Seriousness of masturbation?

[Feathertail]

So that's the way we should think, huh? "Look, God, I'm a wifebeating rapist who enjoys torturing small animals. If I'm an enemy to you, it's because <sob> YOU JUST WON'T ACCEPT ME FOR WHO I AM!!!"

Nah. I don't think so.

I'm afraid that you're putting words in my beak there. And from my experience, the reality is the other way around. I was at my cruelest when I thought I was following the prophet, as was my abusive father. I let him guide me instead of my conscience, and said terrible things to people that I now feel ashamed of.

And therefore...what? Masturbation is healthy because Feathertail likes it?

I'm okay with it if you think it's unhealthy. I'm not okay with raising kids to think they'll be separated from their families in the eternities because they touch themselves. It's one of the cruelest things I can imagine.

Awesome. Wifebeaters and child molesters, rejoice! Feathertail loves you!

I wanted to raise my hand in Sacrament meeting to oppose the sustaining of a youth leader the kids called "Brother Molestes" and other crude names. But I was sheltered and autistic, and didn't know what those names meant. And I had been raised in a culture where it was almost unheard of to speak out against callings for any reason.

Because of my blind conformity, and being unsure of my own feelings, they didn't find out for years until that man was finally arrested. I'm just glad that he never touched me.

How is your opinion on addiction relevant? Shall we also believe you when you tell us that you don't believe alcoholism is an addiction?

Please stop putting words in my beak.

2 Nephi 2 says no such thing.

I'm sorry, I don't remember which chapter and verse it was that said that god is god because he is good, and not the other way around. At any rate, I don't believe in worshiping any god who would hurt me or someone else.

Exactly. God is God only so long as he doesn't require us to do something that might be uncomfortable. Everyone knows that God will never tell us to do something we find painful. And growth is painful. What kind of cruel God might require us to grow?!

I am okay with doing uncomfortable things to help others. I'm not okay with telling others they're not okay if they aren't like me, and ignoring how miserable they get when they try. If your god's plan is a plan of happiness, there are many people that it's failing, and I feel it's wrong for them to blame themselves.

[Feathertail]

I'll just throw in that the Church's position on the matter is not exactly clear, let alone set in stone. I don't recall ever seeing an official statement from the Church about masturbation, and different bishops seem to have different opinions on the matter. Some think it's a sin and renders a person unworthy to partake of the sacrament, go to the temple, etc. Others think it's a sin, but not very serious. Yet other bishops don't think it's a sin at all, and only problematic if it starts disrupting the person's life.

I put this in the same category as claiming that Coca Cola is against the Word of Wisdom. Many people claim it is, but that's not what the Church actually says.

There was the infamous "little factory" talk, which one of my bishops printed out for me. Tellingly, it's been removed from lds.org's archives. I don't recall LDS church leaders ever formally recanting it.

[Feathertail]

Not that I'm aware of.

I do find it curious how much you think you know about "my church", when in reality you seem to have a tenuous grasp (at best) on the fundamentals of my Church's teachings.

I belonged to your church for nineteen years, not counting the eight after I was born in the covenant. I attended both Seminary and Institute for years. If you feel that I misremembered something, please tell me.

In this case, I was referring to the plan of happiness, and the idea that following your god is the best way to be happy in this life or the world to come. Even keeping in mind the concept of "trials," though, I feel it is blaming the victim to tell someone to keep (metaphorically) wringing blood from a stone.

[HEthePrimate]

There was the infamous "little factory" talk, which one of my bishops printed out for me. Tellingly, it's been removed from lds.org's archives. I don't recall LDS church leaders ever formally recanting it.

Ach, how could I have forgotten! Still, there is a difference between a General Authority talk/publication and official church doctrine. And like you said, the Church seems to be quietly letting it fall by the wayside.

