Seriousness of masturbation?


dear_john
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest saintish

FYI this would be what I consider the churches "official" position

One example: masturbation is considered by many in the world to be the harmless expression of an instinctive sex drive. Teach your children that the prophets have condemned it as a sin throughout the ages and that they can choose not to do it. Throughout childhood, boys and girls have touched their own genitals frequently to wash and to dress. This is a behavior that usually has the same meaning as keeping one’s feet warm in the winter, enjoying a swim on a hot day, or scratching an itch. We ought to be friendly to our bodies and appreciate the body’s marvelous range of senses. This innocent touching is not the kind of behavior warned against by prophets through the ages. The sin of masturbation occurs when a person stimulates his or her own sex organs for the purpose of sexual arousal. It is a perversion of the body’s passions. When we pervert these passions and intentionally use them for selfish, immoral purposes, we become carnal.

Masturbation is not physically necessary. There is already a way by which the male system relieves excessive spermatic fluid quite regularly through the nocturnal emission or wet dream. Monthly menstrual flow expels the female’s egg and cleanses the womb. For both sexes, physical or emotional tensions can be released by vigorous activity. Thus, in a biological sense, masturbation for either gender is not necessary. In a gospel sense, it is a sin: “Masturbation, a rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of His Church regardless of what may have been said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower. Latter-day Saints are urged to avoid this practice” (Spencer W. Kimball, Love Versus Lust, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo, 5 Jan. 1965], p. 22).

A Parent’s Guide Chapter 5: Teaching Adolescents: from Twelve to Eighteen Years

And I am not afraid to say that I don't nessisarily agree with all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Yes, but it would help if they taught their children to feel shame for something that is actually wrong. Don't just pick some random thing to make them feel shame for, or they'll never know the difference between right and wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI this would be what I consider the churches "official" position

And I am not afraid to say that I don't nessisarily agree with all of it.

So it's not that the church has no specific position, it's that you don't agree with it. Those are very different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's not that the church has no specific position, it's that you don't agree with it. Those are very different things.

Can't speak for saintish, but I will speak for myself when I say that I honestly did not think that the Church had an official position. Saintish has shown me that maybe it does, but even if it does, I don't necessarily agree with it. Maybe I'm a heretic, but "I yam what I yam."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

So it's not that the church has no specific position, it's that you don't agree with it. Those are very different things.

I don't believe I ever said the church doesn't have a position. I can't help it if I disagree with this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe I ever said the church doesn't have a position. I can't help it if I disagree with this matter.

I had your posts confused with the primate's. My mistake. I disagree that you "can't" help it, but that's not really my matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but it would help if they taught their children to feel shame for something that is actually wrong. Don't just pick some random thing to make them feel shame for, or they'll never know the difference between right and wrong.

Masturbation is not "some random thing". It has been specifically addressed by our prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe I ever said the church doesn't have a position. I can't help it if I disagree with this matter.

Hmmm.

No, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I feel quite confident that you can help it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I have made my own worthless opinion on the topic pretty clear. It doesn't particularly bother me that someone holds a different opinion from me. It bothers me only slightly that someone doesn't back up their opinion with a reasoned argument, and perhaps slightly more that they will ignore a reasoned argument rebutting their opinion. (Yes, I know I used the "singular they" in reference to the nonspecific "someone". So did Jane Austen. Deal with it.)

What really gets my goat is when people attack the Church, its leaders, or its members, individually or as a group, because of their beliefs (or the wrong perception of their beliefs). And when such attacks come from Latter-day Saints, the disloyalty and hypocrisy gall me.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

See, I am all for loyalty, sustaining the prophets, etc. But I think it is a dangerous proposition when someone (especially a member) tell someone else that they are disloyal, "attacking" or a hypocrite for sharing what they honestly think feel and believe. I consider that a personal attack and take great offense. It is tantamount to saying that we must blindly follow the prophets or in this case the general authorities, without any consideration or thought on our part. It is for that very reason that so many of our detractors consider us a cult and brainwashed. No thank you, I choose to think for myself with the guidance of the spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I am all for loyalty, sustaining the prophets, etc. But I think it is a dangerous proposition when someone (especially a member) tell someone else that they are disloyal, "attacking" or a hypocrite for sharing what they honestly think feel and believe.

