interpreted…” seems to come out of nowhere. It reads too much like it was added after the fact. The very next sentence “If a person is engaged in…” picks up like the previous one never existed. The whole document is structurally congruent except for that one sentence.

Another inconsistency that I observed was that the sentence right before “The First Presidency has interpreted…” emphasizes to the leaders to give “counseling without going into clinical detail”, and then the very next sentence jumps right into a very intimate, clinical detail. It was a very jarring contradiction. As I was reading it, I was hearing that Sesame Street song going through my head – “One of these things is not like the other, c’mon now, can you tell which one?”

When dealing with apocryphal documents of this sort being circulated, one thing that we have to keep in mind is the example of the missing 116 pages from the Book of Lehi. The 116 pages of translation were stolen while in the possession of Martin Harris. This account can be found in the book “Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” on page 8.

Joseph Smith was commanded by God not to re-translate those pages. Now that they were potentially in the hands of those that wanted to destroy the church, they could be manipulated in a way that would be used to discredit the work that Joseph Smith had done. (Doctrine and Covenants 10:10-12) Since this letter has been circulated on the Internet by questionable sources, I have to conclude that a similar situation could exist in this case. Manipulating the letter with today’s technology would be easy to do.

Even if I’m wrong, there are other factors to consider here. After reading this letter, my memory was jogged to another inconsistency. If oral sex in marriage was even a minor sin, President Kimball (who’s shown as having signed the letter) would have mentioned it in “The Miracle of Forgiveness.”

Spencer W. Kimball was the champion of the law of chastity in the 70’s and 80’s. If President Kimball felt that oral sex in marriage was immoral, unnatural, unholy or impure in any degree, why wouldn't he spell it out in his book.

It was not in his book, nor is the denouncement of oral sex in marriage found in any Church Conference talk anywhere, at any time.

Reason causes me to conclude that the part of the letter that says, “The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure and unholy practice.” is suspect, to say the least, and thus cannot be taken as official Church doctrine on the subject.

For those who may want more historical background on the “oral sex” letter and what happened afterward, as well as the Church’s current stand on sexual practices in marriage, this link gives good clarification:
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V25N01_51.pdf

This is an article written by Romel Mackelprang, a former professor at BYU and Eastern Washington University. His article talks about a follow up letter that was sent by the first presidency that essentially rescinds the first.

“A question I have frequently been asked concerns the propriety of
oral sex. To address this question, one must first define the term. Is
kissing oral sex? How about a mouth on a breast? Or is oral sex lim-
ited exclusively to oral-genital contact? (These questions have special
significance for disabled persons who are paralyzed and lack sensation
in their genitals, arms, and legs and for whom sexual expression is
very different from that of able-bodied persons. For some, their mouths
may be the only means of active sexual expression.) On 5 January
1982, apparently in response to numerous queries about oral sex, the
First Presidency distributed a letter (signed by Spencer W. Kimball,
N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney, and Gordon B. Hinkley) to
bishops and stake presidents. 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. Appar-
ently, a number of the local leaders read the first part of the letter but
ignored the second, choosing instead to delve into their members' inti-
mate lives. After the 1982 letter, several of my clients and a number of
friends reported experiences in which their bishops or stake presidents
inquired into their intimate sex lives. 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 lead-
ers, protesting ecclesiastical meddling. Apparently, in response to these
reactions, on 15 October 1982, a second letter was sent to stake and
ward leaders that reiterated the January 5 directive to avoid inquiring
into couples' intimate sexual practices. 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 the
"Instructions for Issuing Recommends to Enter a Temple" (1989),
instructs 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. Gener-
ally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions. If, during an inter-
view, 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 propri-
ety 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.”

This concurs with my belief and understanding of the Church’s current position on sexual practices in marriage - including oral sex. I would especially recommend reading pages 60-61 of the article, entitled “And They Shall Be One Flesh: Sexuality and Contemporary Mormonism.”

Your perceptions of sex

Our perceptions of sex are affected by our cultural, religious, and historical family beliefs. Many of our misconceptions about sex can be traced back to what great-great-grandma taught/didn't teach her kids about sex.

Mormons were not always Mormons. Joseph Smith organized the LDS church only about 180 years ago. Even at that time, they were just organizing and beginning to get revelation about what church doctrine should be. Even today, our beliefs and practices are still being refined.

Before our ancestors were Mormon, they most likely belonged to another church. Even today, we have converts to the church who were Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, Hindu, Muslim and many more.

When converts come into the Church culture, they bring their family beliefs and superstitions about sex and marriage with them. Many of those beliefs are incorrect. I know my parents had some pretty interesting beliefs about sex, and they were beliefs that were contrary to what the LDS church teaches.

Just for fun:

How far back can you trace your family's religious history? What did those religions teach about sex? Do they match your current beliefs about sex? Why or why not?

How have these beliefs and traditions affected your sexual relationship with your spouse?

The question of oral sex in LDS marriage.

WARNING: This post contains a topic of a sacred sexual nature and is intended for married couples only. Viewer discretion is advised.