There's also the guide to overcoming masturbation often attributed to Mark E. Peterson, though the authorship is in question, and as far as I know the Church has never published that one. For a discussion, see the Mormon Expression podcast: Episode 132: Mark E. Petersen’s Steps in Overcoming Masturbation

I'm an active member, but it seems to me there are far more important things to focus on than whether or not Brother So-and-So is "arguing with Henry Longfellow."

Edited June 28, 2011 by HEthePrimate

[Vort]

I'm afraid that you're putting words in my beak there.

Not really. You are the one claiming that God must accept us for "who we are". I was simply taking that position to its logical conclusion.

And from my experience, the reality is the other way around. I was at my cruelest when I thought I was following the prophet, as was my abusive father. I let him guide me instead of my conscience, and said terrible things to people that I now feel ashamed of.

I see. So your cruelty and ill treatment of others is...the Church's fault. Right?

I'm okay with it if you think it's unhealthy. I'm not okay with raising kids to think they'll be separated from their families in the eternities because they touch themselves. It's one of the cruelest things I can imagine.

You don't have a particularly active imagination, do you?

I wanted to raise my hand in Sacrament meeting to oppose the sustaining of a youth leader the kids called "Brother Molestes" and other crude names. But I was sheltered and autistic, and didn't know what those names meant.

Then why did you want to oppose him?

Because of my blind conformity, and being unsure of my own feelings, they didn't find out for years until that man was finally arrested. I'm just glad that he never touched me.

Certainly.

So whose fault was your "blind conformity"?

Please stop putting words in my beak.

You mean, stop taking your utterances to their logical conclusion?

I'm sorry, I don't remember which chapter and verse it was that said that god is god because he is good, and not the other way around.

So let me understand this. You were LDS until the age of 27, yet you claim that the Book of Mormon teaches something that it does not teach, but you just can't seem to recall exactly where it says that?

I am okay with doing uncomfortable things to help others. I'm not okay with telling others they're not okay if they aren't like me, and ignoring how miserable they get when they try.

Who's putting words in someone's "beak" now, Feathertail?

If your god's plan is a plan of happiness, there are many people that it's failing, and I feel it's wrong for them to blame themselves.

When the rescue boat comes but people refuse to get on board, whose fault is it? "That rescue boat is FALSE! It's too much work to have to cross over to it! What a bunch of hooey!"

Okay, whatever.

[Guest saintish]

I fall more toward HEthePrimate on this discussion, I see nothing wrong with occasional masturbation other than it has been deemed a sin. There are NO physical or emotional consequences. The ONLY consequence would be not following the council of the prophets (or general authorities actually). I also agree with Feathertail there is to much guilt and shame pilled on to this particular sin. Heck its being equated to wife beating and rape for crying out loud. and I HATE how it is always lumped in with addiction. Just because one masturbates does not mean someone is addicted to it.

[Vort]

There was the infamous "little factory" talk, which one of my bishops printed out for me. Tellingly, it's been removed from lds.org's archives.

I think you are telling a falsehood. Please demonstrate that it has been removed from the archives.

Ach, how could I have forgotten! Still, there is a difference between a General Authority talk/publication and official church doctrine. And like you said, the Church seems to be quietly letting it fall by the wayside.

How so? Because it's not mentioned at every session of General Conference?

[Feathertail]

Ach, how could I have forgotten! Still, there is a difference between a General Authority talk/publication and official church doctrine. And like you said, the Church seems to be quietly letting it fall by the wayside.

There's also the guide to overcoming masturbation often attributed to Mark E. Peterson, though the authorship is in question, and as far as I know the Church has never published that one. For a discussion, see the Mormon Expression podcast: Episode 132: Mark E. Petersen’s Steps in Overcoming Masturbation

I'm an active member, but it seems to me there are far more important things to focus on than whether or not Brother So-and-So is "arguing with Henry Longfellow."

Would that more were like you.

I think the prohibition on porn goes along with this, though. Pornography is a masturbation aid, so by preaching against the one they're kind of preaching against the other. It helps that in most people's minds "pornography" means mainstream, dirty, disrespectful stuff, sorta like how "video games" means Duke Nukem Forever to them.

