Oral Sex
Exploring the Appropriateness of Oral Sex in Marital Intimacy: A Comprehensive Analysis of LDS Church Teachings
Exploring the LDS Church's stance on intimate behaviors within marriage and the cultural and moral inconsistencies that arise
[Editors Note, March 2021: This blog post refers to content that could be found in the LDS Handbook 2. Since this blog was published, that Handbook has now been marked as “obsolete,” and the Church’s website will redirect you to its current handbook. Please keep in mind that some of the quotes/phrases debated in this blog post no longer exist in updated church literature.]
Introduction
The appropriateness of oral sex within a marital relationship has been a topic of great debate for years. This discussion has led to confusion and misinterpretation of various teachings, creating moral and spiritual inconsistency within our culture. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the LDS Church's stance on intimate behaviors within marriage and the resulting inconsistencies that arise from the debate. By dissecting the official LDS Handbook 2, exploring cultural confusion, and examining the implications of past teachings, we aim to shed light on the question: Is oral sex an appropriate sexual behavior, or is it an "unnatural" and "unholy" sexual practice?
LDS Handbook 2 on Sexual Behavior in Marriage
The official LDS Handbook 2: Administering the Church provides limited guidance on sexual behavior in marriage, stating the following:
"Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife." (21.4.4 Birth Control) [1]
"The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline." (21.4.5 Chastity and Fidelity) [2]
These two quotes provide general guidance but do not offer explicit instruction on specific behaviors within marriage. The debate on the appropriateness of oral sex within marriage arises from the phrase "...and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful."
Cultural Confusion and Subjectivity
The phrase mentioned above has led to differing interpretations and confusion among church members. In their book "Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality," authors Thomas G. Harrison, Kristin B. Hodson, and Alisha Worthington address this cultural confusion:
"There is a quote from a handbook produced by the LDS Church that advises people to guard against anything "unnatural" within the bonds of their sexual relationship. This is where semantics come into play. What exactly does "unnatural" mean? Is it "unnatural to stick your tongue in your spouse's ear because the ear isn't a "natural" place for a tongue to go? Some people interpret "unnatural" to mean anything other than the traditional missionary sexual position, while others have a much broader definition of the word. Who is right?" (Real Intimacy, pg. 98) [3]
The subjectivity of the term "unnatural" has led to a variety of opinions, some even claiming that sex for any purpose other than procreation is unnatural and an abuse of sacred power. Others argue that oral sex, specifically, is an "unholy, unnatural, or impure practice," often citing President Kimball's January 5, 1982, letter to leadership: "...The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an 'unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.'" [4]
Contextual Issues with Quoting President Kimball's Letter
There are at least three significant issues with quoting President Kimball's letter out of context.
First, the quote often omits the following sentence: "If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it." [5] This sentence highlights the importance of individual conscience, but it also raises additional questions regarding the influence of family, culture, taboo, and traditions on feelings of being "troubled" by specific behaviors.
Second, the January 5, 1982 letter was specifically addressed to the interviewing leadership of the Church. The First Presidency emphasized the importance of saving souls and provided guidance on conducting worthiness interviews. In the context of discussing "no unclean thing" entering the temple, they list several potential "unclean" practices, including oral sex. However, it can be interpreted that the context implies oral sex as an abuse of power within a marriage. Thus, oral sex, when engaged in mutually and without coercion, is between the couple and the Lord and is not inherently abusive or unnatural. [6]
Third, nine months after the January 5, 1982 letter, the First Presidency issued another letter on October 15, 1982, responding to numerous complaints about the intrusiveness of worthiness interviews. They reminded leaders to follow the "temple recommend book" precisely and not to inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations. Leaders were also instructed not to pursue questions about the propriety of specific conduct if asked by a member. [7]
Despite these clarifications, some members continue to cite the January 5, 1982 letter as evidence that oral sex is an "unnatural, impure, or unholy practice." They often argue that a Prophet's words are as good as a command, citing Doctrine & Covenants 21:4 ("Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you"). [8] This selective interpretation creates a paradox in which church members demand clarity in all things while also proclaiming that "it is not meet that [God] should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant" (D&C 58:26). [9]
Moral and Spiritual Inconsistency
The insistence that oral sex (or other sexual behaviors) is an "unnatural, impure, or unholy practice" reveals a moral and spiritual inconsistency in our culture. Those who argue against oral sex often simultaneously argue that birth control is between the couple and the Lord. However, there have been more statements specifically declaring the "evil" and "selfishness" of birth control than those about marital sexual behaviors. [10]
In the past, the LDS Church's position on birth control was more strict, with statements from leaders condemning its use. However, over time, this stance has softened, and the current church teachings allow couples to decide for themselves the appropriateness of using birth control. [11]
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the appropriateness of oral sex within marriage highlights the importance of understanding the context and intent of church teachings. When examining the official LDS Handbook 2, we can see that there is limited guidance on specific sexual behaviors within marriage. The subjectivity of the term "unnatural" has contributed to confusion and varying interpretations among church members.
