Poll Shows 80% Of Unmarried Evangelicals (18 To 29) Are Sexually Active

[Duncan]

All bishops were single at one point so they should know exactly what they advocating. Hopefully they kept their own advice then.

However, when people start to believe that it's the bishop setting the boundaries for sexual activity and not God, then it's going to be easy to justify not staying within them regardless of what the bishop is doing at home.

It's too bad that some feel that sexual sin can't be repented of. I would hope that all bishops strive very diligently to give people hope in such a regard so they don't feel walking away from teh church is their only option. Now, if they walked away because they didn't want to keep the standards anymore or didn't feel they needed to, then that's a completely different issue, but otherwise, that's a sad thing.

One Bishop we had in a our YSA ward had a past...shall we say.. and it got out...and he so far has gotten away with certain things, but for me , it's all in the past and I am thankful for the justice of God. It is sad, all over the place. One friend of mine two years ago now? grew up in the Church, never married, tried to do everything asked of her, dated here and there, but she is in her late 30's so slim pickings for guys and she just gave up and quit and long story short... married a non member and she says she doesn't feel any remorse for anything and I don't know what to tell her or any other of my friends in or were in similar situations.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Duncan

[Storm Rider]

One Bishop we had in a our YSA ward had a past...shall we say.. and it got out...and he so far has gotten away with certain things, but for me , it's all in the past and I am thankful for the justice of God. It is sad, all over the place. One friend of mine two years ago now? grew up in the Church, never married, tried to do everything asked of her, dated here and there, but she is in her late 30's so slim pickings for guys and she just gave up and quit and long story short... married a non member and she says she doesn't feel any remorse for anything and I don't know what to tell her or any other of my friends in or were in similar situations.

Basically, God wants each of his children to have joy and peace. There really is nothing to say to those who are in a position where there is no remorse; just love them and support them. However, our Father has an interesting way of finding us when we are not so happy and when our lives are full of remorse. The Savior knocks at the door and waits for a response from each individual.

I don't get to bothered about what is happening today. Each of us is in our Father's hands and his will will always be done. We stray for a time and then are brought back into the fold.

[Sky]

The answer is not to lower the standard. The answer is to recognize that marriage is good, and that waiting to marry is ridiculous. Brigham Young and many others of the prophets told the Saints that any man who was eighteen and unmarried was a menace to society (the age varies, but not by much). This remains true.

I think the age at which a single man becomes a menace to society (according to Brigham Young) is twenty-eight – not eighteen. And IMHO he was speaking more as a man rather than a prophet when he made this statement. At least I hope so! Because if not, that would mean all those 19-21 + year old missionaries are menaces to society! And just to point out, there are legitimate reasons why some individuals delay marriage. It’s not simply a matter of not wanting to grow up. I think we as church members would do well to cut each other some slack and not judge each other so harshly!

[thesometimesaint]

Sky:

Sociologically speaking an anattached unemployed male in their mid to late 20's is the most dangerous of animals.

[Sine Saw Square]

I think we as church members would do well to cut each other some slack and not judge each other so harshly!

I say an "amen" to members treating each other with compassion and love- especially those who err and yet desire to put themselves in the path of repentance.

LeSellers, I haven't seen anyone on this thread advocating a lowering of standards in regard to the Law of Chastity. Maybe I missed something? I don't think it's only the older marrying age that's contributing to immoral behavior. In years past there was social pressure to stay chaste. Sex was less talked about, less accessible, etc... we all know this of course so I won't belabor the point. That's social pressure is entirely flipped today. For an awkward, hormonally charged youth, that makes a huge difference. Yet moral standards are preached in every General Conference. Repeatedly. The moral challenges of modern living are a major concern of the leaders of the Church. And rightly so. I have a lot of respect for youth (and adults) that strive to live morally clean and a lot of compassion for those who struggle to repent from mistakes.

