<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sex Covenants</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nine-moons.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:33:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rusty</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-396</link>
		<dc:creator>Rusty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:10:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-396</guid>
		<description>Laura,
First of all a clarification: I&#039;m not (nor do I think Steve EM is, but you never know with Steve EM) admitting everything up until intercourse is okay for singles. What I was complaining about was that we use words like &quot;petting&quot; and &quot;necking&quot; that don&#039;t mean anything to Austin Powers-watching teenagers. The terms are stupid and outdated. That&#039;s not to say that I think those actions are permissible, just that they don&#039;t communicate well. Hence, the fact that I wasn&#039;t taught that &quot;petting&quot; was wrong until high school.

I would never claim to fully understand the Law of Chastity and its ancillary rules. However, I believe that Christ&#039;s admonission in the Sermon on the Mount that &quot;whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.&quot; is the source of our ideas of what is wrong and what is right. The reason I suggested the bishop was out of line was because he said &quot;anything that arouses sexual feelings&quot; That&#039;s quite different than lust. You can kiss without lust, but it&#039;s hard to imagine breast fondling without lust. 

Either way, it&#039;s a difficult thing to ask of a single adult. You should know, however, that the Church creates difficulties for those who DO fit the Mormon norm. We all have things we struggle with.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Laura,<br />
First of all a clarification: I&#8217;m not (nor do I think Steve EM is, but you never know with Steve EM) admitting everything up until intercourse is okay for singles. What I was complaining about was that we use words like &#8220;petting&#8221; and &#8220;necking&#8221; that don&#8217;t mean anything to Austin Powers-watching teenagers. The terms are stupid and outdated. That&#8217;s not to say that I think those actions are permissible, just that they don&#8217;t communicate well. Hence, the fact that I wasn&#8217;t taught that &#8220;petting&#8221; was wrong until high school.</p>
<p>I would never claim to fully understand the Law of Chastity and its ancillary rules. However, I believe that Christ&#8217;s admonission in the Sermon on the Mount that &#8220;whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.&#8221; is the source of our ideas of what is wrong and what is right. The reason I suggested the bishop was out of line was because he said &#8220;anything that arouses sexual feelings&#8221; That&#8217;s quite different than lust. You can kiss without lust, but it&#8217;s hard to imagine breast fondling without lust. </p>
<p>Either way, it&#8217;s a difficult thing to ask of a single adult. You should know, however, that the Church creates difficulties for those who DO fit the Mormon norm. We all have things we struggle with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-395</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-395</guid>
		<description>I meant &quot;an exemption for the UNmarried&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I meant &#8220;an exemption for the UNmarried&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-394</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-394</guid>
		<description>Was the bishop wrong in saying what he did? Funny; I&#039;ve heard the prophet and apoltles say the exact same words. If you kinow a loophole for singles in the Church, I am millions of others would love to hear it. It really would be great if there were a Law of Chastity exemption for married. What&#039;s okay for singles these days: prolonged makeouts? oral sex? showers? 

Singles are not stupid. When the change was made from &quot;sexual intercourse&quot; to &quot;sexual relations&quot; it was obviously a way to prohibit anything in the &quot;gray areas&quot;, often at a bishop&#039;s discretion. If the bishop of a (single&#039;s) ward said that a ward member should confess to masturbation, and the member disrespects his position despite belief in his authority, that causes major dissonance, or at very least undermines the bishop&#039;s role. 

Obviously, even kissing can be sexual (i.e. a &quot;sexual relation&quot;. We who grew up under President Kimball&#039;s insistence that kisses between unmarried people should be like that of a &quot;mother to a son&quot; have a lot of anger and sexual issues engendered by the dear of Church itself.

Are Rusty and Steve admitting that everything up until intercourse is okay for singles? If that&#039;s what you&#039;re saying, nominate yourselves for prophet and first counselor, because no one else is telling the singles these things. Every singles ward I&#039;ve been a member of has had these &quot;chastity talks&quot; years or twice a year--UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE STAKE PRESIDENCY--in which the leadership insists that older singles are under the same rules as  teenagers except for the group dating part. The only way to tell the bishop he&#039;s full of it and to take back self respect is to stop being treated like a child and stop going going to church since that&#039;s where the juvenile treatment occurs.