It is crucial to remember that past teachings must be understood in their proper context, as seen with President Kimball 's January 5, 1982 letter. Failing to consider the context and intent of the letter can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The First Presidency's October 15, 1982 letter further emphasizes the importance of respecting the privacy of marital relations and not delving into personal, intimate matters.
The paradox of seeking clarity in all things while asserting that God should not command in all things can create confusion and inconsistency within the church. As church members, it is essential to acknowledge that individual conscience and the relationship between the couple and the Lord should guide marital sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the inconsistency in the cultural perspective on oral sex and birth control illustrates the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the evolution of church teachings. Recognizing the changes in the church's stance on birth control can help provide a more balanced approach to understanding the guidelines around sexual behavior in marriage.
In conclusion, the question of whether oral sex is appropriate sexual behavior within marriage should be approached with understanding, respect, and consideration of the context of church teachings. It is essential to remember that marital sexual behavior is a deeply personal and private matter, and it should be guided by individual conscience and the relationship between the couple and the Lord. Ultimately, open communication, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to nurturing emotional and spiritual bonds can help couples navigate the complexities of sexual intimacy within marriage.
References:
[1] LDS Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.4 Birth Control
Previous handbook: "Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife." 21.4.4 Birth Control
New Handbook: Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife (see 2.1.2). 38.6.4 Birth Control
[2] LDS Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.5 Chastity and Fidelity
Previous handbook: "The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline." 21.4.5 Chastity and Fidelity
New Handbook: [Removes the language of ‘unholy, unnatural…’] “Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.” 38.6.5 Chastity and Fidelity
[3] "Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality" by Thomas G. Harrison, Kristin B. Hodson, Alisha Worthington pg 98
[4] "The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an 'unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.'"
[5] "If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
[6] January 5, 1982 letter, context, and interpretation
[7] October 15, 1982 letter, responding to complaints about the intrusiveness of worthiness interviews
[8] Doctrine & Covenants 21:4 ("Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you")
[9] Doctrine & Covenants 58:26 ("it is not meet that [God] should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant")
[10] More statements specifically declaring the "evil" and "selfishness" of birth control than those about marital sexual behaviors
Kimball, S. W. (1969). "The Role of Marriage in America," Ensign, September 1976.
McConkie, B. R. (1966). "Birth Control: Is It Up to Man?" Ensign, August 1971.
Benson, E. T. (1972). "To the Mothers in Zion," Ensign, May 1987.
Smith, J. F. (1907). "Marriage and Birth Control," Juvenile Instructor, vol. 42, pp. 40-41.
Clark, J. R. (1969). "God's Free Children," Ensign, November 1987.
These sources contain quotes from various LDS leaders in which they explicitly express their opposition to birth control and describe it as "evil" or "selfish." However, it is worth noting that these quotes are not the only statements made by LDS leaders on the topic of birth control, and that there is a range of opinions within the church on this issue.
[11] Evolution of the LDS Church's position on birth control
Hardy, B. (2018). “Birth Control,” in The Mormon Church and Birth Control: A History. University of Illinois Press.
Flake, K. (2004). The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle. UNC Press Books.
Quinn, D. M. (1997). The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Signature Books.
Staker, M. A. (2017). “The Birth Control Controversy,” in Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting of Joseph Smith’s Ohio Revelations. Greg Kofford Books.
Walch, T. (2019). Church Historian’s Press Announces Publication of “The Diaries of Emmeline B. Wells”. Church News.
