People find my blog all kinds of ways, but a very common way is an inquiry such as “Can my wife give me a blow job LDS” or “LDS hand job okay” or “mutual masturbation, LDS marriage”, and so on. (Oh-one of my favorite is “Sexy Mormon Women”. Yep, people find my blog with that search. Okay, okay, I’ll admit it, that’s me! hahahaha!)
The General Authorities do NOT have a list of sex acts that are forbidden or approved floating around out there. They’re not in the sex police business. Sex is your private business. It’s between the two of you, for you to decide, for you to enjoy.
Oh, what about The Letter? Okay, I admit that is floating around on the Internet, along with any number of opinions on the subject of all manner of sexual things having to do with our religion. I refuse to discuss The Letter, except to say that it’s not relevant, current or applicable. Go discuss it elsewhere. (I hate arguing and conflict.) But what about that book I read by Bro and Sis So and So that said oral sex was wrong? What about (very spiritual and just-about-to-be-Translated ward member) who told me that only whores and sluts do anal and you will go to hell if you do it? You don’t have to listen to them!!! Your sex life is your sex life. It’s between you and your spouse.
I’m just one woman, not even an important one, with an opinion. And my opinion is, if you want to do it…DO IT! Oh, zookie, but what about…..Yes, do THAT, TOO! (Oh: Unless it has to do with animals. Do NOT do that. AAaahhahahahaha! ) Touch, kiss, lick, suck, pinch, spank, slap, squeeze, (I think I”ll stop there, whew!) whatever part of your spouse’s body you want or they want. If it feels good, do it. That’s my opinion.
“If it feels good, do it.” That was a common phrase held up as an absolute no-no when I was growing up. We were NOT supposed to do something just because it felt good. In fact, if it felt good, I’m pretty sure we thought we’d go straight to hell if we did it! Here’s the thing: we weren’t married then. If you are, then guess what? You CAN do it, and you don’t even have to go see your bishop about doing it! I think there’s some kind of residual guilt or shame in a lot of us about that. If it’s not PIV, missionary position, one and done, vanilla sex and it feels soooooo good, it might not be natural and has to be just plain wrong. Oh, and if I feel guilty about it I’m supposed to discontinue the practice! (News flash: not all guilt is good, healthy or from a positive source. )
You do not need permission from your Bishop, Stake President or our General Authorities to do something in bed with your spouse. And I”m pretty sure they aren’t going to give it to you, even if you ask.
Have I convinced you? Good! Now it’s your job to convince your reluctant spouse. Good luck with that. 🙂
Sex and the LDS Woman 
Love the simple phrase–if it feels good, do it! You’re married!
Yes-convicing the spouse is a challenge. I HATE that “letter,” and I’m glad it is now impossible to find on any sites other than anti-mormon ones. I know–I’ve searched that issue very thoroughly in a bit of a doctrinal debate. Unfortunately the rumor of “the letter” not only influenced the particular issue it was supposed to address for the few months before it was basically retracted, but also introduced the idea that there must be some mutually enjoyable things that are not okay in marriage. Weird how something 30 years ago can persist.
From what I can tell, the Church seems to be trying to move your direction on this.
I think they really dislike giving lots of rules–like caffeine or no caffeine. They only clarify something when the absolutely have to–because they want us to make our own choices.
Not sure if you are aware of this latest post by the Church, on their newsroom, for the media…
“Finally, another small correction: Despite what was reported, the Church revelation spelling out health practices (Doctrine and Covenants 89) does not mention the use of caffeine. The Church’s health guidelines prohibit alcoholic drinks, smoking or chewing of tobacco, and “hot drinks” — taught by Church leaders to refer specifically to tea and coffee. *
For the full article:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news–getting-it-right-august-29
As always Zookie, you rock!
I not only know of the letter I was in a temple recommend interview in about 1981ish when the stake presidency member asked specifically if we were doing anal, etc. No explanation why this came up and some careful wording to make sure we both understood what was being asked, but ask he did. The next year the wording was changed to say basically what is being said currently, which is, are you abusing anyone in the family. We, years later, discussed it with our friends to see if we were the only ones who experienced that question and we weren’t. I can only imagine the uproar that must have happened to cause that goofy idea to be scratched from the question list.
The rules about what’s right appear to come out of the concept that if we do everything exactly as some authority says we’ll have exultation. Which is wrong. Not only that but it allows some pin head who has a hobby of pushing his or her ideas on other people to think up doctrine.The good news is that we have the priesthood led by inspiration to correct such goofy ideas. The bad news is, we let other people’s concepts trump our own inspiration. The handbook gave wonderful guidance years ago when it said to not ask any questions about a couples sexual activity. In my opinion we are an awfully faithful people, and tolerate a lot of bad advice, sometime destructive advice but when something’s seriously wrong we just ignore it and carry on.
Laura Brotherson is my hero because she’s trumpeted this cause way before anyone gave her any credit for it and I presume lots of grief. Its not easy to go against prevailing ideas even if they are wrong and promoting sexual freedom (inside marriage) was one of those concepts. The tyrant-type people can dig up GA quote after GA quote to make sure sex is done with all the passion of, of, of something that has no passion!
