Seriousness of masturbation?

[MrShorty]

So, what if you are in a marriage where your spouse refuses you? Is it still a sin?

I'm not real conversant with rhetorical concepts, but I would call the question of sexual refusal either a red herring or a strawman - it has no real bearing on the question of whether masturbation is sinful or not. If masturbation is a sin, it is a sin for singles/never marrieds, married with a good sexual relationship, married with a dysfunctional sexual relationship, widowed/widower, or divorced. If it is not a sin, it's not a sin, and that should not depend on relationship status.

if your spouse refuses and shows no affection, you just have to live your life with nothing because someone made a choice for you? After years of nothing, years, then it becomes a frustration that words cannot describe and knowing it will never end. At least in prison you can look forward to getting out of jail at some point.

I completely agree. It is difficult to explain, especially to someone who has not lived it, just how painful and difficult a sexless marriage can be. The pain is real, and the difficulties are real. If/because we believe that masturbation is sin and divorce on grounds of sexual refusal is a sin, then that could very well mean that one has to live the rest of one's life without.

There is something about our fallen, mortal experience that means other people's bad choices cause us problems. The real test is how we will deal with them. Part of that test is judging something as sin or not sin, judging between good, better, and best courses of action, learning how to be selfless, learning how to keep covenants even when it is difficult, and so on.

I've never been able to get behind the idea that sex is a "need." That does not ring true to me.

I've ran this around in my head, as well. In a lot of ways, it depends on how we judge what is a need. Most of the time, we take needs to be those things necessary to sustain life - limited pretty much to food,water, and air.

On another line of thinking, if we look at life and death of marriage, maybe this is one way that sex can be a need. If Pres. Kimball is correct that a majority of divorces are caused by some kind of sexual dysfunction (or at least, sex is a contributing factor in a majority of divorces), then it would seem clear that there are many marriages that die on the rock of sexual dysfunction (the most common sexual dysfunction is mismatched libidos/lack of desire). Surveys show that sexual satisfaction is consistently correlated with relationship satisfaction (which one causes which or are they both caused by something else is undetermined). I think there is cause to suggest that sex is one need in marriage. Without it, many marriages will suffer and die. Sex is only one component, and let's be clear that sexual refusal is not the only sexual dysfunction.

Another aspect is that, married or single, we each need to come to terms with our sexuality. Sometimes it seems to me that our discussions about sex in the church give the impression that we should all aspire to be asexual. I've come to believe that this isn't what we want to teach, but it sometimes gets received that way. Somewhere along the way, we need to learn to accept and embrace our sexuality, and accept and embrace that God has given certain commandments to govern our sexuality. These two often seem at odds with each other, but there is a need for each of us to figure out how these two blend together in our own lives.

[Vort]

I've never been able to get behind the idea that sex is a "need." That does not ring true to me.

Certainly not in the same way that oxygen and water are needs. But I think sex is a "need" in the same sense that human affection is a "need". People can biologically survive without human affection, but what a horrible thing to contemplate. I think it's very similar with sex -- which, after all, is really just another (very intense and intimate) expression of human affection. I'm not pro-divorce in any sense, but if there is a reason beyond adultery that would justify divorce, in my opinion that reason might be willfully refusing to engage in regular sexual activity with one's spouse.

[BadWolf]

I'm not pro-divorce in any sense, but if there is a reason beyond adultery that would justify divorce, in my opinion that reason might be willfully refusing to engage in regular sexual activity with one's spouse.

Adding...Beyond Adultery, AND Addiction, Abuse

Still, though, what are their spouse's reasons behind refusing sex?

- If they just DONT like/respect the OP, then, yah sure you betcha.

- If they just DONT like/respect the OP because of wrongs they're waiting to see righted? (Not gonna have sex with you till you get a clean HIV test/haven't slept with anyone else or shared needles in at least 6mo... Or not until you quit drinking and swearing at me... Or not until you start treating me with respect.

- If they love the OP? Have kept all covenants? But are suffering from a medical condition?

IMHO... Divorcing a loving spouse because they won't put out, is low. Expecting sex when you're being a tool is even lower.

Again... No idea why the OPs spouse is refusing sex. But I find that to be a pretty key part. ESPECIALLY if its been months or years & they don't know why.

I have this stupid high octane libido, so I sympathize, but I wouldn't say no-sex is a reason for justifiable divorce without knowing the cause. Because most of the time no-sex has a super treatable cause.

[Vort]

IMHO... Divorcing a loving spouse because they won't put out, is low.