So they're okay with getting rid of that stuff. And meanwhile For The Strength of Youth says "If it turns you on, turn it off" and makes their kids feel guilty for so much as looking at girls in bathing suits on their beach trips. Or reading PG-rated furry webcomics, my secret shame while growing up Mormon.

And, of course, there's the fact that bishops tend to see shame as a sign of unresolved sin. So the guilt-wracked autistic kid who reads those webcomics must be doing some serious stuff, while friendly, outgoing Brother Molestes becomes the Young Men's leader.

[Vort]

I fall more toward HEthePrimate on this discussion, I see nothing wrong with occasional masturbation other than it has been deemed a sin.

So other than it being sinful, there is nothing wrong with it.

There are NO physical or emotional consequences.

How can you possibly demonstrate this assertion?

Just because one masturbates does not mean someone is addicted to it.

Just because some are not addicted to masturbation does not mean others are not.

[Feathertail]

I think you are telling a falsehood. Please demonstrate that it has been removed from the archives.

Yo.

How so? Because it's not mentioned at every session of General Conference?

This is an important point, everyone. Because they stopped mentioning it, people like HEtheprimate feel comfortable thinking it's not a big deal. Meanwhile, because they mentioned it at one time people like Vort feel comfortable railing at others for doing it.

As I said in my last post, though, I think the reaming men get over porn counts as condemning masturbation.

[Guest saintish]

So other than it being sinful, there is nothing wrong with it.

Just like shopping on sunday or not paying tithing, if G_d hadn't commanded it it wouldn't be wrong.

How can you possibly demonstrate this assertion?

Because it is the opinion of 99% of all health care professionals.

just because some are not addicted to masturbation does not mean others are not.

so if someone is addicted to shopping does that mean that no one should be allowed to go to malls?

[HEthePrimate]

I also agree with Feathertail there is to much guilt and shame pilled on to this particular sin. Heck its being equated to wife beating and rape for crying out loud.

Holy mackerel! I haven't read every post in this thread--maybe it's a good thing I didn't, for that kind of stuff is waaaay over the top!

and I HATE how it is always lumped in with addiction. Just because one masturbates does not mean someone is addicted to it.

Agreed. While it is possible to become addicted to masturbation, just doing it sometimes doesn't mean it's an addiction.

[Vort]

I think you are telling a falsehood. Please demonstrate that it has been removed from the archives.

Yo.

Yo yourself. This demonstrates only that the talk is not found on LDS.org. It does not demonstrate your assertion, that it has been removed from the archives.

This is an important point, everyone. Because they stopped mentioning it, people like HEtheprimate feel comfortable thinking it's not a big deal. Meanwhile, because they mentioned it at one time people like Vort feel comfortable railing at others for doing it.

Indeed, this is an important point, everyone. Feathertail has made yet another baseless and false charge.

Feathertail, demonstrate where I have ever railed on anyone over masturbating.

[HEthePrimate]

And, of course, there's the fact that bishops tend to see shame as a sign of unresolved sin. So the guilt-wracked autistic kid who reads those webcomics must be doing some serious stuff, while friendly, outgoing Brother Molestes becomes the Young Men's leader.

It doesn't occur to some people that telling kids they should feel shame for something is what causes the shame. A Jehovah's Witness kid might feel shame for celebrating Christmas, but that doesn't mean celebrating Christmas is actually sinful.

[Feathertail]

Not really. You are the one claiming that God must accept us for "who we are". I was simply taking that position to its logical conclusion.

Beating up on other people doesn't constitute accepting them for who they are. I consider that abusive and do not support it.

Then why did you want to oppose him?

Because I knew the kids were rude and crude around him, and I didn't think it was right for an adult leader to encourage that. But I decided the Bishop must have known better than me when he called him, after years of lessons where we were taught to sustain our leaders, no matter what. And years of sitting through Ward Business sessions where nobody ever opposed.