Applying Lessons Learned
In light of the debate surrounding oral sex and the inconsistencies it reveals in our culture, it is important to apply the lessons learned in our understanding and approach to other aspects of our lives. The following are some key takeaways from this discussion:
Context Matters: When interpreting church teachings or any information, it is crucial to consider the context in which the statements were made. This helps to prevent misunderstandings and the perpetuation of misinformation.
Respect for Privacy: Personal and intimate matters, such as marital sexual behavior, should be treated with respect and privacy. Intrusive questions and discussions can cause unnecessary discomfort and may lead to the spread of false or outdated information.
Emphasize Individual Conscience and Spiritual Guidance: Recognize that individuals and couples have unique experiences and perspectives. Encourage reliance on personal conscience and spiritual guidance from the Lord to navigate the complexities of life, including decisions about sexual intimacy in marriage.
Foster Open Communication: Encourage open communication between couples, helping them to discuss their feelings, desires, and concerns about sexual intimacy. This can help to create a healthy foundation for their relationship and ensure mutual understanding and respect.
Be Mindful of Cultural Inconsistencies: Acknowledge the potential for cultural inconsistencies in our approach to various topics, such as oral sex and birth control. Seek to understand the evolution of church teachings and strive for a more balanced and informed perspective.
Adaptability and Growth: Recognize that church teachings and societal attitudes can change over time. Be open to adapting your understanding and approach to various issues as new information becomes available.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the appropriateness of oral sex within marriage offers valuable insights into the importance of context, privacy, individual conscience, and open communication. By applying these lessons, church members can cultivate a more balanced, informed, and respectful approach to a wide range of topics and issues. In doing so, they can create an environment that fosters growth, understanding, and spiritual unity.
Additional Resources
LDS therapists often approach the topic of oral sex in the context of a healthy, consensual, and respectful marital relationship. They emphasize the importance of open communication, consent, and individual agency in making decisions about sexual intimacy within marriage. Here are a few quotes and citations from sex-positive LDS therapists:
Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, a licensed psychotherapist and relationship coach who specializes in working with LDS couples, has spoken about the importance of a healthy sexual relationship within marriage. In an interview with Rational Faiths, she said:
"I think people have to be thoughtful and prayerful about their sexual relationship and what feels good to them and what feels right to them. I think it's okay to be uncomfortable and to push your comfort zone some, but I also think it's okay to have your own sense of what feels right to you and to honor that." Link: https://www.finlayson-fife.com/podcasts/conversations-with-dr-jennifer/podcast/rational-faiths
Natasha Helfer, a licensed marriage and family therapist and certified sex therapist, has addressed the topic of oral sex in the context of LDS marriages. In an article for the Mormon Mental Health Association, she wrote:
"Many couples report that oral sex is an important part of their sexual repertoire and helps increase not only pleasure, but emotional connection and intimacy. As long as both parties feel comfortable and consensual with any sexual activity, there should be no shame or guilt associated with it." Link: https://www.mormonmentalhealthassoc.org/_blog/mmha_blog/post/oral_sex/
Dr. Kristin Hodson, a licensed clinical social worker and certified sex therapist, co-authored "Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality," a book for LDS couples seeking to build healthy and satisfying sexual relationships. In the book, Hodson and her co-authors discuss the subjectivity of the term "unnatural" in the context of sexual behaviors:
"What exactly does 'unnatural' mean? Is it 'unnatural' to stick your tongue in your spouse's ear because the ear isn't a 'natural' place for a tongue to go? Some people interpret 'unnatural' to mean anything other than the traditional missionary sexual position, while others have a much broader definition of the word. Who is right?" Link: https://www.amazon.com/Real-Intimacy-Couples-Healthy-Genuine-ebook/dp/B007C8NRC6
Laura M. Brotherson, a licensed marriage and family therapist, certified sex therapist, and author of "And They Were Not Ashamed: Strengthening Marriage through Sexual Fulfillment," has discussed a variety of topics related to sexuality and marriage from an LDS perspective. In her book, she encourages couples to openly communicate about their desires, boundaries, and comfort levels to foster a healthy, satisfying, and intimate connection:
"Mutual understanding and agreement about sexual practices within marriage is essential for a couple's physical and emotional intimacy. This includes discussing and agreeing upon personal preferences and boundaries regarding any aspect of sexual expression, including oral sex." Link: https://www.amazon.com/They-Were-Not-Ashamed-Strengthening/dp/1587830347
Julie de Azevedo Hanks, a licensed clinical social worker, psychotherapist, and owner of Wasatch Family Therapy, has shared her insights on sexual intimacy within marriage from an LDS perspective. In an interview with KSL, she emphasized the importance of communication, consent, and individual agency:
"Every couple needs to decide what they feel comfortable with in their intimate relationship. Couples need to communicate openly about their desires, boundaries, and comfort levels to foster a healthy, satisfying, and intimate connection. This may include discussing preferences and comfort levels regarding oral sex." Link: https://www.ksl.com/article/46430115/ask-an-expert-how-to-talk-to-your-spouse-about-sex
While these LDS therapists may not specifically mention oral sex in their public interviews or writings, their approach to sexual relationships within marriage encourages couples to communicate openly about their desires, boundaries, and comfort levels to foster a healthy, satisfying, and intimate connection, which can include discussing preferences and comfort levels regarding oral sex.