There is an apocryphal letter that has been passed around for years regarding the LDS church’s standing on oral sex between a wife and husband who are legally and lawfully married. My comments can also be applied to any other sexual practice in marriage.

I’d like to address that letter and clear it up once and for all. I also invite any of my peers and any Church leaders who wish to comment and give additional clarification if they feel it is needed.

First off, the letter cannot be found anywhere on any official church sites. To find this letter one would have to go to anti-Mormon or other questionable sources. This one came from http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=6853


Letter to all Priesthood Leaders, January 5, 1982.

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. 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 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.

Anyone guilty of verbal or physical child or spouse abuse should not enter the temple. . .

(Signatures)
Spencer Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
Gordon B. Hinckley


A letter by the First Presidency was submitted, but you must read it carefully and understand the background of this letter.

Notice that this letter was "Letter to all Priesthood Leaders." Having personally served as the clerk in a Bishopric, I can tell you that the Bishops and Stake Presidents of the church are sent letters from the President of the Church all the time. Some are meant to be read to the congregation and some are not. This letter was never meant to be read to the congregation, nor was it established as the official doctrine of the church.

Notice the phrase "The First Presidency has interpreted..." The President and his counselors were asked a question and are entitled to their opinion. Anyone who studied President Kimball's writings will read for themselves that President Spender W. Kimball admits to giving his opinion at times and that it's not necessarily from God.

The official Church guidelines on this topic can be found in the Bishop's Handbook of Instruction, which states that the church cannot tell a husband or wife what they can or cannot do sexually in the bonds of marriage.

A fact about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that we do not have paid clergy. Your local bishop could be a plumber for a living - with NO training in family issues or counseling. The impression I get from this letter was that in the 80s a lot of members were asking the question about oral sex to their bishop in their temple recommend interviews.

The Bishops didn't know what counsel to give to the married members and took it up with the First Presidency. This letter was their reply, but the letter or the statement was never repeated nor was it given as an addendum to the temple interview questions, nor have I ever heard it asked in a temple interview question.

The last statement "...If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it." is more consistent with the teachings of the church and gospel. We're instructed to pray about it and follow the Spirit. If we desire to engage in a sexual act as a couple, and we're not sure about how it will affect our standing with God, we are to investigate it, discuss and pray about it as a couple, and follow what the Spirit directs.

One constant you will find about the LDS church - if it is a serious problem and intended to be doctrine from God, you will hear about it over and over and over and over again.

This is just not the case in this circumstance. To us Mormons, what happens between a husband and wife sexually is sacred, and what happens in other people's bedrooms is not our concern. If Adam and Eve wanted to have anal sex while hanging from their disco mirror ball and playing funk music, as far as we're concerned, it's none of our ding-dang business. As it says in Genesis, the Lord married them and left them ALONE in the garden.

The only sin regarding sex in marriage is the coercion of one spouse over another to engage in a sexual act that the other is uncomfortable doing.

As Mark Gungor (a Christian marriage counselor and author of “Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage”) teaches, in order for sex to be great, you must have a turned-on husband and a turned-on wife. If this chain is broken, great sex cannot be obtained. This is true no matter what the sex act is.

Sex is intended to bond a husband and wife and bring them closer together in every aspect. Coercion only defeats this – thus the sin isn’t sexual, it’s selfishness and unrighteous dominion (D&C 121). Marriage was intended to create eternal family relationships. Any activity that pushes you apart will defeat the plan God laid out for a marriage.

In turn, any married sexual activity that is not done to the exclusion of creating and bearing children, and tightens the bond with your spouse, is the very definition of what is natural, holy and pure.

Use common sense though. If you both as a couple desire sexual acts that cause damage to you or your spouse’s body or threaten your lives or health, it may be time to re-evaluate the benefit of the sexual practice. Our bodies are still sacred to God and must be protected and respected.

In a later blog I will be addressing how the gospel defines unnatural, unholy and impure practices. Seems we need some clarification.

( Be sure to read my follow up article: The question of oral sex in LDS marriage: Part II )

The World’s Oldest Commandment

What was the first commandment given to all living creatures? In order to begin understanding sexuality in marriage, we must take a look back to the beginnings of time, even before man was found on the earth. Back to Genesis.

As recorded in the Book of Genesis and the Books of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, the Lord created the world, and the plants and animals, but he didn’t just create them and move on. They were all beings with intelligence; he spoke to them.

“…God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth…” (Genesis 1:22; Moses 2:22; also Abraham 4:22)

So these brand-new intelligent beings were given a commandment from their creator, and that commandment was…have sex. Since being fruitful and multiplying cannot occur without sex, the commandment was, logically, to work to complete a full sexual cycle of having children, offspring being the “fruit” of a sexual pairing that tend to “multiply” the more often the cycle is completed.

Although this same direct commandment is not recorded in scripture to the land animals, reason necessitates the idea that they, too, received this commandment from their creator. President Hinckley stated,

“Then followed the creation of animal life in the sea and upon the land. He commanded them together to multiply and replenish the earth.” (Hinckley, Gordon B. “Daughters of God”, Ensign. Nov 1991. Italics added.)