You mean, stop taking your utterances to their logical conclusion?

Would it be "taking things to their logical conslusion" to call child molesters in charge of the Young Men's program the logical conclusion of obeying authority and doubting your conscience?

So let me understand this. You were LDS until the age of 27, yet you claim that the Book of Mormon teaches something that it does not teach, but you just can't seem to recall exactly where it says that?

I think I was remembering the parts in Alma where he talked about how justice can't rob mercy, because "If so, God would cease to be God." I guess it left an impression on me, this idea that God wasn't the highest authority; the justice and mercy were greater than he was, and he had to behave in accordance with both in order to maintain his divinity.

I don't feel that a god that doesn't is worthy of my worship, either.

Who's putting words in someone's "beak" now, Feathertail?

I'm talking about the way that I felt growing up, knowing where I would go when I died. Feeling ashamed in every General Conference talk about pornography. Trying and trying and failing, and remembering being able to succeed that one time and knowing that it must be my fault that I can't anymore.

When the rescue boat comes but people refuse to get on board, whose fault is it? "That rescue boat is FALSE! It's too much work to have to cross over to it! What a bunch of hooey!"

Okay, whatever.

I tried to get in. I tried so hard. I hated myself that I couldn't.

I see. So your cruelty and ill treatment of others is...the Church's fault. Right?

I'm basically saying I acted like you, and did things like gave flippant responses to the idea of kids being taught that they'll be separated from their families for all of eternity because they can't stop touching themselves. Or call it "taking things to their logical conclusion" to burn down straw birds shaped like me, instead of asking me what I believe.

You're being mean and nasty. It is rude and uncalled-for.

[Feathertail]

Yo yourself. This demonstrates only that the talk is not found on LDS.org. It does not demonstrate your assertion, that it has been removed from the archives.

By "archives," I meant LDS.org's archive of church talks and magazine articles. Which is where I thought one would naturally go to find a church talk or article online. Does it even occur to you to ask why it is not there anymore?

Indeed, this is an important point, everyone. Feathertail has made yet another baseless and false charge.

Feathertail, demonstrate where I have ever railed on anyone over masturbating.

I don't know, does accusing me of supporting alcoholism on account of I think masturbating is healthy and natural count?

[Vort]

By "archives," I meant LDS.org's archive of church talks and magazine articles. Which is where I thought one would naturally go to find a church talk or article online. Does it even occur to you to ask why it is not there anymore?

Does it even occur to you that maybe it was never there in the first place? You accused the Church of "removing" something, obviously indicating that the Church was somehow renouncing the teaching by quietly doing away with the evidence. I say you are wrong. I do not believe that the Church removed Elder Packer's talk. You claimed it did. Now substantiate your claim, or withdraw your false assertion.

Feathertail, demonstrate where I have ever railed on anyone over masturbating.

I don't know, does accusing me of supporting alcoholism on account of I think masturbating is healthy and natural count?

No. Demonstrate your false claim, that I have railed on people over masturbating. I say your claim is a lie. You made the assertion; back it up.

[Vort]

Beating up on other people doesn't constitute accepting them for who they are. I consider that abusive and do not support it.

Nor did I say it did. Rather, I pointed out that rapists and child molesters are who some people are. If you believe God should accept us for who we are, then clearly God must also accept the rapists and child molesters for who they are.

Would it be "taking things to their logical conslusion" to call child molesters in charge of the Young Men's program the logical conclusion of obeying authority and doubting your conscience?

No. But it would be taking things to their logical conclusion to say that someone who insists that God "accept us for who we are" also must logically insist that God accept the rapists and child molesters among us for who they are.

I think I was remembering the parts in Alma where he talked about how justice can't rob mercy, because "If so, God would cease to be God." I guess it left an impression on me, this idea that God wasn't the highest authority; the justice and mercy were greater than he was, and he had to behave in accordance with both in order to maintain his divinity.