I don't know what the point is of sharing anecdotal third hand accounts of so-and-so not getting 'punished' by their bishop for doing X. Last time I met with my bishop it was just him and me in the room. If you're not there you don't know what was said, what was taught, what the Bishop discerned. Bishops aren't called to be heavenly axemen. They are there to help people repent, hold to the rod, and work out their salvation. I dare say that every case (I've never been a bishop, thankfully) is handled as individually as the people involved. It's not the responsibility of other members to pass judgement on their wayward fellow parishioners. Our job is to bear one another's burdens.

[Sky]

Sky:

Sociologically speaking an anattached unemployed male in their mid to late 20's is the most dangerous of animals.

Okay. But let's not make the problem worse. The point I'm trying to make is to go easier on single members of the Church – whether they are male or female. I've been there, and it is wearing. I know how hard it can be to sometimes wonder if there is a place for you in the Church or that you don’t measure up or that life is passing you by. When this happens, it is too easy to start feeling resentment and to fall into an abyss of inactivity in the Church. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Single members need to know that Heavenly Father and the Church loves and cares about them. When they feel like they are being unjustly judged, they don’t feel that love.

[LeSellers]

I say an "amen" to members treating each other with compassion and love- especially those who err and yet desire to put themselves in the path of repentance.

I certainly did not say anything about not being compassionate, nor that we ought not allow others (and ourselves, as far as that may go) to repent. It's none of my business (except in rare situations) what others, as individuals, do.

However, when a whole society is he11-bent on destruction, that does affect me. It changes the odds that my grandchildren will be able to find worthy mates. It changes who my great-grandchildren will be.

Nor is it without economic effects that harm me (and the rest of my generation): who's going to pay the taxes that will pay for the government's version of medical care which I will be forced into? Who's going to be the doctors and the nurses in the geriatric field I will need to keep me going for the last decade of life? Where are the orderlies who will clean my ..., well, let's not go there.

Sexual promiscuity has more ramifications than AIDS and syphilis. Since it means fewer children, sex being divorced from procreation, there will be fewer people to care for the elderly (honor thy father and mother means, not least, taking care of them in their senility). There will be less concern for them, as well, since we (which includes everyone, btw, eventually) will be a drag on society. I read a short story once about "Youth squads" (a play on "euthanasia squads") whose job was to kill the elderly (everyone over age 50) to avoid having that sea anchor on the vibrant youth culture.

LeSellers

As I do with everyone, I invite you to use my real name, "Lehi". My mother-in-law calls me that, as did former presidents Carter and Clinton. It's the name on my insurance policy.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread advocating a lowering of standards in regard to the Law of Chastity. Maybe I missed something?

I didn't say we should, nor that anyone had done so. The plain thrust of many posts here has been, however, that it is understandable, at least, that people with their hormones raging, might very well wander afield.

It is true we should encourage them back when they do, but it is more important that we encourage them not to cross the line in the first place. The biggest reason for breaking the Law of Chastity is that there is no legitimate way to be sexual outside of marriage and marriage is now culturally discouraged for decades after puberty. That's just plain stupid.

I don't think it's only the older marrying age that's contributing to immoral behavior.

No one has said it's the only factor. But it is a huge one. Those who are married can engage in sexual activity without breaking the Law of Chastity. And, in so doing, they will also obey the first commandment: multiply and replenish the earth.

In years past there was social pressure to stay chaste. Sex was less talked about, less accessible, etc... we all know this of course so I won't belabor the point.

And with all the talk, all the hype, we, as a culture, discourage marriage, wherein legitimate sexual activity may take place.

That's social pressure is entirely flipped today. For an awkward, hormonally charged youth, that makes a huge difference.

Exactly.

They ought to get married.

Yet moral standards are preached in every General Conference. Repeatedly. The moral challenges of modern living are a major concern of the leaders of the Church. And rightly so. I have a lot of respect for youth (and adults) that strive to live morally clean and a lot of compassion for those who struggle to repent from mistakes.

As do I. That does not mean their choice to be unmarried is a good one.