Can you share what "honestly think feel and believe" have to do with anything? For example, If I "honestly think feel and believe" that Thomas Monson is a liar and a fraud, how does it being my honest opinion change the fact that it is disloyal and hypocritical?

I consider that a personal attack and take great offense.

Coincidentally, many of us feel that way about unsubstantiated and poorly reasoned attacks on Church doctrine or policy.

It is tantamount to saying that we must blindly follow the prophets or in this case the general authorities, without any consideration or thought on our part.

How so? How is decrying disloyalty and hypocrisy equivalent to saying we should not think?

It is for that very reason that so many of our detractors consider us a cult and brainwashed.

Then perhaps "so many of our detractors" should pull their heads out of their nether regions and see things as they really are.

No thank you, I choose to think for myself with the guidance of the spirit.

So, your implication is that those who are not disloyal to the Church do not "think for themselves"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

Can you share what "honestly think feel and believe" have to do with anything? For example, If I "honestly think feel and believe" that Thomas Monson is a liar and a fraud, how does it being my honest opinion change the fact that it is disloyal and hypocritical?

Believing that Thomas Monson is a liar / fraud is a far cry from disagreeing with the church’s opinion of masturbation. In any case, your accusation disloyalty is debatable at best and offensive at worst. As far as your ungrounded, ad hominim and offensive accusation of hypocrisy is concerned, you can shove it. It would be hypocritical of me to say I fully agree with the church on the issue of masturbation and then know in my heart that I don’t.

Coincidentally, many of us feel that way about unsubstantiated and poorly reasoned attacks on Church doctrine or policy.

Who’s “many of us” you got a family of mice in your pocket? Disagreeing with policy is not attacking policy. Please show me where I have “attacked” policy or doctrine.

How so? How is decrying disloyalty and hypocrisy equivalent to saying we should not think?

When you equate disagreeing with disloyalty and hypocrisy and make false accusations of such you discourage people from sharing what they think, feel and believe. You “brainwash” them into thinking that they can’t ever disagree with the establishment or share an opinion contrary to official policy or doctrine.

Then perhaps "so many of our detractors" should pull their heads out of their nether regions and see things as they really are.

That may be largely true but we don’t need to give them any ammunition either.

So, your implication is that those who are not disloyal to the Church do not "think for themselves"?

I am not making any such implication. I am refuting your implication that anyone who doesn’t tow the line on every aspect of every policy is somehow disloyal or a hypocrite.

How about instead of launching ad hominim attacks we act like adults on this forum and refute actual arguments and opinions. Let’s refrain from calling people “hypocrites” and “disloyal” and focus on their actual arguments. I will not continue a conversation with anyone who insults me in the insufferable manner that you have Vort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believing that Thomas Monson is a liar / fraud is a far cry from disagreeing with the church’s opinion of masturbation.

That does not answer the question.

In any case, your accusation disloyalty is debatable at best and offensive at worst.

Which accusation was that?

As far as your ungrounded, ad hominim and offensive accusation of hypocrisy is concerned, you can shove it. It would be hypocritical of me to say I fully agree with the church on the issue of masturbation and then know in my heart that I don’t.

I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise.

Who’s “many of us” you got a family of mice in your pocket?

Seriously? You don't know that "many of us" means?

It means myself and many other people.

Disagreeing with policy is not attacking policy.

Then what are you whining about?

Please show me where I have “attacked” policy or doctrine.

Why?

When you equate disagreeing with disloyalty and hypocrisy

I believe you just pointed out that disagreeing is not attacking. Your accusation is false.

and make false accusations of such

I have demonstrated your false accusation. Now you demonstrate mine.

you discourage people from sharing what they think, feel and believe. You “brainwash” them into thinking that they can’t ever disagree with the establishment or share an opinion contrary to official policy or doctrine.

