marriage bed symbol

marriage bed symbol

Sunday, August 22, 2010

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

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. . .

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 )


CoachSam said...

I think you may also find this post of oral sex from Mark Gungor helpful. I share in his opinion of Oral Sex and how what part it plays in our marriages and our relationship with God.

Anonymous said...

In a future post you wrote: 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 worshipped the one true God. If this is true, then President Kimbal must have also had a correct view of sex and sexuality because he worshipped the one true God. If that is the case, how can you discount his words about oral sex? The letter is not apocraphal. It is quotesd in BYU Religion student manual C234 1998 edition. Dept. of Church History, LDS Marrisage and Family Relations. a hard copy that I have in my posession. Pg. 240 "The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure and unholy practice" (Letter of January 5, 1982 to all Stake Presidents, Bishops). If BYU religion manual quotes it, do you doubt its authenticity? I wouyld be happy to share it with you.

CoachSam said...

Thank you for your comments. Since I’ve written this blog post, I’ve done additional research on the Church’s standing on oral sex, and also on the letter you reference here.

I am confident now that the letter did indeed exist. However, this letter was essentially “retracted” by the First Presidency in a second letter that was issued to the Bishops and Stake Presidents on the 15th of October, 1982.

For better clarification on the circumstances surrounding these letters, may I recommend this link:

This is an article written by Romel W. Mackelprang, a former professor at BYU and a current professor at Eastern Washington University. The article concurs with my belief and understanding of the Church’s current position on sexual practices in marriage, including oral sex. I would especially read pages 60-61 of the article, entitled “And They Shall Be One Flesh: Sexuality and Contemporary Mormonism.”

Let me know if you have any additional questions or need further references.

Anonymous said...

Great article by Mackelprang!! Thanks for the link to it. I agree that more positive statements about sexuality need to be given in church. I would like to see a RS and Priesthood lesson each year on it. It is so sad to hear of all the marriages who suffer because of attitudes and beliefs that sex is bad.

CoachSam said...

Thank you, I know that you're not alone in your concern. The Church does have a manual - the "Eternal Marriage" manual, but most bishops and stake presidents don't even know it exists. It does address sexuality and intimacy in marriage with some wonderful information.
I'm gathering these concerns in the hopes of using them to encourage local church leaders to hold these essential classes for the engaged and married members. Please keep the comments coming!

Melissa Jones, Ph.D. said...

Do you know where a copy of the retraction letter of October 15, 1982 can be found?

Anonymous said...

Melissa, this is a tough one. About the only place that you will find a copy of the 1982 letter is on anti-LDS sites - they don't share the other letter with us.

Romel W. Mackelprang, in his article "And They Shall Be One Flesh", makes reference to the second letter, which was dated October 15, 1982. You may want to try and contact him, to see if he has a copy of the letter.

I read that one can look at all of the past letters from the First Presidency at the BYU library archives - but I don't know this for sure.

But, from what I have seen from my experience is that any letters that are intended to become standard practice in the Church, the contents of the letter will be annexed into the next General Handbook of Instruction. This was not the case with the Janurary 5, 1982 letter - there has been no mention of oral sex by any offical Church manuals or handbooks since that letter.

AnnaSchu said...

Thank you so much for writing this! I have a little sister getting married having major issues understanding this, and it never was an "issue" in my bed. Thank you for the clarification, its hard to find any except in anti-mormon literature now, and I hate going to those sources for answers!

CoachSam said...

You're most welcome AnnaSchu and thank you for reading. :0)

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for this post. I only very recently came upon the quote that "oral sex is unholy..." after being married for five years! I really appreciate all the thorough research that you've done. I know that I'm too easily confused (!) so won't read anti-mormon literature, I'm therefore truly grateful that there are people such as yourself, who are strong enough, to do so and share with the rest of us in such a positive light. Thank you for the clarification

Anonymous said...