no, it&#039;s not some &quot;rogue bishop&quot; that made me &quot;inactive.&quot; It&#039;s the refusal of the church to acksnowledge that it creates difficulties for those who don&#039;t fit the Mormon norm, including singles of all ages who are expected to be asexual.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was the bishop wrong in saying what he did? Funny; I&#8217;ve heard the prophet and apoltles say the exact same words. If you kinow a loophole for singles in the Church, I am millions of others would love to hear it. It really would be great if there were a Law of Chastity exemption for married. What&#8217;s okay for singles these days: prolonged makeouts? oral sex? showers? </p>
<p>Singles are not stupid. When the change was made from &#8220;sexual intercourse&#8221; to &#8220;sexual relations&#8221; it was obviously a way to prohibit anything in the &#8220;gray areas&#8221;, often at a bishop&#8217;s discretion. If the bishop of a (single&#8217;s) ward said that a ward member should confess to masturbation, and the member disrespects his position despite belief in his authority, that causes major dissonance, or at very least undermines the bishop&#8217;s role. </p>
<p>Obviously, even kissing can be sexual (i.e. a &#8220;sexual relation&#8221;. We who grew up under President Kimball&#8217;s insistence that kisses between unmarried people should be like that of a &#8220;mother to a son&#8221; have a lot of anger and sexual issues engendered by the dear of Church itself.</p>
<p>Are Rusty and Steve admitting that everything up until intercourse is okay for singles? If that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re saying, nominate yourselves for prophet and first counselor, because no one else is telling the singles these things. Every singles ward I&#8217;ve been a member of has had these &#8220;chastity talks&#8221; years or twice a year&#8211;UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE STAKE PRESIDENCY&#8211;in which the leadership insists that older singles are under the same rules as  teenagers except for the group dating part. The only way to tell the bishop he&#8217;s full of it and to take back self respect is to stop being treated like a child and stop going going to church since that&#8217;s where the juvenile treatment occurs.</p>
<p>no, it&#8217;s not some &#8220;rogue bishop&#8221; that made me &#8220;inactive.&#8221; It&#8217;s the refusal of the church to acksnowledge that it creates difficulties for those who don&#8217;t fit the Mormon norm, including singles of all ages who are expected to be asexual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rusty</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-393</link>
		<dc:creator>Rusty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:27:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-393</guid>
		<description>Laura, 
That is a lamentable situation. If the bishop indeed said &quot;anything that arouses sexual feelings is wrong and you should discontinue it.&quot; he was out of line. Sexual feelings are healthy for both married and non-married people. If you are not attracted to a mate, why would you ever get involved with one? 

However, I imagine there were other issues keeping you from returning to church, which is truly sad (as dumb as some bishops are, I hope you would be able to overlook a stray comment by a well-meaning bishop, knowing that he&#039;s not the Church). Hopefully you can see, by reading all these blogs, that we&#039;re all just people trying to do what&#039;s right and we screw up and say dumb things sometimes. Some of us more than others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Laura,<br />
That is a lamentable situation. If the bishop indeed said &#8220;anything that arouses sexual feelings is wrong and you should discontinue it.&#8221; he was out of line. Sexual feelings are healthy for both married and non-married people. If you are not attracted to a mate, why would you ever get involved with one? </p>
<p>However, I imagine there were other issues keeping you from returning to church, which is truly sad (as dumb as some bishops are, I hope you would be able to overlook a stray comment by a well-meaning bishop, knowing that he&#8217;s not the Church). Hopefully you can see, by reading all these blogs, that we&#8217;re all just people trying to do what&#8217;s right and we screw up and say dumb things sometimes. Some of us more than others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rusty</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-392</link>
		<dc:creator>Rusty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:14:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-392</guid>
		<description>What the h does &quot;necking&quot; mean? (Laura, this question is not directed at you) Is it making out? Or is it just rubbing your neck against hers? Or is there some other thing they did BACK IN THE 50&#039;s when they came up with these stupid terms? &quot;Petting&quot;? Come on folks. Can&#039;t we say &quot;making out&quot;, &quot;fondling genitalia&quot;, and &quot;masturbation&quot;? The less frank we are about it the less they are going to understand what&#039;s wrong and what&#039;s okay. Not until I was in 10th grade was I taught that there are things outside of sex that were wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What the h does &#8220;necking&#8221; mean? (Laura, this question is not directed at you) Is it making out? Or is it just rubbing your neck against hers? Or is there some other thing they did BACK IN THE 50&#8242;s when they came up with these stupid terms? &#8220;Petting&#8221;? Come on folks. Can&#8217;t we say &#8220;making out&#8221;, &#8220;fondling genitalia&#8221;, and &#8220;masturbation&#8221;? The less frank we are about it the less they are going to understand what&#8217;s wrong and what&#8217;s okay. Not until I was in 10th grade was I taught that there are things outside of sex that were wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve EM</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-391</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve EM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-391</guid>
		<description>Laura,
Sorry to hear your sad report about your Bishop abusing his authority and your resulting inactivity.  It&#039;s sad, but understandable.  Beyond the stupidity of a Bishop equating masturbation, making out and SI w/ a sexual relationship, it&#039;s most ironic because my kids say Bishops don&#039;t ask about self pleasure anymore and your Bishop was saying this to mature adults.  Two of my kids are grown now, a daughter and a son (he’s on a mission); neither have ever been asked about masturbation, not Bishops, SPs, MP’s, nobody.  When I was growing up Bishops obsessed about it.  Obviously, some still do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Laura,<br />
Sorry to hear your sad report about your Bishop abusing his authority and your resulting inactivity.  It&#8217;s sad, but understandable.  Beyond the stupidity of a Bishop equating masturbation, making out and SI w/ a sexual relationship, it&#8217;s most ironic because my kids say Bishops don&#8217;t ask about self pleasure anymore and your Bishop was saying this to mature adults.  Two of my kids are grown now, a daughter and a son (he’s on a mission); neither have ever been asked about masturbation, not Bishops, SPs, MP’s, nobody.  When I was growing up Bishops obsessed about it.  Obviously, some still do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-390</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-390</guid>
		<description>In my East Coast singles ward in 2003, the bishop told a mixed group of 25-35 year olds that &quot;anything that arouses sexual feelings is wrong and you should discontinue it. Most of you have been through the temple and you are breaking temple covenants if you [and here he listed masturbation, &quot;necking&quot;, &quot;petting&quot; and looking at (I kid you not) Sports Illustrated.]

