log2

That wasn't the nature of MOE's claim. He said a member of the First Presidency did it.

Nothing at all. What part of "not necessarily done personally by a member of the First Presidency" is confusing?

It violates the charge to avoid all light-mindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, the taking of the name of God in vain, and every other unholy and impure practice - which charge is received by covenant. If you violate this charge, you are in violation of your covenants.

Your cite still does not establish what you purported it to establish - namely, the heading in the RS manual was personally added to President Kimball's words by a member of the First Presidency. I stand corrected on the dominion of the Priesthood Correlation Committee.

I already explained - I don't remember where I read it. How hypocritical of me, I know. Call me a liar for that, if you will. That's a long way of saying "I can't prove your lie." The Temple recommend interview questions ask, among other things, "Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?" As I have already explained, masturbation is an "unholy and impure practice," and its practice means the practitioner is not temple-worthy; that charge, be it remembered, is received by covenant. So, explain again why you have a problem with my position?

Too bad we're talking about Relief Society, I guess; your cite isn't relevant in any case.

No need. The Law of Chastity explicitly governs sexual relations between individuals. Frankly, the fact that no prophet has ever said "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity" ought to give some pause to those who claim that it is such a violation. Again, nobody is saying masturbation is not a sin. It simply is not covered by the Law of Chastity.

What, pray tell, is my agenda, do you think? I provided 1. the dictionary, and 2. the formal statement of the Law of Chastity. The two together are my sole case. The rest is interesting, but sideshow. You can say that, but you cannot demonstrate it, because I'm correct. Masturbation is, itself and alone, not a violation of the Law of Chastity, because the Law of Chastity explicitly governs behavior between individuals.

Yes, and in each case clarifying it, and making the reference explicit with reference to interpersonal sexual relations.

And that means... something. I think. To someone. Somewhere. If it's the case that the First Presidency did, in fact, feel, or even think, anything about it at all, or if it was even vetted by one of them.

Then prove me in a lie: show where any prophet anywhere at any time has said this: "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity." My claim is that no prophet anywhere ever said this.

Then prove me in a lie.

Yep - but since you referred me specifically to Spencer W. Kimball's statement, I went and saw that he did not attach any such heading to his own words.

Hmm. Here's the original phrasing of the Law of Chastity, apparently (for men): ""I will never have anything to do with any of the daughters of Eve, unless they are given to me of the Lord."

Since we're in judgement mode (I thought that was against board policies), I guess nobody can complain if I cite this in response:

I believe you stand alone.

I have already given my line of reasoning. And, no, I quite expect you, of all posters here, to challenge each and every one of my claims. Why would I be insulted? I likewise don't trust you.

You're reading into it more than it actually claims, Pam. And, being perfectly clear, the Law of Chastity is only that which is stated in the Temple. And, the original article lacked the heading, too.

Calling the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

And others which aren't. As I'm sure you noticed.

Sorry - you first. As it is, I haven't kept track of all these things. Not all of Brigham's discourses are available online, but I remember them as I read them. Feel free to call me a liar, though.

Pam, That doesn't touch anything I'm saying either. Once again, I agree masturbation is a sin.

That does not mean that masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity.

He didn't say anything about anything I'm talking about.

I hold that the Law of Chastity is not properly interpreted to pertain to your self-contradictory notion of "intrapersonal relations." That concept is literally nonsense.