Marriage is honorable in all. Fornication is not. Paul admonished us to marry if for no other reason that it is better than burning. There are far better reasons, but that one alone is good enough to follow his counsel.

Lehi

Edited December 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[why me]

the whole sex and the Church thing...so many of my friends have done something they felt was wrong and have just walked away and a few others have been disciplined and also have walked away and one said to me that they feel like they are being punished for something that is totally normal-having a sex drive-not whatever they did. Plus it is easy for a married Bishop or whoever to say "don't do xyz" to an unmarried single all the while they can go home and do it and never have to live with their own advice

But at one time, the bishop did have to live the advice when he was not married. There is nothing wrong with having a sex drive. It propagates the human speicies. However, humans are not apes or rabbits. It is possible to control the sex drive. And some married couples are not 'doing it' at all or if they are, not very often. What should one do, if one spouse's sex drive is stronger than the partners?

[why me]

It's too bad that some feel that sexual sin can't be repented of. I would hope that all bishops strive very diligently to give people hope in such a regard so they don't feel walking away from teh church is their only option. Now, if they walked away because they didn't want to keep the standards anymore or didn't feel they needed to, then that's a completely different issue, but otherwise, that's a sad thing.

Let me give you an example: If I attend catholic mass, there is a line of people waiting to confess their sins to the priest. These people have all kinds of sins to confess. Others are sitting in church knowing that they are sinners and yet, don't feel the urge to confess their sins to the priest. But all are equal in the site of god: both saint and sinner as they worship together.

Why must it be different in the lds church. Regardless if one doesn't want to keep the standards, they shouldn't feel the need to walk away. They should still attend as they do in the catholic church.

[Duncan]

But at one time, the bishop did have to live the advice when he was not married. There is nothing wrong with having a sex drive. It propagates the human speicies. However, humans are not apes or rabbits. It is possible to control the sex drive. And some married couples are not 'doing it' at all or if they are, not very often. What should one do, if one spouse's sex drive is stronger than the partners?

well, in this case he wasn't a member and then later was when he did everything so yes and no on living with his own advice! For example him telling someone not to get to close to someone all the while he is out cheating on his wife and so on and so on. I don't have any answers for what a spouse should do if the other spouse has a stronger sex drive, I feel for them in that situation.

Off topic and inappropriate..

Edited December 14, 2011 by Minos

[why me]

well, in this case he wasn't a member and then later was when he did everything so yes and no on living with his own advice! For example him telling someone not to get to close to someone all the while he is out cheating on his wife and so on and so on. I don't have any answers for what a spouse should do if the other spouse has a stronger sex drive, I feel for them in that situation.

When the bishop wasn't a member and he was having an active sex life, he could certainly share his thoughts with the struggling member. One thing that I do know is that sex is not a happy pill. There are many people out there having sex with multiple partners and are completely miserable. And there are also people having sex that are in bad relationships and have no joy doing it. While others are in a healthy relationship with sex and companionship.

But this is what I would say to a member friend who is contemplating sex with someone they love: have a good make out session to see if one is sexually compatible with their partner. And if so, begin an engagement and then strive for marriage. And continue to have a make out session but with control. And all will be well.

Spouses go up and down with sex drives especially as one gets older and when a child comes into the picture. To claim my sex drive is stronger than my spouses and then go out and cheat would not be good. So, one must accept that one's sex drive will take a back seat for awhile. Unless one is a rabbit.

WARNING: All posters who want to chat about an individual's sexual activity will be thread banned. That is why we close these threads.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Minos

[cinepro]

Okay. But let's not make the problem worse. The point I'm trying to make is to go easier on single members of the Church – whether they are male or female. I've been there, and it is wearing. I know how hard it can be to sometimes wonder if there is a place for you in the Church or that you don’t measure up or that life is passing you by. When this happens, it is too easy to start feeling resentment and to fall into an abyss of inactivity in the Church. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Single members need to know that Heavenly Father and the Church loves and cares about them. When they feel like they are being unjustly judged, they don’t feel that love.

