log2

As I said, I agree it is a sin.

That wasn't what I was responding to, and you know it. Brigham taught violations of the Law of Chastity make Sons of Perdition out of endowed members. If masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, then it too must make Sons of Perdition out of endowed members. So, are you able to find even a single prophet - either modern or ancient - who said masturbation makes Sons of Perdition out of endowed members? No?

That's a simple statement of your personal taste (opinion), and, as has already been covered, de gustibus non disputandum est.

The prophet has nowhere said "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity." If he had, we'd not be having this conversation.

Can you find even a single one who said masturbation qualifies one to be a Son of Perdition?

The phrase is not an insult - various means "several", and sundry means "diverse".

It has already been given. That you don't like it, and don't have a cogent response, is hardly my problem.

I said much the same already.

Then you have issues far beyond those I can help you with, unfortunately. I am relying on the actual statement of the Law of Chastity, and the agreed-upon meanings of the words involved in its statement. If you want to hold me responsible for the opinions of various and sundry Brethren, then I must ask: do you wish me to likewise hold your feet to the fire by using the Brethren's views on evolution, the age of the earth, the literal Adam and Eve, the Fall, Noah and the worldwide flood, Lot's wife, Jonah in the whale, and such like explicit, canonized teachings? No? Then maybe you had best not act the hypocrite on this issue. If it makes you feel better to say that, then I hope you feel better now. While you saying that doesn't change reality, I can appreciate what counter-factual self-pep-talks can do for one's ego.

I think in the day of judgement you will find that the unrepentant will have far more than masturbation to justify. Your question presumes too much. Nobody has said masturbation isn't a sin. What has been said is that it is not a violation of the Law of Chastity. The Law of Chastity, let me remind you, was the subject of Brigham's "blood atonement" preaching. He was extremely clear on what he was talking about - adultery and fornication. These are the kinds of thing that makes Sons of Perdition out of endowed members, if you believe Brigham. Would you say the unrepentant masturbator - if masturbation is, however improbably, the sole sin someone is guilty of - is a Son of Perdition, out of curiosity?

You bear the burden of proof. You can dispute this, but the formal statement of the Law of Chastity, as I have already observed, contemplates solely interpersonal relations. Period. Full stop. Therefore, I am justified on the face of things in asserting that the Law of Chastity pertains solely to interpersonal relations. Period. Full stop. There is no demonstrable bridge from "interpersonal relations" to "intrapersonal relations" - which phrase is self-contradictory in any event. That's the sole reasoning employed, and the sole reasoning required.

Unless you wish to be held to the same standard, you show wisdom in leaving well enough alone. I said it wasn't reasonable. I'm sorry if my oblique manner of saying that was difficult to parse for you. Neither do I think the WoW covers cold drinks. Some people think THAT is a reasonable inference... go figure.

If you think that's what I was saying, then maybe it was actually an awfully ugly way of saying "your observation draws a distinction which makes literally no difference." Well, gee, if we free words from their definitions, then maybe yes means no, and the world goes topsy-turvy. I'm kind of fond of being able to say "interpersonal does not equal intrapersonal," myself, so losing that capability would seem to weaken any arguments which depend upon that distinction. Or, as that one guy said on Law and Order: "I concede your point. If things were different they wouldn't be the same."

Ah, I see Pam changed her post after I'd responded. No, I'm not trying to make the board less orthodox.

No, I'm not trying to change it. I understand it to be orthodox, and that's really enough for me at this point. As I spend more time here, getting to understand your personalities, I am finding that it's actually more orthodox, really, than Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. Ah, that was early on in my examination of this board. Please excuse my poorly informed first impression of you.

In any event, it is the only one we've got. I humbly beg to be allowed to differ from you in this opinion of yours.

Where have I ever said otherwise?

My point is that if someone has a problem with masturbation, they actually have another problem that is being ignored or justified, which, if fixed, will lead to the fixing of the masturbation problem too.

The truth harms nobody. I am a firm disbeliever in the notion of the "noble lie." If the Lord directs me otherwise, I will do otherwise, but until then, things are what they are. Incidentally, you'll find upon examination that masturbation is a symptom of other problems in a person's spiritual life.

Pam, I am a parent in Zion with two young children of my own. If you want to know what I shall tell them, I shall tell them to follow all the injunctions in the FTSOY pamphlet. I will not necessarily endorse the reasoning behind the injunctions.

I have noticed. However, unless and until it can be shown that the Law of Chastity, of necessity, incorporates a prohibition against self-gratification - and that is impossible, because the formal statement of the Law of Chastity considers only interpersonal relationships - then that's it. On the other hand, you might make a case that masturbation is a violation of the Word of Wisdom - that would be an interesting route to take.

You cannot be serious in affecting to not understand the thrust of my charge of tu quoque. Neither has "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity" ever been a doctrine.

I'm sorry - the argument I'm engaged in here is proving that MOE is hypocritically appealing to common beliefs in the Church, while excusing himself from common beliefs in the Church. The official doctrines of the Church consist in that which has been canonized, and I my argument is perfectly sound on those grounds (combined with a dictionary).

To catch some of the exceptions that others have noted in previous posts about sexual relations between people that fall short of intercourse. The simplest explanation, you see, is usually the correct one. I am aware that there are traditions of the fathers in the Church. Now, however, let's play a game of tu quoque: shall we discuss the teachings of the brethren with respect to Darwinian evolution, or any of a host of other interesting topics, and see if you, personally, part company with them over these issues?

If directly asked if masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, I would say (and, in fact, have publicly said) it is not. I would also say that masturbation is a sin, and one ought not do any such things, and I would give some (to my mind) compelling reasons why it ought to be avoided.