Grunt

You absolutely are advocating for masturbation. You’re saying it isn’t harmful. You’re insinuating the church has changed its position. You’re stating it’s normal. You should stop.

Easy now. I didn’t say I wasn’t, then or now, a foolish man. I just said I had no issues on that subject.

😳

I never had a hypocritical view. I always understood males are different than females.

I’d rather drive pencils in my ears.

Again, you’re lying. That manual is still there. Age has nothing to do with it. Nothing has been said to change it. A “less forceful statement” doesn’t mean less true. Fair Mormon agrees. https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2013/01/02/fair-questions-4-whats-wrong-with-masturbation

Some days I feel like a fake Sunday School teacher.

It IS very clear cut. You're lying when you say it isn't. https://www.lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-5?lang=eng You won't quote the specific text due to the graphic nature of it, but any honest person can find it. It is the epitome of cut and dry. There are plenty of other examples, too.

You know, like any one of THESE examples of you asking essentially the same question and the responses to it.

You're like the evil inner voice whispering in people's ear "just do it. It's ok. It's "technically" not a sin. Only in this case I gave a specific reference to establish exactly what I was talking about.

It wasn't discussed because it's a ridiculous discussion that any honest LDS understands. You did, however, try to have the argument by tossing around the exact same argument using various other body parts. You know that, though. You're just wordsmithing again.

That's awesome. I'd be really proud, too. I love seeing little sparks in my kids, too. They're already talking about their baptism.

I guess I meant not just in relation to movies, but with regard to all things. There seems to be many threads that are negative or about negative topics that seem supportive of bad behavior. It really just might be me.

Has this always been the case and I'm just noticing it? In the last week or so I seem to have been overwhelmed with cases of this. Maybe I should start a more appropriate thread.

The record was straight. You start with a short statement, then provide a mountain of justification against it. Again, you play with words. He asked if it was specifically spelled out or just understood. The answer is yes, it is specifically spelled out AND understood. Period.

I don't think it's a flaw in the argument as much as it is differing standards. Vort's standards seem to set the bar much lower than you. If it's an "R", he knows it's not for him. No need to even waste time with it. You seem to be more of a "I'm OK with some of this stuff, so let me judge for myself". I don't know that one is right or wrong. I just think you seem to be discussing something you'll never agree on because you're judging it with different standards.

Sure. And instead of giving a factual answer that “yes, we are specifically told to avoid this behavior”, you do a pseudo tap dance to suggest it’s OK.

We’re specially counseled not to do it. Period. Lots of people try to twist words to justify ignoring the Apostles but that’s all they’re doing, twisting words. Sure you do. That’s what you’ve repeatedly done. You’re the guy that talks his buddy into throwing a rock first so he can feign innocence. It wouldn’t be the least bit interesting to me to find out who ignores the counsel of the men called of God.

We are specifically cautioned not to.

You’re a wordsmith. It amazes me the lengths you go to justify obviously inappropriate behavior.

Does the rating really matter? It’s just an easy guideline. Does it feed your soul and please the Holy Spirit? If yes, who cares what the rating is. If no, why are we watching it? There are rated G movies that normalize homosexuality.

I’m amazed at some of the attitudes members put up with. I accept that I likely just don’t understand.

I don’t get this whole “fake friends” attitude. We’re all brothers and sisters on Earth for the same purpose. Being LDS is all you NEED to have in common with them. You made the choice to come and receive a mortal body. I can’t imagine that the choice didn’t include a sincere desire to help each other endure to the end. In my opinion, the very flaw in your plan is the premise upon which is based. You’re not as social and have few interactions outside of church. What about the brother that doesn’t even come to church anymore? Are they any less worthy of support? I believe they need us MORE. That brother likely has zero interactions with the priesthood to recharge his batteries. That interaction doesn’t need to be a lesson. It can be dropping off cookies with a note, knocking on the door, then walking away. That person knows he may have walked away from the church, but we haven’t walked away from him and will be here when he needs us. Im probably so new that I’m not jaded yet, but yesterday I told a counselor I’m friends with that I WANT the families nobody wants. I WANT the brother who came once, got baptized, then disappeared. I still think I can save the world. Even though I’m a pretty grumpy loaner, I think I can be a friend to someone whether they need it or not. Without assignments, the people who need it most wont get it.

It’s a pretty ridiculous scenario. In my experience, people only use ridiculous scenarios when they want to use the emotion evoked from them to carry a much less obvious point to an unpopular or improper solution.

We haven't discussed it at all in my ward.