Oh, I see. By expressing my opinion, I am guilty of brainwashing.

Do I have that right?

I am refuting your implication that anyone who doesn’t tow the line on every aspect of every policy is somehow disloyal or a hypocrite.

I made no such implication. Do not confuse your inference with my implication.

How about instead of launching ad hominim attacks we act like adults on this forum

I have not engaged in ad hominem toward you in this thread. You cannot honestly make the same claim toward me. So instead of lecturing me, you would do better to heed your own advice.

Let’s refrain from calling people “hypocrites” and “disloyal” and focus on their actual arguments.

As far as I recall, I have not called anyone a hypocrite or disloyal on this thread. The ad hominems on this thread have not been coming from me.

I will not continue a conversation with anyone who insults me in the insufferable manner that you have Vort.

Do as you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish
That does not answer the question.

Do you honestly equate calling the Prophet a liar to disagreeing with a particular policy?

Which accusation was that? I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise.

Did you not say,

“And when such attacks come from Latter-day Saints, the disloyalty and hypocrisy gall me. “

Unless you are denying that that was directed toward me and the other members who disagree with you.

Seriously? You don't know that "many of us" means? It means myself and many other people.

Who?

Then what are you whining about?

Ignoring the condescending tone of that question, I am “whining” because you are suggesting that disagreeing with policy is disloyal and by some strange twist hypocritical (you have yet to explain that one)

Why?

Generally when people make those kinds of accusations they should be prepared to back them up or not make them.

I believe you just pointed out that disagreeing is not attacking. Your accusation is false.

Now your back pedaling? Did you not say, “such attacks come from Latter-day Saints, the disloyalty and hypocrisy gall me.”

I have demonstrated your false accusation. Now you demonstrate mine.

See above

Oh, I see. By expressing my opinion, I am guilty of brainwashing.

Do I have that right?

If you are honestly saying that one can’t disagree with the prophet without being a hypocrite or disloyal, in my estimation I would say you are.

I made no such implication. Do not confuse your inference with my implication.

Let me refresh your memory for a third time.

What really gets my goat is when people attack the Church, its leaders, or its members, individually or as a group, because of their beliefs (or the wrong perception of their beliefs). And when such attacks come from Latter-day Saints, the disloyalty and hypocrisy gall me.
As far as I recall, I have not called anyone a hypocrite or disloyal on this thread. The ad hominems on this thread have not been coming from me.

Please see above.

Ok one last chance. Without resorting to ad hominems and getting upset, show where “people attack the Church, its leaders, or its members, individually or as a group, because of their beliefs (or the wrong perception of their beliefs).” Or even where anything I have said has been wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly equate calling the Prophet a liar to disagreeing with a particular policy?

Now you are falsely putting words in my mouth. Let's review:

  • You claimed that: I think it is a dangerous proposition when someone (especially a member) tell someone else that they are disloyal, "attacking" or a hypocrite for sharing what they honestly think feel [sic] and believe.

  • I replied: Can you share what "honestly think feel and believe" have to do with anything?

  • I then gave an example to clarify: For example, If I "honestly think feel and believe" that Thomas Monson is a liar and a fraud, how does it being my honest opinion change the fact that it is disloyal and hypocritical?

  • You, um, well...you never did respond to that.
As far as I can tell, you believe that if you "honestly think feel and believe" something, it is not disloyal, attacking, or hypocritical to share it. I think you are wrong. I brought up an obvious counterexample to demonstrate that you are wrong. You have refused to acknowledge or address my counterexample; rather, you suggest (wrongly, though I hope not intentionally dishonestly) that I am equating calling the prophet a liar with disagreeing with the Church's teachings in an area. Any reasonably intelligent critical reader who is fluent in English could tell you that you are wrong, yet you refuse to recognize this.

Why?