I could go on about this but that should do it for now.
Thanks, Dinosaur! You said something that I meant to put in this post but it flew right out of my head before I could write it down, and that is that we just want to do everything exactly as the General Authorities say. Yep. We want to be obedient, serving, Christ-like people. That’s a good thing! But some things are just left to us. Sex is one of those things, I think.
I think a lot of LDS confusion on what’s OK and what’s not OK, sexually, comes from scriptures that describe the “natural man” or the “fallen man” as being “carnal, sensual, and devilish”. The unspoken message there is that anything carnal (pertaining to the flesh) or sensual (pertaining to physical gratification) is also devilish. None of us wants to be devilish, so if we internalize those scriptures we come to believe that all “fleshly pleasures” are evil, even in marriage.
I think that most of the time that the “carnal man” comes up in the scriptures, it is talking about the person that has not been spiritually reborn – in other words, they have not been baptized.
Mosiah 16:
3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.
4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.
5 But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.
Romans, Chapter 8 is good to read – explains that once we have accepted the Savior, we become spiritually minded.
1 Corinthians: 14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Sorry for all of the scriptures. There are many more. But, I think that we too often label carnal as any sin, or weakness of the flesh. We are all carnal, or natural man, by design. The we way get beyond that is to become converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and become new creatures- we then become spiritual man. That does not mean that we never sin, but that we now have the atonement of Jesus Christ to forgive our sins.
Disagree, Chet. I think it means getting over ourselves,whatever that may mean. So,whatever it is that gets in the way of our honest open expression of love needs to be dealt with. I think the ‘natural man’ is our default position, and we need to take responsibility for re-calibrating ourselves. Perhaps that is the implication of what you have said, I guess I’m interested in what all that stuff actually looks like in real life.
And Zookie, I too believe in the god of common sense.
Thank you Chet and HWC. Both of you have given good answers to what the carnal, natural man is. I’ve learned something new today!
And thanks for the scripture references, Chet. They’re great!
Could not agree with you more! Just want you to know that hubby was in Grad school and we were married back when that letter came out. Our Bishop refused to ask any couples about specifics of their sex life. He said it was none of his business and no-one elses either. (Wise man) However, my mother felt the need to call all of her daughters to inform us – oral was wrong! I am not sure her son-in-laws ever forgave her for that!!! It wasn’t until years later I figured out she was just as upset about it!!! OOOOhhhhh – TMI, TMI!!! I am going to go be sick!!!
You had a great bishop back then! Good for him!
What I find interesting is that your mom felt the need to tell all her daughters even though she was upset about it. Now I’m so curious to know how you found out she was upset about it! Did she say to you one day, “You know, dear, your father and I really enjoyed that until…” hahahaha!!!
Doesn’t matter how old we get, we don’t want to picture our parents getting it on. hahaha!
I didn’t have to picture it – I walked in when they were doing it – years later when they came to help me out when I had one of my babies. Now its seared into my mind!!! Oh – so not good!!
Thats when I figured out she probably was upset about the letter too. Maybe she called us to get some perspective. But I am pretty sure none of us went any further into a conversation about it then we had to. Like “Ok mom, thanks for the call!” Click!!!!
I thought I would share some information with everyone… there is a new LDS-authored book on marital intimacy, written by three LDS professional counselors. Here is the link to their website:
http://www.realintimacybook.com/about-the-book/buy-here/
It appears that they originally addressed some sticky issues, i.e. masturbation, oral sex, anal sex and toys…. but they decided to take these topics out, because of the controversy that it was causing. But, you can request that they email you the material that they removed from the chapter and it will give you their counsel regarding these topics. I would post a copy of it, but they say it is copyrighted, so you will need to request your own copies.
Good luck indeed! We were poisoned by a sanctimonious meddlesome bishop as our marriage began and the effects live on today, decades later. For some, saying & understanding that it is OK is one thing, but believing it is quite another. The rational mind seems to always be trumped by habitual lingering doubt. It was sheer dumb and very bad luck that we ended up in that ward then.
Rhett —
You are right on about understanding vs. believing. Once my wife heard about “The Letter”, that was it. Her attitude is that it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever if that The Letter was rescinded or why, because if it wasn’t true the First Presidency wouldn’t have sent it in the first place. And if it was true and correct when they sent it, it will always be true and correct, regardless of any social reasons which led to it being rescinded (or officially ignored, anyway).
.
Norm,
What would your wife say about the issue of birth control, and how the Church has changed it’s stance on it over the years. There were statements by GA’s who were against using birth control, but the Church now says that it is a private and personal decision between the couple and the Lord. There are also conflicting opinions on how many children to have, but again, the Church says that it is between the couple and the Lord – so long as they are not being selfish and putting off having children for selfish reasons.
I would also ask her what she thinks about the Church’s statement about what defines Church doctrine. The letter on oral sex does not cut mustard, according to the definition on the Church’s website, for the media.