If they aren't "putting out", they aren't being loving. People here have talked about going months or even longer without sex. There might be valid reasons for that, but they would be exceptionally rare. You don't have a yeast infection for years on end, and if you're so mad at your spouse that you won't be physically intimate, then you're failing to take care of important personal business.

Maybe our modern culture of perversion and sex-worship has brainwashed me. I admit it's a possibility. But I can't imagine being in a good marriage to a healthy woman where sex was not a reasonably frequent part of that relationship. It would be very much like being married to someone you never, ever talk to at all.

[BadWolf]

If they aren't "putting out", they aren't being loving. People here have talked about going months or even longer without sex. There might be valid reasons for that, but they would be exceptionally rare. You don't have a yeast infection for years on end, and if you're so mad at your spouse that you won't be physically intimate, then you're failing to take care of important personal business.

Maybe our modern culture of perversion and sex-worship has brainwashed me. I admit it's a possibility. But I can't imagine being in a good marriage to a healthy woman where sex was not a reasonably frequent part of that relationship. It would be very much like being married to someone you never, ever talk to at all.

See... This is kinda my point...

"I don't like you" / "Im mad at you" is often taken as the sole reason for refusing sex.

Yet, quite the opposite of being rare:

- Sleep Dep

- Depression

- Antidespressants (the wrong ones, there are antidepressants that don't affect libido)

- Hormonal imbalances

Are COMMON.

And do, untreated, often last for years on end.

The #1 cause "Im tired" sounds like "You bore me / I don't like you"... But the physiological changes that happen during sleep deprivation actually shut OFF sex drive (just like dieting can shut off women's fertility (periods grow irregular & then stop).

Its EXCEPTIONALLY COMMON with young families. SAHP not sleeping due to round the clock care, Working Parent working crazy long hours to make up for a low salary (the being young part).

Pregnancy really grinds women's bodies up, so while low testosterone or thyroid or pineal gland imbalances are sorta rare with men (still more common than you might think), hang around any group of moms & if someone is talking about RIP Sex Drive, you can almost set your watch by the "Have you had your thyroid checked?" launching out almost in choreograph. ((Actually, that drives me a little nuts, because its only thyroid related about 1/3 of the time. The rest of the time its hormone related, its different hormones, but that's me).

Depression hits men & women of any age, parents or not.

I could go on... But you're smart... & can extrapolate the rest.

It just does a great disservice to most people for the assumption to be made, prior to investigation, that while there are hundreds of root causes, that its the ONE unfixable one.

Easy to FEEL "I don't like you, you're gross" when getting turned down, though!

[Vort]

Not sure I'm understanding your point, BadWolf. Sure, people who refuse to have sex with their spouses have their reasons. People who beat their spouses up have their reasons, too, but that doesn't justify their actions. The point is, if you have issues, deal with your issues.

[Reason]

First off, I am NOT sinning. I want to make that clear. Believe me the temptation is beyond anything, but I do not. It is even tougher when I do not feel that masturbation is a sin and detrimental spiritually, but "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." And I follow that.

The wife has been this way for years. I have tried everything I can to help and address, but she refuses and gets mad at ANY discussion from just a personal relationship to intimacy.

Frankly, I think this is a large problem in church. I think the porn and masturbation concerns are symptoms of refusal by spouses. Not necessarily all, but I think it is an issue. I think the assumption is that married people have a sexually available spouse, it is often not the case. I know of a number in my own ward and amongst LDS friends.

I posed the original question simply because of the vehemence that some have on the issue as I was reading this. If you have never been in a sexless and affectionless marriage, the frustration is beyond unreal and when there is no end in sight....

BTW, most men equate sex and love. No sex or affection means I don't love you. To me my wife hates me, but it goes beyond that, but it is divergent from the topic.

As to reasons why she is that way, I no longer care after 20 years of it. I keep the commandments, keep my temple covenants, and know God sees my sacrifice. I hope in the next life I can have someone who loves and cares, but that is not what I will ever have in this mortal life.

[pam]

As to reasons why she is that way, I no longer care after 20 years of it.

I think you do care and that's why you have brought it up numerous times. :)

[Reason]

Maybe some, but to put forth more effort and try, no. Been there and done that, the result is more pain than before. No longer caring much hurts far less. Sometimes I just have to vent it.

As to my original question, a friend who went through the same, we discussed this because of the bleakness of the future. I just wondered what other members thought.

[Just_A_Guy]

Frankly, I think this is a large problem in church. I think the porn and masturbation concerns are symptoms of refusal by spouses. Not necessarily all, but I think it is an issue. I think the assumption is that married people have a sexually available spouse, it is often not the case. I know of a number in my own ward and amongst LDS friends.