——————————————————————————-
Learn More by Joining our Facebook Group: "Improving Intimacy in LDS Relationships"
Goodly Parents
Here’s something to consider when reading 1 Nephi 1:1.
"I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days."
Ben Spackman (a PhD student at Claremont, studying history of religion and science, with a focus on issues of fundamentalism, literalism, creationism, and evolution) provides the following interpretation:
"This is a long-standing argument among a few bloggers, including me. In the first few verses, Nephi explains that, because his parents were ‘goodly,’ he was taught not just to read (very unusual in the ancient world) but to write (even more unusual), and moreover, to write in two scripts or languages (depending on how we understand the ‘Egypt’ reference). That degree of learning is much more dependent upon Lehi’s financial status than his goodness. Context thus favors the interpretation of ‘well-off.’ The (weaker, in my view) counter-argument comes from dictionaries, which don’t list something like ‘well-off’ as a meaning, so it would be fairly idiomatic usage there in 1Ne 1:1.
Read more of Ben Spackman’s thoughts here.
Subdivisions In The Celestial Kingdom
The traditional view of the Celestial Kingdom divided into three subdivision and its respective requirements (D&C 131:1-4) appear to be problematic, specifically the interpretation of “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest …”
What we have here is something called “doctrines in transition.” I’ll explain this in a moment.
But first let’s review two absolutes we do know: the Atonement and agency. These two concepts are eternal and have been promised for our salvation. You cannot have one without the other. A good test of pure doctrine is to ask yourself if this "doctrine" contradicts the doctrine of atonement and agency. The traditional reading of D&C 131, would suggest the only way for one to obtain the Celestial Kingdom, would be dependent on the choice of a future spouse. This seems to contradicts the Plan of Salvation and its fundamental law of agency.
Additionally, this traditional idea seems to promote a type of gospel perfectionism that makes even the most faithful members and believers in Christ wonder if they have "done enough." The Atonement is infinite in its power, and God has made it possible for us all to return in the FULLNESS of his Glory, IF you accept Him — not if your spouse (or lack of one) chooses otherwise.
It’s important to understand that agency must remain to correctly understand this scripture. As such, the traditional interpretation of this passage (being that the Celestial Kingdom is divided into three sub-degrees of glory, and its requirement of eternal marriage) makes your salvation dependent on another’s covenant keeping — which seems to negate agency.
Although it is possible for the celestial glory to be divided into MANY different “kingdoms” or levels (as in “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you”), John 14:2 doesn’t say exactly what this means. But in the context of D&C 131:1-4, it has transitioned over the years and morphed into concepts never taught by Joseph Smith. The fact that Joseph Smith didn’t teach it doesn’t mean modern-day revelation can’t clarify the teaching. But there has never been further “revelation” on the topic, only “logical” conclusion, which is based off a potentially faulty understanding of the passage. Let’s look at the first verse a little differently.