In her mind, once the First Presidency says anything about anything, that is how it is for eternity. She interprets the GAs relaxing ideas about anything as being due primarily to members’ inability to keep the commandments. The Church’s relaxed stance on birth control, for instance, would be due to the weakness of members, not due to any change in what’s right or wrong. She uses the United Order as an example: she believes that “having all things in common” is still the best possible plan, but that the United Order was disbanded due to the members’ inability to live the principles involved, not because the Lord changed his mind about it. Same with sexual things.
Thanks, Norm, for your reply. My wife has been a thinker along the same lines as your wife, to some extent, but has softened her stance on some of those things. I would argue with my wife, telling her the Lord’s standard for his people, IMO, is what it takes for one to enter the temple and receive a temple recommend. If birth control, unlimited # of children, United Order, were unchangable, then this would still be the Lord’s standard.
How about polygamy? Would your wife jump on the band wagon if the Church were to reinstate it? What about the old testiment prophets and their teachings, should they still be something that we should be living by? Or, does she accept that the Gospel can have different commandments for different generations? Does she insist on wearing the original garments that covered the wrists and ankels. Does she still wear the one-piece garment, or has she allowed herself to live a lesser law, and she now wears the 2-piece garment? What about the changes in the temple endowment over the years, are the changes a result of public scrutiny or are they inspired?
We have always been taught, one of the things that make us unique and different from other christian religions is our continuing revelation. Revelation brings about change. Change, or new direction for the unique characteristics of a generation, in order to better teach and minister to their needs. Just like the old laws of Moses, when it referred to unclean things, i.e. various animals that were not to be eaten (was it because in their day they not able to guarantee those animals were free from particular diseases?), could it have been that SPK and preceding generations without the modern conveniences of indoor plumbing, where they may have only bathed weekly (or less), were more susceptible to spreading certain bacterias if they engaged in oral sex? Heck, I doubt that if I were a pioneer that I would have wanted to go down on a woman who hadn’t bathed in weeks! And I would fully understand her reluctance to do the same to me.
The Church used to teach the youth, “better dead than unclean” (or something like that). I remember reading one of the talks when the GA told his soon to depart missionary son, “I would rather you came home in a coffin, than to come home morally unclean”. We don’t teach that any more. I say to that, “what about the Atonement”? To say that a person is better off dead than to make a mistake is absurd – it totally negates the atonement.
Just some ramblings…
Good thoughts here, Chet and Norm, thanks!
Slight rabbit trail…I remember hearing at some Young Women’s classes of some sort, and more than once, mind you, that it would be better to let someone kill you than steal your virtue (rape you). Same kind of thinking…
Not to trivialize rape or any other kind of physical assault, but if I had to choose one or the other, I think my instincts would kick in and I would choose to live.
All I can say, Chet and Zookie, is that in the Church things DO change and that’s why we need and continue to have revelation. But some *people* are incapable of changing, and some are even proud of that.
I wish I’d said that Norm! From now on when I repeat it I’ll have to preface it by saying.. “as guy said on a blog that I follow…”
Also I joined the church (back in the late 60’s) because it was bold and different in its view and I notice that in the congregation there is such resistance to anything that hints of independent thinking. I see joining the church as adding something wonderful to an already good life, whereas I kind of notice it as the prison cell bars to others.
I would like to offer a different look at the subjects discussed above. First let me say that I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints all my life. I have been a Bishop for more than 6 years in the 1980s. I have been in a stake presidency and on several Stake High Councils. Now, I do not believe that the above discussions are about “the doctrine of the Church”. The “Doctrine of the Church” is 1. The law of Chastity, Which is that there are no sexual relations except with our husband or wife to whom we are legally married. That is NO SEX outside of marriage. And 2. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Those things that are discussed above are procedural items. That is those things done within the outline of the doctrine. The Church has over the last 55+ years that I have been an adult holding leadership positions and attending the Temple, changed the procedures, or the way things are accomplished while holding to the doctrine with no changes. The temple endowment presentation has been changed several times that I know of without changing the doctrine taught. The temple recommend interview questions have been changed without changing the worthiness goal. Yes I will agree that there was a time when we were asked to ask a procedural question about the law of chastity but that was quickly withdrawn. The Church is moving away from defining how we do things to an emphasis on the doctrine and the love and forgiving nature of our Father in Heaven and our Savior Jesus Christ. In the Doctrine and Covenants section 58 verse 26 we read “For behold it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves.” We do not have to be told whether masturbation or oral sex or any other sexual procedure is against the doctrine of the law of chastity or not. We can find out for ourselves, we have been given our own agency or freedom of choice. We with our spouse and in prayer to God can find out if they or any other activity is ok for us. If we can answer the temple questions in the affirmative and feel good about the answers that we give we are ok with whatever we are doing in our marriage. We do not need to discuss the activities or procedures that we do in our homes and in our bedrooms that is between our spouse and the Lord.
Let me say also that my wife and I started doing oral sexual contact about 3 years ago and it has deepened our love and commitment to each other beyond belief. I am a firm believer in the “if it feels good do it” saying. It works in sex as well as letting us know the answers to our prayers.
Thank you and good luck and happiness in all you do together.
Thanks Annon 13…
I agree with everything that you said.