I can only speak of myself, and of the experiences I hear in the LDS 12-step group I go to:

The root problem isn't the sexual availability--or lack thereof--of the spouse. The problem is a conjunction of selfishness and inappropriate stress-coping techniques by the person actually indulging in pornography/masturbation.

[MorningStar]

First off, I am NOT sinning. I want to make that clear. Believe me the temptation is beyond anything, but I do not. It is even tougher when I do not feel that masturbation is a sin and detrimental spiritually, but "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." And I follow that.

The wife has been this way for years. I have tried everything I can to help and address, but she refuses and gets mad at ANY discussion from just a personal relationship to intimacy.

Frankly, I think this is a large problem in church. I think the porn and masturbation concerns are symptoms of refusal by spouses. Not necessarily all, but I think it is an issue. I think the assumption is that married people have a sexually available spouse, it is often not the case. I know of a number in my own ward and amongst LDS friends.

I posed the original question simply because of the vehemence that some have on the issue as I was reading this. If you have never been in a sexless and affectionless marriage, the frustration is beyond unreal and when there is no end in sight....

BTW, most men equate sex and love. No sex or affection means I don't love you. To me my wife hates me, but it goes beyond that, but it is divergent from the topic.

As to reasons why she is that way, I no longer care after 20 years of it. I keep the commandments, keep my temple covenants, and know God sees my sacrifice. I hope in the next life I can have someone who loves and cares, but that is not what I will ever have in this mortal life.

I can see why that would make it more tempting, but that's actually a myth. Porn addicts often turn their wives down and don't initiate sex, choosing the porn over them. Quite the slap in the face because the woman has grown up hearing husbands will want sex constantly, then they don't want to have it with them.

[MorningStar]

So, what if you are in a marriage where your spouse refuses you? Is it still a sin? Are you just expected then to live the rest of your life married to someone who will not be intimate? Live your life with nothing?

I think, personally and generally, that masturbation and porn, for marrieds in the church is a greater symptom of an even greater problem, one that is never addressed. I think that is often a lack of intimacy from a spouse. One spouse decides that they don't want to be intimate and they have made a choice for you.

Yes, it's still a sin, just like it was a sin before you got married. We have to learn self-control no matter what situation we're in - husbands deployed overseas, death, disability, divorce, etc.

[MorningStar]

If they aren't "putting out", they aren't being loving. People here have talked about going months or even longer without sex. There might be valid reasons for that, but they would be exceptionally rare. You don't have a yeast infection for years on end, and if you're so mad at your spouse that you won't be physically intimate, then you're failing to take care of important personal business.

Maybe our modern culture of perversion and sex-worship has brainwashed me. I admit it's a possibility. But I can't imagine being in a good marriage to a healthy woman where sex was not a reasonably frequent part of that relationship. It would be very much like being married to someone you never, ever talk to at all.

I think there's a difference though between a person who physically can't have sex and a person who won't, just like there's a difference between a person who has their larynx removed and a person who gives you the cold shoulder and refuses to talk to you.

I think any woman who can have sex should make it a priority and if there's a medical or psychological problem, she should do everything she can to fix it. I have a relative who has severe OCD that affects many areas of her life, including that. She became ten times worse after marriage and was grossed out by the messiness of sex. She can't even handle finding a Band-Aid on the ground or a pile of dirty laundry on the floor because she's that terrified of germs. She knows logically that it's not rational, but she just can't get it under control.

I'm not sure if things ever got better, but she has always been affectionate and loving. That is a major stumbling block for her and her husband is a saint!

You just never know what's going to happen. When my husband and I were getting married, our bishop said, "You should only get married if you know you would still want to be together if sex were impossible." I think it's an important lesson to teach that sex and masturbation shouldn't be used as an escape. If you don't have proper coping devices before marriage, you're not going to have it during or after.

[bytor2112]

I asked my former Bishop about masturbation issues and how he handled them and he said, that during interviews he would ask young men directly and if the admitted that they had, he would as how long it had been and how often and if pornography was involved. If it was infrequent and no pornography he would tell them to avoid the practice and that was pretty much it. If they had other issues with pornography or habit, etc, then he would work with them to overcome the issue. he said, same with adults and that there wasn't anything specific in the CHI regarding msturbation.

He told me he once had a brother come in because he had gave himself an "external Prostate message" to relieve BPH (enlarged prostate) and because the process apparently causes a similar orgasmic sensation in the prostate as does masturbation in the sexual organs, the brother felt a sense of guilt for having felt pleasure while trying to have better urine flow. My Bishop basically told him that he didn't think he done anything wrong , but, if he felt conflicted that maybe he should try a Blessing instead. Odd....