My two cents on the oral sex issue. I've read that letter from the first presidency many times and tried to figure out why it was issued. Knowing things are not said and done in a vacuum, I would really like to know what prompted the letter. First, like the LDS Newsroom says, “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. “ This was back in the beginning of the AIDS crisis. Perhaps they were responding to physicians' statements that oral sex was a large contributor to the AIDS epidemic. I imagine that letter resulted in a general complaint by members in Utah. I'm sure oral and anal and whatever kind of sex has been going on since Adam and Eve. The fact that Heavenly Father has chosen not to consistently police the bedroom tells me that He is okay with intimacy between husband and wife. Interestingly, just about all other doctrines and practices and principles are accompanied by a “why.” They are explained fully and there is both common sense and/or express reasons given for the position by the church. However, the letter on oral sex doesn't follow that pattern at all. Is oral sex wrong because those body parts are considered “dirty?” Boobs are for babies, hands are for hugging, lips are for lips and penises are for vaginas only? Is it because our body fluids are dirty? Semen and a woman's natural lubricant should be considered dirty? Maybe it's because of the spread of germs. However, if I use my fingers in my wife's vagina and on her clitoris, and at some point move my hands to rub her breasts, then kiss her breasts, is that not the same result as if I gave her oral sex? Every practical reason I can think of doesn't make any sense when you consider the fact that we are made in God's image. Therefore, I've never thought of the human body as anything but godly, from the toes to the top of the head. Now, I know we have to use common sense and avoid urine and feces, but other than that, I don't think in terms of any sex as being “dirty.” I also find it curious that if the First Presidency was going to get involved in the bedroom, then certainly in the same letter they would have referenced anal sex. Finally, another reason why I think the issue is moot. In the temple we make covenants. One of them is a commitment to refrain from certain behaviors, ...”and all other unholy and impure practices.” The very wording of the ceremony suggests those behaviors previously referred to are considered to be unholy and impure practices. Then, the law of chastity is given that says we shouldn't have sexual relations with anyone other than our spouse. You would think adultery would be an unholy and impure practice, and that the catch all language committing us to refrain from unholy and impure practices would be included in the law of chastity, not the prior covenant.

Anonymous said...

Just an observation. If an organization doesn't have a particular point of doctrine on their website there could be reasons. I wouldn't think the answer is to go to an "anti" site for a position on something they are "anti" of. The LDS Church does not ignore the issue or question. Simply ask any Bishop of any unit.

Anonymous said...

As someone who joyfully participates in both oral and anal sex with my husband on a regular basis and also joyfully attends the temple on a regular basis, I'd like to say that I feel 100% worthy to hold a temple recommend.

I do not feel that anything we do is unholy or impure in the least, nor do I require the 'ok' from my church leaders about such an intimate act. My marriage is very, very fulfilled and happy and I've never felt closer to my spouse. I'd imagine that if we were doing anything that were 'unholy or impure' that the guilt would eat at us and my marriage wouldn't be so blissful. I find it strange that so many in the Church require hand holding and permission on such intimate issues. It's as if we are all playing 'mother may I' with our sex lives.

Perhaps if others, within the bonds of their marriages, gave into what feels good and right and surrendered to true sexual fulfillment instead of looking for an 'official' letter, we'd have a lot less divorce and unhappy marriages among us.

Having said that, I'm very grateful to this blog. There needs to more like this, more people championing the cause of healthy sex in marriages. Thank you for your blog and resources provided.

CoachSam said...

Thank you for your comment and thank you for reading

Anonymous said...

In 2001 I was serving as Elders Quorum President in a ward at the newly formed BYU-Idaho.

During a visit a member of the Presidency of the Seventy called a Prieshood leadership meeting. During the meeting we were instructed that oral sex was NOT to be partaken of and that it was a sin. The PRIMARY purpose of this meeting was to educate the Priesthood leadership that this practice is unacceptable. The member of the Presidency giving this instruction to hundreds of priesthood leaders in this meeting at BYU-Idaho was President Jensen (if I remember correctly). I believe I also remembering him quoting President Kimble with a severe condemnation of oral sex.

Not long afterward I was engaged to be married and seperate from the interview questions my Stake President restated this.

As a Prieshood Leader, holding keys, at the time I accepted the training and council as directly representing the policy of the Church and I relayed it, when question arose, in an appropriate and sensitive way, to one of my elders who was preparing for marriage, as instructed by the Presidency of the Seventy.

Personally, I believe this council to be inspired and in harmony with the teachings of the gospel and other church leaders quoted in your discussion. As a convert to the Church I was instructed liberally by my father that these activities were ok.

I have personally struggled with this principle and I can understand why people would like to excuse this and other "impure and unholy" sexual activities and seek to "cover their sins" behind the false doctrine that the sexual relations that are approved by both husband and wife are always acceptable of the Lord.

I also understand the beauty, joy, and goodness of sexual relations between a husband and wife for the dual purposes of procreation and expressing love.

However, as a Temple attending member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I feel that activities such as anal and oral sex are not in harmony with the covenants made in the Temple.

I share these thoughts and feelings NOT as a condemnation of those who oppose them but rather as a Testimony that I feel confirmed by The Holy Ghost in my own heart.