The danger is that if people get too comfortable with such behavior, it can become the norm.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Brigham Young and many others of the prophets told the Saints that any man who was eighteen and unmarried was a menace to society (the age varies, but not by much).

Lehi, I quote below the correction which I provided in an earlier thread:

Posted 03 September 2011 - 02:55 AM

LeSellers, on 02 September 2011 - 04:42 AM, said:

Brigham Young was right: "Any man who's not married by age eighteen is a menace to society."

For the sake of accuracy, it wasn't Brigham Young; it was George Q Cannon. And it wasn't eighteen; it was 24. And it wasn't 'any man' but 'a large number' of men:

While I do not make the remark to apply to individual cases, I am firmly of the opinion that a large number of unmarried men, over the age of twenty-four years, is a dangerous element in any community, and an element upon which society should look with a jealous eye. (George F. Gibbs, “Discourse by Elder Geo. Q. Cannon…April 7, 1878,” Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 7)

Ironically, as one of my Institute teachers pointed out, Elder Cannon had good reason to be concerned when he made this statement. Plural marriage meant that roughly 1/3 of the adult male population of the Church never married, and, as China is about to discover, 'a large number of unmarried men' who have little hope of marriage in future can indeed become a rather antisocial force in a community.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[Rob Bowman]

Someone suggested I comment (I thought this thread had been closed!), so I will. I am an evangelical Protestant with considerable first-hand experience working with people in a variety of denominational settings, in addition to the reading and research I have done on evangelicalism.

First, as an evangelical and an American I'm quick to acknowledge that there are all sorts of problems in American evangelicalism. I have no interest in sweeping anything under the rug.

Several of the posts here have already raised some of the questions and qualifications I would suggest. I'd want to know more precisely what the respondents meant, if they were commenting on whether they had ever been sexually active or rather were sexually active over a long period of time, and so forth.

The issue of sexual activity among young people generally, including but not limited to evangelicals, is a symptom of other things. Fifty years of popular culture and government-run educational institutions doing everything they can to tear down traditional morality has obviously done serious damage everywhere. Sexual images, music, texts, etc., are pervasive and for the past decade or so have been almost unavoidable for those plugged into the virtual world online. Biologically, children are reaching puberty earlier, while sociologically they are finishing school and getting married later. It wasn’t nearly as hard for young people to stay chaste while single when their bodies became sexually functional at 13 and they were getting married at 16 or 17 (and even then chastity wasn't close to being universal). Now girls’ bodies are often sexually functional at 11 and men and women commonly aren’t marrying until they are 25 or 30, if at all. Even “average-looking” young women today are typically far more attractive to males than their counterparts 150 years ago because the girls aren’t engaged in hard physical labor on the farm or in factories for hours each day, are better fed, better (and often more seductively) dressed, are better groomed, etc. This is significant because the reality is that those of us who are male are visually oriented when it comes to females. I’m sure these are just some of the factors involved in the apparent dramatic rise of sexual activity among young people. We might be justified in viewing those who remain chaste as extremely admirable in such a culture and having some empathy with those who falter in this regard.

I agree that certain subtypes of evangelical doctrine have at the very least made it easier for those raised in that perspective to take a lax approach to issues of morality—not just sexual morality but all matters of personal morality. One such subtype is a particular strain of older, so-called classic dispensationalism that teaches “once saved, always saved” and that “faith alone saves” in such a way that the impression is indeed given that a person might be saved and yet live a sinful lifestyle no different from non-Christians. Please note all of the qualifications: not all dispensationalists, and not even all advocates of the older, classic dispensationalism, should be tarred with this particular criticism. It is a particular strain—one that admittedly has had lots of adherents—that articulates dispensational soteriology (doctrine of salvation) in a very troubling way. Faith gets defined essentially as simple intellectual agreement, and getting saved is defined more or less as making a “decision” at some point in your life to “accept Christ.” These are all good words and phrases, but the way they are put together leads to the conclusion that if at any point in your life you “went forward” to make that decision, and you prayed “the sinner’s prayer” and were sincere (i.e., you really did agree mentally with it), then you are forever saved, regardless of what happens afterward. It is not necessary to continue believing, even, the way this view is sometimes articulated. Obviously, this particular slant on the evangelical gospel opens the door to licentiousness. With all that, I must say that my impression is that most of the Christians who hold this view don’t live in a licentious manner. Their life is usually better than their doctrine might suggest. But I cannot deny that the doctrine likely has contributed to moral laxity.