I do think the church should release something that is very definitive because apparently there are many who deal with this issue and a very broad range of thought on the issue.

And for the record, I don't think a spouse that is away from his spouse with his spouses consent needs to see the Bishop if he/she masturbates. Not something I would do personally, but not sure they are involved in some grave transgression.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Eowyn
link contrary to church counsel

[MorningStar]

I asked my former Bishop about masturbation issues and how he handled them and he said, that during interviews he would ask young men directly and if the admitted that they had, he would as how long it had been and how often and if pornography was involved. If it was infrequent and no pornography he would tell them to avoid the practice and that was pretty much it. If they had other issues with pornography or habit, etc, then he would work with them to overcome the issue. he said, same with adults and that there wasn't anything specific in the CHI regarding msturbation.

He told me he once had a brother come in because he had gave himself an "external Prostate message" to relieve BPH (enlarged prostate) and because the process apparently causes a similar orgasmic sensation in the prostate as does masturbation in the sexual organs, the brother felt a sense of guilt for having felt pleasure while trying to have better urine flow. My Bishop basically told him that he didn't think he done anything wrong , but, if he felt conflicted that maybe he should try a Blessing instead. Odd....

I do think the church should release something that is very definitive because apparently there are many who deal with this issue and a very broad range of thought on the issue.

And for the record, I don't think a spouse that is away from his spouse with his spouses consent needs to see the Bishop if he/she masturbates. Not something I would do personally, but not sure they are involved in some grave transgression.

Anyways,,,here is an (erased by mods site as it gives counsel contrary to that of the church) that deals with LDS sexuality somewhat including the issue of masturbation.

If it's not a sin, then why should the practice be avoided? If it is a sin, why should a spouse be able to give consent for the other to do so?

Edited May 1, 2013 by Eowyn

[bytor2112]

If it's not a sin, then why should the practice be avoided? If it is a sin, why should a spouse be able to give consent for the other to do so?

My opinion only....but obviously it is not in keeping with Law of Chastity for any unmarried person. I am hesitant to suggest that married couples can't define what intimacy is with one another even if it involves a practice that I may find objectionable. In the end, they haven't been unfaithful to one another and I would rather not tell a married couple that you can't do this and you can do that....

[bytor2112]

05-01-2013 at 05:46 PM. Reason: link contrary to church counsel

Not that I find removal of the link objectionable, but, honestly, the blogger was relating their personal opinion, which is what we are all doing and have done and much of it could conceivably be contrary to church counsel and unless you have access to "official counsel" from the church no one else has...I am not really certain what church counsel is based on the many varying opinions I have read.

[Vort]

Not that I find removal of the link objectionable, but, honestly, the blogger was relating their personal opinion, which is what we are all doing and have done and much of it could conceivably be contrary to church counsel and unless you have access to "official counsel" from the church no one else has...I am not really certain what church counsel is based on the many varying opinions I have read.

I object to anyone saying, "The Church teaches X, but I say Not X", and then continuing to call himself or herself a faithful Church member. You are free to disagree with Church doctrine or practice, but if you do, quit pretending you're faithful. You are not. It's a word definition thing, and it goes to the heart of what it means to be honest.

[bytor2112]

I object to anyone saying, "The Church teaches X, but I say Not X", and then continuing to call himself or herself a faithful Church member. You are free to disagree with Church doctrine or practice, but if you do, quit pretending you're faithful. You are not. It's a word definition thing, and it goes to the heart of what it means to be honest.

The link was not an endorsement of her opinion or how she chooses to live her faith, but, rather to illustrate that many in the church don't see this issue so cut and dry.....which I found surprising.

[Vort]

The link was not an endorsement of her opinion or how she chooses to live her faith, but, rather to illustrate that many in the church don't see this issue so cut and dry.....which I found surprising.

I agree. I am simply speculating that the link was removed because it pointed to the site of a non-faithful Mormon preaching her peculiar, non-LDS brand of the gospel. Such links are typically discouraged on this list, if I understand things correctly.

[Guest]

She in essence said, "This is what the Church teaches, and they're wrong." (As an aside, posting the link without stating disagreement implies that you agree with her.) Please refer to Site Rule #1. And 6, for that matter.

[bytor2112]

She in essence said, "This is what the Church teaches, and they're wrong." (As an aside, posting the link without stating disagreement implies that you agree with her.) Please refer to Site Rule #1. And 6, for that matter.