Just as I have come to this conclusion after studying, pondering, and prayer... Anyone CAN learn through the same pattern for their selves the truth of ALL things.

CoachSam said...

Dear Anon Oct 7,

Thank you for reading and commenting. About 4 years ago I also served as an Elders Quorum president and attended all of my leadership training meetings. Our leaders or the Seventy that visited us never mentioned the practice of oral sex in marriage being a sin.

One thing you did not mention in your statement was whether the church leader was referring to singles or married couples or both when it comes to engaging in oral sex.

Since you were probably in a college singles ward (you mentioned BYU-Idaho), I have to conclude he was speaking in the context of oral sex being engaged in by single people - which many singles at the time did not consider to REALLY be a sin because it wasn't considered "sex". Remember President Clinton? It was that era and there were many youth confused by this.

The Seventy most likely came to your singles ward to make sure it was absolutely CLEAR that oral sex OUTSIDE of marriage is a sin, and he was right to say so. In that way, what he taught was in harmony with the other leaders of the Church.

You were correct to give that counsel to your engaged elder. He was not married yet, and should not engage in oral sex before marriage.

Yes, President Spencer W. Kimball did speak out VERY strongly against oral sex, but only in the context of pre-marital sexual activity.

One thing I've learned about the church is that, if it is intended to be doctrine for the whole world, you'll hear about it over and over again, you'll hear about it in multiple locations, and you'll hear about it in General Conference. We know watching pornography is a sin because they talk about it in every conference. They never talk in General Conference about any sexual activity IN MARRIAGE being a sin. Just something to consider.

I would recommend reading my article "Is The Bishop In Your Bedroom." for some other insights on this topic.

What you've expressed is a common misconception of our doctrine on sex and sexuality that leads to "good boy" or "good girl" syndrome in marriage, which leads to couples being scared to have sex in marriage - needlessly. This is NOT what the Lord or the leaders of the Church intended.

In the context of marriage, you are okay to explore sexually with your wife and explore different techniques. If oral or anal sex don't work for you as a couple, don't do them. If they do, you don't have to feel guilty about it.

However, we can't presume to tell other couples what will work for them and what can't. The Church leaders will not presume to do that, and neither can we.

Anonymous said...

I really appreciate the discussion. I was looking for information regarding this as my fiance and I are trying to understand our sexual beliefs before getting married. I appreciate the positive comments made since all have been thoughtful and provide insight into this issue that we try to understand seeking to find sexual fulfillment and remain within the chastity covenant we have made as a married couple.

Appreciate all that you have done to clarify the issue.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting. I've been married for 24 years and never heard about this letter until a couple of days ago on a question and answer site. I was curious if it actually existed. It obviously does.

BYU Idaho anonymous' beliefs, if enforced, would cut down on temple "worthiness" by quite a bit and I'd venture to guess that there are some in the Quorum of the Seventy that would have to give up their posts if this were made church doctrine across the board.
People really need to be careful when hearing things, even in these high meetings because what is not church doctrine, is not church doctrine. Even when it comes from the president. He mentioned it once and never did again. Like you said, if this was meant to be strictly followed, it would be repeated and written down.
Some people pride themselves on being "super" righteous, following rules that even the 12 do not, so even more righteous than those over us.
My opinion is that it's ego driven and it's attention seeking. It's a way to feel extra super special in the spiritual world. It's like those who won't drink caffeine and look down on those who do as if they are sinners when there has been no law given like that. I always ask those people hung up on this exactly what amount of caffeine is okay? Because I've been served a good amount of hot chocolate and chocolate candy at church functions and they have caffeine in them. The oral sex thing another one of those types of things. So, oral sex is bad. How close to it are we allowed to get? Can we kiss the stomach, or is that to close to evil? Should we just abstain from kissing altogether because it can lead to oral sex and has nothing to do with reproducing anyway? If I'm going to be the most super righteous of all, then I will really discipline myself and only have sex when reproducing is the goal. That way there is no mistake about me being righteous enough to enter the temple.
All along, for the past 24 years, I have been living unworthy to attend the temple and yet I have attended. All these years I have seen myself as a faithful member, but at BYU Idaho, I wouldn't be. I have had many many prayers answered and have received revelation for my family and in my callings and have received a personal undeniable witness that the church is true. God has done these things even though I have not been temple worthy due to my sex life with my husband? I don't get why he's been so kind to me and here all along I have been sexually impure since early on in my marriage.