So once the animals were created and given their instructions,

“God created man in his own image…and God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:27; Abraham 4:26)

The first commandment to the first man and woman on the earth was the same; to multiply and replenish the earth. In other words, they were informed of their duty to have sex and procreate. It was the same commandment given to the animals, but with additional responsibilities and duties, for two reasons.

What was the first reason? Adam was on a different plane than animals, and God expected more of him. He was created in the image of God himself, with the potential and requirement to become like God. Before organized religion existed, there were religious rites and requirements of worship given to man to show his faithfulness to God.

Secondly, he had additional responsibilities added upon him to care for the earth and the animals, thus further separating mankind from the animal kingdom. Adam and Eve were NOT part of the animals, except that they also were commanded…to have sex.

When Eve was created, and before the Lord left them alone together (very important), they were also promptly married by the Lord.

“And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed…” (Genesis 2:22-25; Moses 3:22-25; Abraham 5:16-19; italics added)

Man was instructed to have sex, but only after being married in the manner God required, further differentiating mankind from all other living things.

Then came the fall and mortality, and Adam and Eve completed their sexual cycle as commanded, and had children. They taught their children these same things. More commandments were added by the Lord in order to help them navigate the pitfalls of mortality.

The commandment to have married sex remains in force for us today. If we make the choice to follow it, practice it, and find ways to enjoy it, it can lead to great joy and bring us closer to our spouses and to God. If we choose to abdicate the responsibility the Lord has entrusted us with…there are many directions that choice can take us in:

We can worship sex for sex’s sake by choosing to engage in sexual behavior outside the boundaries of the Lord’s approval (marriage).

We can choose to interrupt the full natural cycle of sex by not having children.

We can even choose to avoid sex completely while being married.

But we cannot deny the commandment without receiving the consequences of that denial.

“To the first man and woman on earth, the Lord said, “Be fruitful, and multiply”. This commandment was first in sequence and first in importance…” (Oaks, Dallin H. “The Great Plan of Happiness”. Ensign, Nov 1993; emphasis added)

Welcome to one and all!

My name is Sam Zaragoza, and I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church.

My wife and I were sealed in the Seattle Washington temple over 17 years ago. Over that period of time, it's inevitable that the strength of a relationship will be tested in many ways, and we have been and continue to be tested even today.

Fortunately, my wife and I have maintained a strong relationship with each other. All through that time, as we watched others struggle with marital intimacy issues as we did, and even watched some of them lose the struggle, I always wondered, "Why did that happen? Could it have been prevented? What’s appropriate and what isn’t in the bonds of marriage? What is in compliance with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and what isn’t?"

One of the major conclusions I've come to in that time is that, despite the tremendous amount of information that can be found in our society today about sex, there is a woeful lack of wholesome, accurate and accessible information, even online. There is more to be found in the wider Christian community that is good and righteous, but their information was often still insufficient for LDS needs.

If pornography is a counterproductive source of information, then where do LDS married couples go to find out about the details of lovemaking without turning to pornography with all of its addictive and destructive attributes? What does LDS doctrine teaches us about love and lovemaking, and how can we keep from being ensnared in the traps that lay in wait for those who have made covenants to the Lord in his holy temples?

I'm currently studying to be a marriage and family coach, and the insights that I'm gaining will be part of what will be explored on this blog. I hope you will find these ideas informative and useful as you attempt to develop intimacy in your marriage while trying to stay on the “strait and narrow” path of the gospel.

Before I go any further, let me make one point perfectly clear. This blog is aimed at LDS members, and specifically those LDS members who are married. Though I attempt to be clinical and not pornographic, some of these posts will be discussing sexual topics in a measure of graphic detail. My thought is, sometimes sexuality just has to be spelled out. Vagueness is crippling when you’re trying to find useful information.

These posts will not be meant for those who are single and trying to keep the Lord's law of chastity. If you currently have no sexual outlet, then reading and discussing sexual topics is inappropriate and actually counter-productive, as I will discuss later. I would ask that those who are single would bypass blogs that are marked with a “For Married Couples Only” warning. I will continue to post warnings of this sort on further blog posts, as well as additional information meant specifically for single LDS members.

Also, if someone who is not a member of the Mormon Church comes across this blog out of curiosity, I welcome you and your thoughts and ideas, as long as they are respectful. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are part of the wider Christian world, since we do worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior as other Christians do.

However, I cannot direct my posts to Christians in general, since that would necessitate speaking only from the knowledge of the gospel that we gain from the Bible. As an LDS member, I also use the Book of Mormon, which we believe to be another testament of Jesus Christ, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the words of modern LDS prophets and apostles. I cannot disregard these precious resources in order to broaden my outreach to the general Christian world.

If you are married, but not LDS, and would like to read these posts, then you are welcome to do so. If you have something to add, I would welcome it. Please respect the sacredness of these topics in your comments. If you don't like the Church's beliefs or doctrines, then on that we must agree to disagree.

I look forward to our journey together.