The historic soteriology of Reformation theology (historic Protestant evangelicalism) is quite different. It views faith not merely as mental assent but as an integration of mental assent, volitional dependence, and personal trust. Someone who thinks of faith in this more robust sense does not make the mistake of thinking that merely agreeing with the doctrine is enough to be saved. Arminian evangelicals and conservative Lutherans reject “once saved, always saved,” so they obviously will not think that their past “decision” in favor of Christ is valid if they walk away from Christ or fail ever to follow him. Calvinists affirm “perseverance of the saints,” which many people confuse with the dispensational “once saved, always saved”; the Calvinist doctrine maintains that those who are truly born again will persevere in faith until the end of their lives. Anyone who abandons the Christian faith or fails to live by it demonstrates, according to this view, that he is not truly both again. So these various forms of more traditional, historic evangelical theology do not teach “easy-believism” or set up their advocates to think that how they live morally is irrelevant to their Christian profession. All of these evangelicals insist that how a person lives is a sign or indicator of whether his or her profession is genuine.

Finally, I should point out that survey after survey shows that many people who self-identify as evangelicals or as born-again Christians often do not have an evangelical theology (even a defective one) or worldview. This is especially true of young people from evangelical backgrounds. Typically they are confused or misled on such fundamental, foundational issues as whether there are moral absolutes. Hence one finds apparently conflicting data in which young evangelicals often deny the existence of moral absolutes yet confidently assert that adultery is immoral. Young evangelicals, like young people generally in our culture, are reticent to “judge” certain behaviors such as same-sex unions, even if they agree that the Bible teaches such behaviors to be sin. In addition to some poor theology in some quarters, American evangelicalism has been infected with postmodernist-style relativism, which depreciates sound doctrine and clear moral boundaries. Those of us who are committed to sound evangelical faith are on the frontlines trying to combat this watering-down influence.

One other factor worth mentioning is that among the tens of millions of people who self-identify as evangelicals in America there is the full spectrum of varying degrees of commitment to the teachings and standards of evangelicalism. All other things being equal, the larger the religion the more nominalism is a problem (as is evident in Catholicism). One should consider the likelihood that laxness in sexual morals will be higher among those whose general commitment level is low.

The bottom line as I see it is that the problem is not the historic Protestant, evangelical doctrine of justification by faith alone. That doctrine is perverted or corrupted in some segments of evangelicalism, especially in America, but the doctrine itself is not the problem. That having been said, evangelicalism is far from perfect and does have its share of weaknesses, hypocrisies, scandals, and problems.

(Edited to add second to last paragraph.)

Edited December 14, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[KevinG]

Since I'm known for giving Rob a hard time I'd like to echo a couple of his well thought out statements here...

First: self-identifying members of a religion do not always indicate active members that are adhering to practices of a religion. There are plenty of Mormons in the inter-mountain West that are social or family Mormons but not actively practicing the religion. This is also true of Christians in the Bible Belt. It is difficult to get good statistics on groups broken down by strict vs. casual adherence.

