Again, the discussion was about masturbation not oral sex. Oral sex is an issue that has been much more murky over the years.hyloglyph wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 8:53 pmOnce again over your head still?Atticus wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 8:44 pmOh, I completely understand. You're clutching at straws. My argument doesn't rest on Kimball's every word. And I agree with his take on oral sex being an unnatural perversion. Yet somehow in the LDSFF twilight zone this means my argument completely fell apart. Crazy!hyloglyph wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 8:37 pm
Ahh shoot. Don’t backslide on me man!
You were doing so good!
You had my hopes up
(The disagreement you have with Kimball is his instruction was to deny the people temple recommends whereas you mentioned that you thought that they should not have to be commanded in all things. Simple to understand. Wake up bud! That shouldn’t be over your head! Get a little reading comprehension! Your twilight zone comment is idiotic. You are literally the only person reading this forum who doesn’t understand)
Come back when you have an actual rebuttal to my argument.
Let’s see if you can see where this leads. If you can’t, then just humor me and answer the one question at the end.
The whole reason for that part of the official signed memo was was to notify the bishops to withhold temple recommends from married couples who tell them that they engage in oral sex.
The purpose of the memo was not just to teach the bishops what is and what isn’t unholy and impure. The purpose was to specifically tell them to not allow married couples who engage in oral sex into the temple.
Clutching at straws? Let’s see if that’s true (it’s not)
Answer one question:
Do you believe that married couples who engage in oral sex should be denied access to the temple? Yes or no?
(My guess is that you will not be able to even answer that question. A normal person could answer it. But you most likely won’t)
I honestly don't really have an opinion on whether or not couples who confess to oral sex should be denied a temple recommend or not. I don't care either way. I can see a valid argument for either position. If the goal is to keep the temple as pure as possible then it makes sense to keep them out until they repent. It the goal is simply to enforce a bare minimum standard of worthiness, I have no problem with allowing people in who are doing this. I'm fine letting the First Presidency decide this and I don’t care if the policy changes back and forth to fit the current needs and goals.
Now, I'm sure you'll berate me for not giving you the simple yes or no answer you desire.