Did you not say,

“And when such attacks come from Latter-day Saints, the disloyalty and hypocrisy gall me. “

Indeed I did.

Unless you are denying that that was directed toward me and the other members who disagree with you.

Consider your allegation denied. If I want to call you a liar, I will state, "saintish is a liar."

Ignoring the condescending tone of that question, I am “whining” because you are suggesting that disagreeing with policy is disloyal

Only to those who can't parse English well.

and by some strange twist hypocritical (you have yet to explain that one)

Hypocrisy = false face

Saint = someone devoted through covenant to building up the kingdom of God

Disloyalty = reneging on one's covenant commitments

∴Saint who disloyally tears down the Church or criticizes its teachings = hypocrite

Generally when people make those kinds of accusations they should be prepared to back them up or not make them.

Indeed. I await your justification.

Now your back pedaling? Did you not say, “such attacks come from Latter-day Saints, the disloyalty and hypocrisy gall me.”

Indeed I did. How does this constitute backpedaling?

See above

I have seen above. You have yet to cite justification for your ad hominems.

Ok one last chance. Without resorting to ad hominems and getting upset

Do you recognize any hypocrisy in yourself for saying such a thing? It is you, not I, who have been spewing the ad hominems and getting upset.

show where “people attack the Church, its leaders, or its members, individually or as a group, because of their beliefs (or the wrong perception of their beliefs).”

No. I was making a general comment. If you decided the shoe fit you and put it on, that's your problem, not mine.

Or even where anything I have said has been wrong.

Okay, I will. But in return, you have to respond to all of my questions and points.

Taking only from your last several posts:

Do you honestly equate calling the Prophet a liar to disagreeing with a particular policy? (Of course, this is false; I never did any such thing.)

Who’s “many of us” you got a family of mice in your pocket? (Are you seriously suggesting that there are not many in the Church who hold this same opinion? This is so obviously wrong that I am slightly stunned you would try to argue the point, whether or not you happen to agree with it.)

Disagreeing with policy is not attacking policy. (Nor did I say it was. This was a false allegation on your part.)

When you equate disagreeing with disloyalty and hypocrisy and make false accusations of such you discourage people from sharing what they think, feel and believe. You “brainwash” them into thinking that they can’t ever disagree with the establishment or share an opinion contrary to official policy or doctrine. (This is so ridiculous as to be absurd. Making such a statement, no matter how far-fetched, is not in any possible sense "brainwashing". This statement is so utterly wrong it is comical.)

I will not continue a conversation with anyone who insults me in the insufferable manner that you have Vort. (The existence of this statement is self-negating; therefore, by definition, it is wrong.)

I can't help it if I disagree with this matter. (How much wronger can you get?)

There are some instances of you being undeniably, blatantly wrong, collected from just your last few posts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's concerning to see members of the church justifying masturbation as being "healthy" as the world promotes. It is a difficult thing for people to abstain from, but it doesn't make it right and the church shouldn't back away from its very clear position on it being a sin because people feel guilty about doing it. Guilt is one of the consequences of sinning and should give one motivation to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Lots of activity here in the day or two since my last post. After doing a bit of skimming, I'd like to point out that although Pres. Packer's talk "For Young Men Only" apparently is not available on the church's web site, it is still being published as a pamphlet that priesthood leaders can order.

If there's any doubt that the church condemns masturbation, take a look here: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Search

This makes it particularly clear:

"God has never changed His laws and commandments concerning sexual sin, although man has tried to change them to suit his own pleasure. The law of chastity means that a man must not have intimate physical relations with anyone except his own wife. The Lord has commanded, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). The law of chastity is not limited to just adultery, however. It extends to all improper uses of the divine power of procreation. Among the other ways man misuses this sacred power are fornication (including living together without marriage), homosexuality, abortion, and masturbation." ( Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A Lesson 34: Moral Cleanliness )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Lots of activity here in the day or two since my last post. After doing a bit of skimming, I'd like to point out that although Pres. Packer's talk "For Young Men Only" apparently is not available on the church's web site, it is still being published as a pamphlet that priesthood leaders can order.