These types of surveys are notoriously sloppy. I remember the surveys in college that measured which schools were the biggest "party" colleges. In my pre-LDS days we routinely filled out reams of the response sheets with the most debauched and wild answers we could think of for fun. (I know- not honest - but what does a researcher expect by placing a stack of paper questionnaires in a college bar?). In my post LDS days I didn't go to college bars. ;-)

Given these statistics are probably very general and not terribly valid, it is still cause for worry. Evangelicals should not be the only one's worrying. I seriously doubt "cheap grace" or "easy believism" are the root cause of sexual impurity among the religious. No sane Christian I know says "I'll sin tonight and repent in the morning". Looking back into the fog of adolescence (a painful exercise for certain) I seem to remember the real struggle between what my body wanted to do and what my mind knew better. Even as a protestant it was the times I neglected to bring God into the discussion that got me into trouble. I knew better than to ask forgiveness for something I really wasn't sorry or repentant for.

I suspect a confidential survey of LDS youth would find levels of sexual activity most LDS parents would find shocking. We teach and practice chastity, but we also teach and practice repentance for good reason. Sexual desires are strong when couples start feeling close to each other. While I don't think the majority of Evangelical-Christian or LDS-Christian youth easily justify sin, they are still subject to temptation and weakness.

All of the reasons cited above (older marriage ages, sexualized media and culture, etc.) just add to the pressures and challenges our youth face when trying to live Christlike and chaste lives. I have seen it with my own children and often weep at the challenges they share with me. It is much harder for them to find safety than it was for us a generation ago. This isn't an excuse for sin, but it is a reason to be more vigilant and supportive.

As elders or "adults" in our respective religions I think it is up to us to continue to set high expectations, Biblical expectations... at the same time it is up to us to encourage repentance and recovery from mistakes emphasizing the healing power of the atonement. If we treat sexual sins as though they are unrecoverable or reason to shun the sinner we risk scaring our youth away from the very power of Christ that can help them return to the straight and narrow path.

Edited December 14, 2011 by DaddyG

[LeSellers]

Lehi, I quote below the correction which I provided in an earlier thread:

Yes, I recalled your "correction" in general, although not in detail, which is why I said that Brother Brigham and others said it (with varying ages). I doubt that President Cannon was alone, and I have heard it ascribed to him as well as Brigham and Elders Hyde, Pratt and Kimball.

I believe that it is true, irrespective who said it first, and, although the specific age is not critical and may be subject to some variations, the point that men ought to marry and marry young remains good counsel.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

sky:

All of us are unmarried at some point in our lives. My mom got married in her mid 30's I don't judge anyone for their married state. If someone is happy, successful, and generally a good person and is single that's fine with me. But take away any of those criteria and I'm not so fine with it.

[Sky]

sky:

All of us are unmarried at some point in our lives. My mom got married in her mid 30's I don't judge anyone for their married state. If someone is happy, successful, and generally a good person and is single that's fine with me. But take away any of those criteria and I'm not so fine with it.

I'm having a hard time following you. Are you saying that you have issues with a person being single only if they are unhappy, unsuccessful, or generally not a good person? A person can be happy, successful, and generally a good person (or not) regardless of their marital status.

And you may say that you don’t judge anybody for their marital status, but nevertheless the culture of the Church is not very easy on single people. I really feel for all the single members over 30.

[Sine Saw Square]

DaddyG: I'll just say hear hear to your #40 post!

Lehi: I'll use your name from now on, happy to comply with your request. I don't think we disagree on what we're saying except perhaps the perception of the 'marry young' council. Culture has changed quite a bit since Brigham Young's day. Young adults (I being one not so long ago) are in quite a different mind set today- I'm not saying that's a 'good'thing, but it is real. What council I remember hearing just a few years ago when i was in that young-adult and single category was "don't put off marriage". I took that as council to actively date and if the opportunity came- don't delay marrying in favor of some other pursuit. My experience at BYU most young men wanted to follow that council (perhaps biology had something to do with that?) and in more than one case I saw it was a young woman who was putting them off. Anecdotal for sure but I don't think atypical. I know from experience how marrying very young can contribute critical problems to a marriage. I also know first hand that marrying a little older can bring wisdom, lessons-learned and a wonderful sense of partnership (and gratitude) to a marriage.

