log2

You are strictly incorrect on both counts. Masturbation per se has never been taught to be a violation of the Law of Chastity; certainly it is not in the canonized teachings of the Church as such. As a historical matter, in fact, the subject of Brother Brigham's so-called "blood atonement" preaching was violations of the Law of Chastity, and he was exceedingly clear as to what that meant to him.

It's not a justification - it is simply using the definitions of words to clear up misconceptions about what is being talked about. Bearing false witness by misrepresenting someone's position, however, is against the commandments.

The topic that you and I are discussing - "Is masturbation (of oneself) a violation of the Law of Chastity?" - is completely untouched by your source. I am also going to add that I am deeply confused as to why there is any opposition to the position that I've outlined. As a matter of history and definitions, I am clearly correct. Neither am I justifying wickedness - so whence cometh the opposition?

Which, of course, does not address the topic of discussion.

When Mormonwiki is canonized, my position might change.

It falls under "unholy and impure practices," along with other activities which I'm sure many, if not most, married couples engage in. There is no explicit commandment against it. Neither, for example, is there an explicit commandment against mocha ice cream.

Masturbation (definition 1, in context) does not violate the Law of Chastity. As I said, "Masturbation is not against the law of chastity. It is, however, an unholy and impure practice."

What part of relations is so difficult to understand?

That would be sexual relations, by definition. That would be sexual relations, by definition. Aliens from Mars are possible, too. De gustibus non disputandum est.

The prior versions of the Law of Chastity were explicit on what was being spoken about: having sexual intercourse with someone other than one's spouse; as it is, it still clearly retains the same meaning. As masturbation is neither intercourse, nor relations, by any definition, it does not meet the standard of the Law of Chastity.

Masturbation is not against the law of chastity. It is, however, an unholy and impure practice.

Um, not to derail, but did anyone see THIS one? Dentist pulls ex's teeth: America can resist the story - latimes.com

Well, tonight, my son comes up to me and says he's got an owie on his "cussing finger." I went ahead and kissed his knuckle while laughing. I asked him who taught him that, because I'd never heard it called the "cussing finger," and he said it's just his word for it.

There is no arguing religion with me. I will tell someone directly why I am LDS. Once they hear that explanation, they never bring up the subject again. Such is the power of pure testimony.

1 d0n't n0 w4t u r t41k1n' 'b0ut, w1ll15. ch1ll4x, br0.

I was thinking about making a compilation of Narcocorridos tunes for commuting, and titling it "Music to drive-by".

My pet peeve is pet peeves.

Well, me and the kids are very literal-minded. Lacking a specific context, I answered the milk question as it appeared - oopsie! But my daughter's response was just too good to miss.

Kids are great, aren’t they? And sometimes, they take things so literally. Once my daughter came up to me and asked “Dad, am I supposed to eat this blanket?” How do you, as a parent, respond to that? “Why would you even ask that question?” What would YOU have asked? She replied “Because the tag on it says ‘not to be removed except by consumer’.” I’m so glad I was around to answer her before she got too close a look at her bed mattress. And my son asks me where milk comes from. Gosh, ‘tis the season of awkward questions. “Well, girl mammals’ bodies make milk from the food in their blood to feed the babies who can’t eat real food because they don’t have teeth.” “Where does the milk in the fridge come from?” “That comes from cows.” Then… “Oh, I thought it was human milk. What does human milk taste like?” “It’s super yummy!” “Can we get some human milk?” “They don’t sell human milk in the store…” My daughter got a very concerned look on her face about then, and said “Dad, you are not milking me ever!” My son says Slim Jims taste like hot dog flavored wood. And, for an unrelated joke (pun intended): Lawyers are like guns. You want to hold one in front of you during a gun fight.

Where's the "groan" button?

No it isn't! They're finally going to admit their love to each other this time, and they'll live happily ever after! You'll see!

Tru dat. I get free cable, including the premiums, and I only turn the tv on maybe once a month. Anything I like to watch I catch on Hulu, as indicated on my "favorite shows" thread. I want spiritually nourishing stuff, really, and unfortunately the BYU channel is extremely boring to me, so that's the end of that. I also have found that most movies aren't worth watching even the first time, let alone multiple times, because of a combination of offensive elements, or sheer vacuity.

Ether 12:27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. 2 Nephi 2:29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

I read the citations, visiting first the definitions, saw what was going on, and reported it. There is opposition in all things, after all - the mere existence of opposition does not discredit anything. Obviously, those definitions are not shared by all professionals in those fields, and neither are the professionals the arbiters of reality; the research and experience depends critically upon defintions - you choose yours, I choose mine. Fight! While engaging in homosexual behavior, which quite contradicts their words. Self-identification as a homosexual is neither necessary nor sufficient to define an individual as a homosexual. Self-identification as a heterosexual is likewise neither necessary nor sufficient to define an individual as a heterosexual. If someone is willing to self-identify as a homosexual, however, I'm willing to grant they just might be. Nobody ever said it was necessary. It is likewise not necessary to wear a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle; wearing a seatbelt will, however, prevent injuries otherwise foreseeably likely to occur in certain circumstances. If only it could be demonstrated to be false information; as it stands, we agree upon the sufficiency of the Oath as justification for the exclusion. As I noted, you've picked your biased experts, and I am listening to other biased experts; and, I also said, "if it is the case..." Postpubescent same-sex sexual molestation is a concern in Scouting as well as prepubescent same-sex sexual molestation. I'm curious if it can be statistically shown that self-identifying heterosexuals are just as likely, on average, to engage in it, and whether that might have any bearing on this discussion. I noted your sources shy away from that issue... hmm.

You're welcome. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance in doing so again. If only I ever said that. It's not just your professional credibility I question. As an aside, I wonder if the picture changes for you if we throw pederasty into the mix, as well as statutory rape. After all, once they hit puberty or 13, whichever is first, pedophilia is not the sole issue, is it?