He distinctly said, further, &quot;anyone who masturbates should make an appointment to see me.&quot;

I haven&#039;t been back to church since.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my East Coast singles ward in 2003, the bishop told a mixed group of 25-35 year olds that &#8220;anything that arouses sexual feelings is wrong and you should discontinue it. Most of you have been through the temple and you are breaking temple covenants if you [and here he listed masturbation, "necking", "petting" and looking at (I kid you not) Sports Illustrated.]</p>
<p>He distinctly said, further, &#8220;anyone who masturbates should make an appointment to see me.&#8221;</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t been back to church since.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve EM</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-389</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve EM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:22:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-389</guid>
		<description>Don,
Darn, you beat me to it; I was gonna tackle this one (http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/07/05/temple-fashion/#comment-110).

Yes, to answer your question, the sexual conduct standard was definitely (and I have to believe intentionally) raised circa 1990.  In my generation, unmarried endowed members would generally get a free pass at giving or receiving climax by means short of intercourse if the relationship had terminated or there was a commitment of marriage.  And, even in the case of completely unrepentant and ongoing oral sex in a casual relationship, disciple would have been short of excommunication.

However, to those who might speculate if the present standard might have prevented someone like myself completely falling off the LofC cliff before marriage, I sincerely doubt it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don,<br />
Darn, you beat me to it; I was gonna tackle this one (<a href="http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/07/05/temple-fashion/#comment-110" rel="nofollow">http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/07/05/temple-fashion/#comment-110</a>).</p>
<p>Yes, to answer your question, the sexual conduct standard was definitely (and I have to believe intentionally) raised circa 1990.  In my generation, unmarried endowed members would generally get a free pass at giving or receiving climax by means short of intercourse if the relationship had terminated or there was a commitment of marriage.  And, even in the case of completely unrepentant and ongoing oral sex in a casual relationship, disciple would have been short of excommunication.</p>
<p>However, to those who might speculate if the present standard might have prevented someone like myself completely falling off the LofC cliff before marriage, I sincerely doubt it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-388</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-388</guid>
		<description>Hmmm... I&#039;ve been exploring/investigating the church for years now (5 or 6), and it&#039;s hard to imagine anyone that would be a member getting upset or sidetracked by the covenants and other temple related things.

Anyway, all of this reminds me of when I was 12 or so and I&#039;d get restricted and my friends would come to the window and say &quot;your parents didn&#039;t say your head couldn&#039;t come out, did they?&quot;

And the next thing you know I&#039;d be outside playing in the rain and laughing it up.

And after that would be the yelling and the &quot;I can&#039;t believe...&quot; speech.  Usually wrapped in the &quot;didn&#039;t we teach you better&quot; speech.

Which usually ended in me being sent to my room, grounded for longer.

But without TV.  Or books.  Or Music.

I think I folded clothes for 2 weeks solid once.  Blech.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm&#8230; I&#8217;ve been exploring/investigating the church for years now (5 or 6), and it&#8217;s hard to imagine anyone that would be a member getting upset or sidetracked by the covenants and other temple related things.</p>
<p>Anyway, all of this reminds me of when I was 12 or so and I&#8217;d get restricted and my friends would come to the window and say &#8220;your parents didn&#8217;t say your head couldn&#8217;t come out, did they?&#8221;</p>
<p>And the next thing you know I&#8217;d be outside playing in the rain and laughing it up.</p>
<p>And after that would be the yelling and the &#8220;I can&#8217;t believe&#8230;&#8221; speech.  Usually wrapped in the &#8220;didn&#8217;t we teach you better&#8221; speech.</p>
<p>Which usually ended in me being sent to my room, grounded for longer.</p>
<p>But without TV.  Or books.  Or Music.</p>
<p>I think I folded clothes for 2 weeks solid once.  Blech.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ann Nonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128&#038;cpage=1#comment-387</link>
		<dc:creator>Ann Nonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=128#comment-387</guid>
		<description>Will someone please send John W. Redelfs a box of 100% All Bran and a gallon of milk?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will someone please send John W. Redelfs a box of 100% All Bran and a gallon of milk?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