So you have a certain personal gloss of that scripture. That's fine; we all do such things. But that does not mean that your gloss actually reflects the scripture's meaning.

I'm talking about the way that I felt growing up, knowing where I would go when I died. Feeling ashamed in every General Conference talk about pornography. Trying and trying and failing, and remembering being able to succeed that one time and knowing that it must be my fault that I can't anymore.

So you felt that way, and therefore...what? You are now authorized to level false charges against the Church or other people?

I'm basically saying I acted like you

Oooh. Burn on me.

and did things like gave flippant responses to the idea of kids being taught that they'll be separated from their families for all of eternity because they can't stop touching themselves. Or call it "taking things to their logical conclusion" to burn down straw birds shaped like me, instead of asking me what I believe.

You are the one making false assertions, Feathertail. Now you're all pissy at me because I actually point out the falsity of your claims. Maybe you should worry more about thinking through what you write and less about playing the part of the angry young bird.

You're being mean and nasty. It is rude and uncalled-for.

Who's the one making false claims about the other, Feathertail? I still await proof of your previous charge against me.

[Feathertail]

Does it even occur to you that maybe it was never there in the first place? You accused the Church of "removing" something, obviously indicating that the Church was somehow renouncing the teaching by quietly doing away with the evidence. I say you are wrong. I do not believe that the Church removed Elder Packer's talk. You claimed it did. Now substantiate your claim, or withdraw your false assertion.

I tried to look it up on archive.org, but library.lds.org's robots.txt file blocks archive.org from indexing it.

The talk, "To Young Men Only," came from the October, 1976 session of General Conference. The conference archives from that year are listed, but Packer's talk is not there.

No. Demonstrate your false claim, that I have railed on people over masturbating. I say your claim is a lie. You made the assertion; back it up.

I assert that you're railing on me right now.

[Vort]

It doesn't occur to some people that telling kids they should feel shame for something is what causes the shame.

Just as it doesn't occur to some people that without telling kids they should feel shame for something, the kids would never feel shame for anything.

[Vort]

I assert that you're railing on me right now.

If I am, I am railing on you over your lies, not over your masturbating. Now back up your false claim.

[Feathertail]

Vort, you are a piece of slime, and you are all the proof any thinking person would need to know that your church is abusive. Go to Hell.

[Backroads]

Just as it doesn't occur to some people that without telling kids they should feel shame for something, the kids would never feel shame for anything.

I agree with this. I do believe shame is a taught thing, and I think it's good that we as a society teach what you can feel shame over. It's part of maturity. The only seeable alternative is to instigate Lord of the Flies.

While I remain in the boat of "masturbation is not as serious a sin as other sexual sins" I'm pretty much otherwise with Vort on this.

Feathertail, this past conversation seems to have been based on the assumption that your experience with the Church is the only true and valid one. You viewed a scripture a certain way: suddenly, there is no other way to interpret it.

As far as I saw, there was no comparison of masturbation to rape and child abuse. The only such thing I saw was in response to a line declaring that we should all do as we please based on what is natural to us. It was not about masturbation: it's about the self-control everyone is expected to develop. Feathertail, I highly doubt you have gone with "what comes naturally" in every step of your life.

[Backroads]

Moderator removed

Actually, any thinkinger person would notice all the fallacies in your statement.

You based the policy of the church on your opinion of one person.

You acted in a moment of passion.

You gave no evidence to support this other than what was subjective.

For your claim to be valid, as any thinking person would expect, you would have to prove that the Church encourages physical/emotional abuse to a level that most professionals would agree with and that all members of the Church are abusive.

Edited June 28, 2011 by skippy740
Moderator edit of quote

[Connie]

"Do not arouse those emotions in your own body." -quoted in For the Strength of Youth and also in the new Gospel Principles manual, chapter 39. One could also do a quick search on "masturbation" at lds.org to see the church's official position. I think they make it very clear what the Lord thinks of such behavior.