So, marry young? Yes I agree- that is sound "general" council- but what is "young"? 18? 21? 25? Should a ward make a man who's single and 30+ feel like the menace past leaders have warned he could be? Should he be reminded of something he's most likely very very aware of? How is that helpful?

I don't think your intention is to condem individuals- but hopefully you can see how such a statement could be taken in that way by, say, a guy who is 31, has no prospects and is frustrated and embarrassed about it.

[KevinG]

Marrying immature creates more problems than marrying young.

[Scott Lloyd]

How the heck did that ridiculous statement make it into a manual? That's not that long ago.

Going to the linked source, I see that Cinepro took the statement out of context. It goes on to explain:

Sexual intimacy is not an involuntary, strictly biological necessity for survival, like breathing and eating. Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife can be delayed or even suspended for long periods of time with no negative effect (for example, when the health of one or the other requires it). Husbands and wives are not compelled to mate because their genes or hormones order them to do so. Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule.

I should think a reasonable person would be hard-pressed to persuasively refute the above.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I recalled your "correction" in general, although not in detail, which is why I said that Brother Brigham and others said it (with varying ages). I doubt that President Cannon was alone, and I have heard it ascribed to him as well as Brigham and Elders Hyde, Pratt and Kimball.

I believe that it is true, irrespective who said it first, and, although the specific age is not critical and may be subject to some variations, the point that men ought to marry and marry young remains good counsel.

Lehi

The "menace to society" statement attributed to Brigham Young is apparently a false rumor and is one of those persistent Mormon myths that ought to be laid to rest. It was very pervasive while I was growing up in the Church. I once tried, without success, to find documentation for it. I would be very curious to know if you or someone else can document it. If you can't, I think it ought not be perpetuated.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[frankenstein]

The "menace to society" statement attributed to Brigham Young is apparently a false rumor and is one of those persistent Mormon myths that ought to be laid to rest. It was very pervasive while I was growing up in the Church. I once tried, without success, to find documentation for it. I would be very curious to know if you or someone else can document it. If you can't, I think it ought not be perpetuated.

I believe the "menace" quote is actually the opinion of the editor of LDS Church paper in Salt Lake/Utah at the time - 1800s (yes I realize this would be more 1845 - 1900). The quote was shown to me by an institute Director who wanted to set the record that it was not BY but some other persons opinion. I can not show you the proof, this is just my memory from the late 1990s

Edited December 16, 2011 by frankenstein

[frankenstein]

I have a good friend who became the Bishop to a single's ward in Los Angeles. Not soon after, he shared his shock with me over the things he was being told in interviews. Obviously, he would only speak in general terms, but it seems the young single adults in his ward were very comfortable with each other and had rationalized all sorts of behavior that most LDS would consider unchaste.

I think it has to do with severe lack of sexual education. Many people are offended by the name **** as in Moby **** even the board software is offended by the name, just think then how much more offended those same people are by the correct term penis as in "pen is". As much as a parent rants and raves about the evils of state funded sexual education it is my opinion that those same parents do little or nothing beyond "God said don't have sex, so don't have sex" by way of educating their children.

Not till one starts reading deviants like Dan Savage, does one realize that "sex" means more than man insert his "no-no" in females "danger zone" or that there is more than one way to contract a STD or some other unpleasantness.

However, justification for one acts have been around for a long long time.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe the "menace" quote is actually the opinion of the editor of LDS Church paper in Salt Lake/Utah at the time - 1800s (yes I realize this would be more 1845 - 1900). The quote was shown to me by an institute Director who wanted to set the record that it was not BY but some other persons opinion. I can not show you the proof, this is just my memory from the late 1990s

If, by "LDS Church paper in Salt Lake/Utah at the time," you mean the Deseret News, the editor in the early days would have been George Q. Cannon. Perhaps you have in mind the statement from President Cannon that has already been quoted here by Hamba Tuhan.