If there's any doubt that the church condemns masturbation, take a look here: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Search

This makes it particularly clear:

"God has never changed His laws and commandments concerning sexual sin, although man has tried to change them to suit his own pleasure. The law of chastity means that a man must not have intimate physical relations with anyone except his own wife. The Lord has commanded, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). The law of chastity is not limited to just adultery, however. It extends to all improper uses of the divine power of procreation. Among the other ways man misuses this sacred power are fornication (including living together without marriage), homosexuality, abortion, and masturbation." ( Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A Lesson 34: Moral Cleanliness )

Hmmmm I thought for young men only was taken out of circulation, can anyone really verify it's still available for order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"God has never changed His laws and commandments concerning sexual sin

Really? What about polygamy? The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy. None of the scriptures say a word about masturbation. (And don't bother telling me the story of Onan--that was not about masturbation. Read it again and see for yourself.) Then the early brethren started practicing polygamy, and many claimed it was necessary for salvation.

"The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle [polygamy] reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord . . . they will finally go down to hell and be damned if they do not repent." (0rson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, pp. 224-225)

Then they "repeal" polygamy, and these days it is an excommunicable sin.

Masturbation doesn't hurt anybody, but polygamy caused a lot of distress to a lot of people. And yet people were promised exaltation if they practiced polygamy, but we harp on young boys and make them feel worthless and ungodly because they play with themselves? Explain to me how that makes any sense at all.

Edited by HEthePrimate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

Ok Vort whatever, I’m not going to argue with you and listen to your blatant ad hominem attacks. I’m sure you’ll quote this and have some final word you feel like you need to say. Fine whatever makes you happy.

For everyone else, let me reiterate my position.

There is NO observable physical or emotional damage associated with masturbation. Addiction to masturbation is a whole different issue. That being said, the only conclusion we can logically make about the Church’s stance on masturbation is that it is one of those commandments, like tithing and not shopping on Sunday, that exist because G_d commands it.

In other words it is different from adultery, murder, or drinking alcohol in that the only damage is the spiritual damage from not obeying Heavenly Father. Adultery, murder and to a lesser extent drinking would all be considered wrong, by man, without a commandment from G_d. While Masturbation, most likely would not be considered wrong.

I am not saying that masturbation is not a sin. It is a sin but should be more on the level of not paying tithing or going shopping on Sunday. It should not be on the same level as adultery or fornication. As a former bishop told me, “how do you repent from not paying tithing? You start paying it” Similarly, you repent of masturbation by stopping the practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? What about polygamy? The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy. None of the scriptures say a word about masturbation. (And don't bother telling me the story of Onan--that was not about masturbation. Read it again and see for yourself.) Then the early brethren started practicing polygamy, and many claimed it was necessary for salvation.

Then they "repeal" polygamy, and these days it is an excommunicable sin.

Masturbation doesn't hurt anybody, but polygamy caused a lot of distress to a lot of people. And yet people were promised exaltation if they practiced polygamy, but we harp on young boys and make them feel worthless and ungodly because they play with themselves? Explain to me how that makes any sense at all.

There is a difference between a child "playing with themselves" and a person stimulating their genitals/fantasizing until they bring themselves to orgasm. I know it's a tough situation for people struggling to overcome it, but the habit can alter a person's thinking until it does hurt others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest saintish

but the habit can alter a person's thinking until it does hurt others.

I don't believe you can provide any creditable evidence of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saintish,

I do believe that you are correct, however it does not change the firm position of our beliefs. It IS a sin that many men and women struggle with in our church. The spirit cannot be felt when engaging in these very dangerous and addictive behaviours. Satan is taunting the men and women of our church with this destructive behaviour and he needs to be "cast" out and fought against in order for us to receive the eternal blessings of our heavenly father. There is no room for masturbation in gods kingdom PERIOD!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share