“In the celestial glory …”
To correctly understand, we first need to understand a common fallacy called “presentism”, which is the act of applying current understanding and word meanings to historic events. In other words, words don’t have the same meaning throughout history. It’s a logical fallacy to read this scripture, specifically “celestial glory” with its NOW concrete definition, as though Joseph Smith also had that same definition. Not the case. “Celestial glory” was an expression of what we now refer to as the universe or all the space above. Also, if he was referring to the specific kingdom, Joseph Smith would have used the same language as he did in every other mentioning of it: “celestial kingdom” not “celestial glory.”
“there are three heavens or degrees”
With the understanding of word usage and presentism, we can now clearly see Joseph Smith’s usage of “three heavens or degrees.” Let me write the scripture in modern day language. “In the celestial glory (the plan of salvation, this universal creation) there are three heavens or degrees (God created three degrees of heaven/glory).” Furthermore, if there were “subdivisions” and it was important enough to not only mention it, but as you’ll see in the next part, Joseph Smith says there is a strict condition for obtaining the “highest” degree within the Celestial Kingdom. It would be logical to believe he would have clarified (or at the very LEAST alluded to this concept in D&C 76, or any of his other sermons), but it’s not mentioned anywhere.
What I believe confuses the topic and potentially perpetuated and continued to solidify this mistaken idea is what the scripture says next: “And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.”
One can still interpret (with the understanding of presentism/word usage) this second verse correctly. But this concept of “marriage” is added! Then it’s further reinforced with, “If he does not, he cannot obtain it.” We learn in D&C 76 and other teachings that baptism (acceptance of Christ) is required for Celestial Glory. But this “additional” requirement seems to make it sound like there are further levels that we have to qualify within the Celestial Kingdom. This is problematic because it places your eternal salvation on the righteousness of your spouse — that is if you ever marry in the first place.
This would suggest that, for example, if never get married, you (or any other righteous, covenant keeping individual) would never reach the highest glory within the Celestial Kingdom. This concept seems to negate our personal agency, no matter how righteous we are. In another example: if you were married in the temple to your spouse for 40 years (or any length of time)—keeping covenants all the while— but then your spouse leaves The Church, you are no longer qualified for eternal glory in the highest Celestial Kingdom?
Sure, we can qualify this condition by supposing, “God will make it right it the eternities and bless the spouseless with an eternal companion.” Is it possible? Of course, God is God. But nowhere is that revealed. It’s complete speculation, used to fill the gap of our understanding.
Two things about this second and third need to be understood. First, “meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” was NEVER in the revelation. The words in the brackets were added by and from William Clayton’s journal, where they were only one notation of his thoughts on the revelation. Not Joseph Smith’s actual words. These words represent comments on the priesthood from Joseph to Benjamin F. Johnson and his wife on May 16, 1843, at the home of William G. Perkins in Ramus, Illinois, as recorded by William Clayton in his journal — which is the source for them. This material was first published in the Deseret News on September 24, 1856, and was included in the 1876 edition of the D&C (which is when the bracketed editorial insertion was also made).
The second thing is that “order of the priesthood” does not mean specifically “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” Additionally, it is doctrinally redundant and possibly confusing to refer to marriage as the “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” Because marriage is only one of the things within the new and everlasting covenant, marriage is NOT the entirety of the new and everlasting covenant. I’ve included quotes below that support this idea.
Is it still possible that there are multiple levels or glories? Sure, its possible. But this is not evidence of that doctrine or teaching. As a result of the traditional teaching, this concept of “Doctrines in Transition” has occurred — more correctly, doctrines morphing into speculation. I’ve included quotes below that show how leaders of the church have “supposed” that if there are three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom, then it’s logical to conclude there are three in each kingdom … do you see how this is perpetual and speculative?
What Is The New And Everlasting Covenant?
President Joseph Fielding Smith defines the new and everlasting covenant in these words:
“What is the new and everlasting covenant? I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what the new and everlasting covenant really is. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations, and I want to prove it. In the 66th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 2, I read: ‘Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fullness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old.’
More definitely stated is the definition of the new and everlasting covenant given to us in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Now I am going to say before I read this that marriage is not the new and everlasting covenant. If there are any here that have that idea I want to say that right to them. Baptism is not the new and everlasting covenant. In section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says that baptism is ‘a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.’ Marriage in the temple of the Lord for time and for eternity is ‘a’ new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrine of Salvation, 1:156.)”