Very interesting though : ) You did a good job. When you find that retraction letter, post a link to it.

Anonymous said...

I think it's very stupid to tell Bishops to avoid the questions instead of just giving us a clear answer already. It causes so much unnecessary stress. I just don't want to get married anymore so I don't have to panic every single day that something I'm doing wrong sexually is a sin. "Am I enjoying it too much?" "Is it bad because I'm using birth control?" Seriously.

CoachSam said...

Dear Anon July 4,

It sounds like you have several concerns. Your statement appears to try to express several of them, but I'm not clear on what they are or what experiences you've had that are causing you frustration.

If your interested, I may be able to help.

If you would like to discuss them, feel free to email me at

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this post - I think it is important to keep in mind that the Church teaches that the spirit and the body are the soul of man and that we believe that we are here to appropriately experience and to enjoy desires, appetites and passions. Some religions teach that the body is a prison for the spirit while for mormons the body completes the soul. So the starting point has to be that our bodies are for us to enjoy and experience new things.

Eating food is something to be enjoyed but eating so much that we become chronically obese and ill would clearly be taking things too far. At another level only eating the minimal levels of nutrition in the blandest way possible would also appear to be another extreme which is wrong.

What is or is not appropriate sexually is going to vary depending on both the act and the intention. Clearly any act forced on another would be wrong. Some acts e.g. holding hands could be done innocently or with lustful intent. For me chastity is about taking a view that the relationship between husband and wife is total- that some things should only be done between husband and wife.

Given the physical and emotional complexity of sexual relationships the guidance to work it out for yourself is sound.

So far as statements by general authorities are concerned I think they are valuable and should be given weight as part of considering our actions but ultimately we each have the Spirit to work out what is right and appropriate for us as individuals. So far as chastity is concerned one absolute prohibition is sexual intercourse outside marriage - anything below that could be viewed as wrong in the sense that it is just wrong - in which case any act - even holding hands would be wrong. Or it could be viewed as wrong in the sense that it creates a greater probability that a clear prohibited act occurs. But by taking prohibition of physical relations too far (even outside marriage) there is a risk that what is loving and beautiful things - love and physical contact (whether or sexual or not) is somehow bad thereby creating a negative association with it.

I genuinely believe that the general authorities offer valuable guidance and 99.9% of what is said at conference if followed will lead to benefits. But at the same time they are just people and as such will be heavily influenced by the time and culture in which they live. I therefore consider that it is for each member to take seriously what is said, where there are clear, unambiguous and absolute principles to take those seriously but fundamentally to live by the spirit to know what is right or wrong.

It seems that well intentioned local leaders by jumping to extremes (without a clear doctrinal basis for so doing) can create unnecessary anxiety and concern about normal sexual feelings.

Anonymous said...

Come on people! Listen to yourselves. You are totally rationalizing. I don't see how there can be any confusion from President Kimball's letter.

Makes me pretty sick reading the lady's comment who does both anal and oral, and makes me wonder if she ever combines the two in the same session.

This sounds just like members who occasionally drink coffee "to wake themselves up" in the morning, or those enjoy a glass of wine with their dinner "because it helps them relax." I grew up in a family like that and it has its consequences.

The self-justification here is a little bit appalling, especially from a seemingly educated person like your self CoachSam.

Anonymous said...

What are you talking about?

I don't see this as rationalization at all. This looks to me like an honest attempt to reconcile continuing revelation today with what looks on the surface like conflicting unofficial counsel from the past.

We don't have to consider this letter at all, since Kimball isn't a living prophet anymore, and this letter was never canonized as official doctrine either, but I like how Coach Sam ties the past and present together so nicely and in such a logical and commonsense way.

If you don't like oral or anal sex in your marriage, that's fine for you, but don't go judging those who happen to enjoy it. That's not exactly anyone's business anyway.

I'm not even going to tell you if I ever do're just gonna hafta wonder ;-)

CoachSam said...

Dear Anon July 22,

Thank you for your comment and concern. This is only part one of this article.

If you have not already, I hope you will take the opportunity to read part 2. The link is above.

Anonymous said...

Oral sex between a man and wife is much more fulfilling than no oral sex between a man and wife who desperately want it, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Now there's the flaw in the logic. People who participate in any given behavior assume that others have reached the same conclusion as them (i.e., "others desperately want it"). Not true at all.

There is a natural aversion to anal sex, by the vast majority of the population. The thought of it is just disgusting. Even with a condom you have to touch the condom when you are finished.

For oral sex the receiving part is not quite as disgusting, but the giving party has to overcome the initial aversion.