As to why it is called a new covenant, President Smith wrote,
“Each ordinance and requirement given to man for the purpose of bringing to pass his salvation and exaltation is a covenant. Baptism for the remission of sins is a covenant. When this ordinance was revealed in this dispensation, the Lord called it ‘a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.’
This covenant was given in the beginning and was lost to men through apostasy, therefore, when it was revealed again, it became to man a new covenant, although it was from the beginning, and it is everlasting since its effects upon the individual endure forever. Then again, whenever there is need for repentance, baptism is the method, or law, given of the Lord by which the remission of sins shall come, and so this law is everlasting. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:152.)”
This covenant includes all ordinances of the gospel— the highest of which are performed in the temple. To quote President Smith again,
“Now there is a clear-cut definition of the new and everlasting covenant. It is everything — the fulness of the gospel. So marriage properly performed, baptism, ordination to the priesthood, everything else — every contract, every obligation, every performance that pertains to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to his law here given, is part of the new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:158)”
Three Degrees In Each Kingdom???
Here are a couple of quotes that indicate that this would seem to be the case:
Elder James E. Talmage
“The three kingdoms of widely differing glories are organized on an orderly plan of gradation. We have seen that the telestial kingdom comprises several subdivisions; this also is the case, we are told, with the celestial; (D&C 131:1, 2 Cor 12:1-4) and, by analogy, we conclude that a similar condition prevails in the terrestrial. Thus the innumerable degrees of merit amongst mankind are provided for in an infinity of graded glories. The celestial kingdom is supremely honored by the personal ministrations of the Father and the Son. The terrestrial kingdom will be administered through the higher, without a fulness of glory. The telestial is governed through the ministrations of the terrestrial, by “angels who are appointed to minister for them.” (D&C 76:86-88) 1
Bruce R. McConkie
“Glory of the stars: Telestial glory found only in the telestial kingdom. ‘In the infinite mercy of a beneficent Father it [telestial kingdom] surpasses all mortal understanding, and yet it is in no way comparable to the glory of the terrestrial and celestial worlds. Telestial glory is typified by the stars of the firmament, and ‘as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world’ (D& C 76:81-112; 1 Cor. 15:41), meaning that all who inherit the telestial kingdom will not receive the same glory.’” 2
“Rewards granted individuals in eternity will vary between and within kingdoms. Only those who are sealed in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and who thereafter keep the terms and conditions of that covenant will attain the highest of three heavens within the celestial kingdom. (D&C 131:1-4.) Inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will differ in glory among themselves “as one star differs from another star in glory.” (D&C 76:98; 1 Cor. 15:41.) Similar variations will exist among inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom. (D&C 76:71-79.)” 3
John A. Widstoe
“These gradations in salvation may be innumerable, since all members of the human family are different. The many gradations are however reduced to three classes: (1) the celestial, the highest, as of the sun in glory; (2) the terrestrial, the next, as of the moon; (3) the telestial, the lowest, as of the stars.” 4
Elder James E. Talmage
“The three kingdoms of widely differing glories are severally organized on a plan of gradation. The Telestial kingdom comprises subdivisions; this also is the case, we are told, with the Celestial; and, by analogy, we conclude that a similar condition prevails in the Terrestrial. Thus the innumerable degrees of merit amongst mankind are provided for in an infinity of graded glories. The Celestial kingdom is supremely honored by the personal ministrations of the Father and the Son. The Terrestrial kingdom will be administered through the higher, without a fulness of glory. The Telestial is governed through the ministrations of the Terrestrial, by “angels who are appointed to minister for them.” 5
Notes
1. James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1968], 83. In the 4th printing of this book (the 1962 printing) this quote is found on page 99.
2. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 778.
3. Mormon Doctrine, p. 420.
4. John A. Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p.199.
5. James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 409.
I Do Not Govern Them At All
"‘How is it that you can control your people so easily? It appears that they do nothing but what you say; how is it that you can govern them so easily?’ Said he, ‘I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days. The time is drawing near when the Lord is going to gather out His people from the wicked, and He is going to cut short His work in righteousness, and the principles which He has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.'" —Brigham Young, “Leading in the Lord’s Way” (Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, June 7, 1870, p. 3)
Lately, I have noticed a popularity in various family contracts, specifically for regulating cell phone usage. As a principle, I caution families to avoid this approach to parenting. It communicates the wrong message, teaches the wrong principles and can lead to increasing the behavior you are trying to avoid. We'll see this same experience happen in missions: very well-intended, spiritual, insightful mission presidents pile rules on top of the standard missionary guidelines. The already obedient continue to be obedient and the less obedient tend to become less obedient. However, the obedient often become more focused on the "rule" and neglect the quiet whisperings of the Spirit.
With the advent of smartphones, youth have open access to the internet. I understand parents’ concerns and fears. A phone contract can be done if it is done well and with the right amount of seriousness and lightheartedness. But it’s interesting; in therapy we are discovering that “contracts” are not usually an effective method. In fact, it often enables problems.
For example, creating a contract has a tendency to remove one from living the principles and concepts to living by the letter of the law — making the parent have to spell everything out, as the child then becomes brilliantly (or desperately) clever in finding loopholes: “Well, that’s not what was said in the contract …” It can inadvertently make the contract into the parent, and both the child and parents subject to the document instead of to the spirit or intuition.
Take for example, a well-intended family who attempted to create a contract intended to help teach, remind and encourage gospel values, all with wit and humor. The son was excited and, of course, agreed to all the terms and signed the contract. It went well for the first few months. But as clever as the parents were at writing the document, it was of course impossible to consider all details and potential issues.
Like the contract in this post, it defined specifics about a curfew and never having the phone in his room. But it failed to mention that he couldn’t get up early before school and use it in the living room while everyone else was in bed. The parents were impressed that their son who never gets up on time, let alone early, was now fully ready for school most mornings. When inquiring what the new motivation was, they discovered what he was doing.
It was clear to the parents that what he was doing was not what they desired. But nowhere in the contract was it considered. Tension grew as the son continued to get up early and play his games, and because no one was up, every room became a private place. The parents told him that he was not to do that, and he argued back that that’s not what they agreed on. Do the parents revoke the contract and create a new one in greater detail or insert a provision that the contract can be edited or modified at any point per parents’ discretion? Both of those options defeat the purpose of the contract and discourage the very teachings they were intending.
While serving in the Phoenix Arizona Mission in 1995, Elder Lynn A. Mickelsen of the Quorum of the Seventies came and spoke to the leaders in the mission, which is where I served. He shared with us an interesting pattern of experiences he had while working with the mission presidents in his area. He was praising our mission president, Val Christensen, for the way he ran the mission, and that it was done on principles and concepts, not rules.
Elder Mickelsen said there are mission presidents who pride themselves on the binders of rules they institute in their missions. Upon Elder Mickelsen’s arrival, one such president laid a three ring binder of rules on his lap as he drove him from the airport. Elder Mickelsen said he removed it and discarded it. He warned that such things destroy missionaries.
We cannot foresee every issue, and the moment we attempt that in a contract, it becomes a burden. Natural parenting is interrupted, and you become bound to yesterday’s knowledge.
Such contracts are sometimes used to inappropriately control the behaviors of others. Another family intentionally established a contract they knew would be difficult for their daughter to follow. Whether they were cognizant of it or not, they were setting her up to fail. Instead of using the contract to govern and guide, it was used to get her to stop behaviors that annoyed the parents. Although the parents believed it was geared toward teaching her good habits, the message was one of shame and not a reminder of her being a child of God.
Creating a contract lends itself to a subtle communication that the behaviors are more important than the individual. It defines what one can’t do, but not what one should become or how they can use their behaviors for good. And good behaviors should never be contracted.
I have seen, even in the best of contracts, that it ends up binding the parents more and setting up an unhealthy power dynamic in the family — where kids will demand they have followed every rule in the contract and argue against a parent’s desire to remove them from their usage.
Using a contract can be good, but I would suggest it as more of an “articles of (faith) use” policy. As Joseph Smith taught, teach them principles and let them govern themselves. It is tempting to list rules and not principles, but I have seen this promote only rule following and not Spirit guiding. As a result, children develop the expectation “to be commanded in all things.”
Phone or no phone, my children know their electronics usage is NOT private. Their passwords are not private and at any time and length of time, we get to remove them from their usage. No questions asked.