I once was given a formula to determine if one is addicted to something undesirable. It goes like this. Things like plain coffee, wine, hard liquor, and cigarettes are horrible tasting at first to 95% of the population, but after continued use we grow to love them. So the challenge is to go 6 weeks without the substance, and then try it again. If we once again have that initial aversion to the taste of plain coffee for the first sip, but then enjoy the rest of the cup then we know that our addiction is driving the behavior more than our mind and heart.

It is true that we will all be judged independently, and I have too many flaws on my own to count, but I do think it is ok to counsel our brothers and sisters in the gospel when they are clearly in denial on a given subject.

For me I respect my wife too much to ever ask her to perform oral sex on me, and for me the thought of performing oral sex on a woman is absolutely disgusting and I would never do it.

Anonymous said...

CoachSam I have two questions for you.

1) Is there any documentation regarding the LDS Churches position regarding "fantasizing" during intercourse within a marriage? For example, think of past experiences or thinking of other events real or imagined.

2) In your profile it states you are a "Student of Christian marriage and family studies, psychology and human sexuality, with a focus on sexuality for members of the LDS Church." Can you please share any specific credentials or degrees you possess including the name(s) of the university you received them from. Although I enjoy your blog, I'm not sure what qualifies one as a counselor on the subject of sexuality for Members of the LDS Church.

CoachSam said...

Dear Anon July 23rd 9:26 AM,

Thank you for reading and thank you for your questions. I will try to answer them as best I can.

1. There really is no counsel or doctrine in the LDS church regarding sexual fantasies in marriage. With the exception of coercion and pornography, the church will not tell a husband for wife what they can or cannot do sexually in their marriage relationship - only that they follow the law of chastity and keep it in their relationship. I do discuss this more in my article "Is The Bishop In Your Bedroom." I have suggestions and counsel from professionals I have researched in regards to sexual thoughts and fantasies in marriage. These can be found in my "My Porn Is Okay, Your Porn Is Not Okay, Avoiding The Double Standard" series of articles also found in this blog. They would be able to articulate my thoughts better than I could in this limited space.

2. To help me better answer your second question, are you looking into becoming an LDS sex therapist or counselor?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the prompt response. I read your "Bishop in the Bedroom..." post, and also found Mark Gungor's article extremely helpful.

1. Fantasy does prick my conscience, as I would NEVER do most of the things in real life, neither with nor to the people I fantasize about. I will seek counseling as I am addicted to it, and it is going to be hard for me to overcome as it has been going on for many years. I found Mark Grungor's concept of "imprinting" based on our earliest sexual experiences to be powerful new knowledge for me. Most of my fantasies center around my friends Mother, from when I was 11-12 years old. She was is a see-through night gown on the morning after a sleep over, and she had her children leave and it was just her and I. She indirectly invited me to do what ever I wanted with her. Although I declined and left her house, the thoughts of what it could have lead to continue to blow my mind as she was very voluptuous, and seemingly addicted to sex herself. Maybe I just need to "relearn" how sex should really work with my wife, as suggested by Mark Grungor and that will help me overcome my addiction to fantasy.

2. I don't want to come across as challenging your credentials, but since my soul may be at stake here, I am just wondering how much I can rely on your advice. I imagine that you do have not ecclesiastical credentials on the subject as none probably exist, other than a Bishop's as you suggested in your post. Therefore, I am wondering if you have any academic credentials or degrees on which I can rely.

CoachSam said...

Dear July 27,2013 11:14am,

You present a very legitimate questions, and one that deserves it's own blog post.

It would take more space than I have to answer that question in the comments section.

Please keep an eye out for that post. I will do my best to answer your question in a way that will hopefully give you the direction and peace of mind you seek.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for all this information! My wife and I enjoy a very healthy sex life with each other and we both enjoy oral and anal sex very much. We also engage in bondage, watersports, and even age play. Its our business what we do in the bedroom and no one elses!!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this article. I think it's important to remember that while the essential Gospel principles are eternal, society (and our church leaders opinions) actually change quite a bit. African Americans used to be denied the Priesthood, does that mean that the eternal law was that they were unworthy? NO. Society was not ready. Simply admitting that you were a homosexual used to get you kicked out of the church, and now our church has a beautiful website offering love, support, and a big message of "YOU DID NOT CHOOSE THIS." Why should oral sex be any different? maybe our sheltered Mormon society just wasn't ready to hear it in the 70's.

CoachSam said...

Great insight. Thanks Anon Oct 9th :)