Anyone who has ever read any of my posts regarding this issue would know that I couldn't possibly agree with her :-)

I will endeavor to be more vigilant in clarifying my positions in the future!

[Reason]

If they aren't "putting out", they aren't being loving. People here have talked about going months or even longer without sex. There might be valid reasons for that, but they would be exceptionally rare. You don't have a yeast infection for years on end, and if you're so mad at your spouse that you won't be physically intimate, then you're failing to take care of important personal business.

Maybe our modern culture of perversion and sex-worship has brainwashed me. I admit it's a possibility. But I can't imagine being in a good marriage to a healthy woman where sex was not a reasonably frequent part of that relationship. It would be very much like being married to someone you never, ever talk to at all.

The hardest thing is watching so many years of your life go by when there could have been happiness in a marriage, but one would not allow it to be unless it was strictly on their terms. For a man, a healthy sexual relationship with his wife is extremely important. If one spouse has a problem, there is an obligation to fix it.

Frankly, I think refusal by a spouse without some medical or the like reason is a sin. God commanded us to be one flesh, hmmm, sex works that way. I overheard an older sister once remark to some women, never refuse your husband for sex. Wise words. Frankly, a strong sexual relationship is a prime mover in a man marrying. It makes a happy man and a man happy that way is far less irritable, loving, and can put up with a lot more crap than he would otherwise take. Marriage is supposed to be the whole enchilada for both, not picking and choosing.

No man gets married with the goal in mind of being celibate. And the reality is, it binds a man to his wife or without, it can be a wedge. Hopefully few other have this. Without this sexual part of a relationship, it does make a very strong temptation to take care of that need in other ways. It is truly being between a rock and a hard place. I still believe in following the prophets regardless. The sacrifice is brutal.

[BobSmith1]

Here's my story (which gives my perspective on this subject)... I'm sorry it's long, but I feel this subject deserves serious attention. It contains quite a bit of detail (be warned), but I think the time is long past where we can tip-toe around this issue without being able to discuss sexuality in a mature yet forthright way (many souls are tortured, as I have been many times in my life, by a lack of understanding and clear direction on this subject):

To give you my background (which I think is important in understanding my perspective):

I'm an active and believing Mormon (return missionary, temple married) who has always struggled with this issue. Even so, I have abstained from masturbation practically all of my life (almost 28 years old now, male), been married over 4 years (happily, most the time :). A couple years ago I began questioning (and investigating) what I understood to be the LDS stance on masturbation. I've talked to my wife about it quite a bit. My wife isn't sure but doesn't want me to do it so I still generally abstain from it because I respect her feelings. I bet I've masturbated less than 20 times in my life, almost all of which after beginning to question it (after mission and being married). Even so, I have struggled with the temptation all my life, and shameful feelings--even for anything remotely close to masturbation--due to the things I was taught at about it around age 12 (most of which seem to center around the question: Do I need to confess this to the bishop or not?).

What bothers me the most is the very little direction provided by the 1st presidency on the subject relative to the enormous impact it has on members of the church. This REALLY affects a lot of people. I mean REALLY. I personally suffered serious shame from even my very small experience with masturbation due to what I was taught about it, and I'm confused/bothered by the fact that every bishop has a different thought on it and its spiritual seriousness and not much word from the general authorities to give clear direction. Is it on the order of fornication? Clearly not. Is it on the order of petting? I don't think so. Yet it is lumped in there in the for the strength of youth pamphlet with it in a single line "don't arouse those feelings in your own body".

It's not even mentioned in the church handbook of instructions (which blows my mind). For such an important issue in terms of anxiety and shame that can be induced based on its association with worthiness and the seemingly still-in-force (albeit I pretty much believe it is simply a cultural, not doctrinal) "requirement" of confession for complete forgiveness, I think more direct guidance from the general authorities is long overdue. Growing up as a teenager I would occasionally tip-toe around masturbating in various ways (i.e. touching myself for some stimulation, but not to the point of orgasm) and even that would have me constantly worried that maybe I needed to talk to the bishop about it. The lack of clear direction was/is extremely frustrating for me.

What has helped me is to recognize that the general authorities are human and may not always convey something that is God's will. We each need to gain a confirmation as to what is true and right for ourselves. I fasted and prayed about whether masturbation was sinful, and felt a very strong feeling during sacrament meeting that it was not inherently a sin (and this was before I even tried masturbating under those pretenses). Now, I'm sure somebody will respond with a quote regarding "if it conflicts with general authority's words on the subject, then it's revelation from the devil", but I can easily respond with many quotes (from many church presidents) supporting the fact that general authorities may err in some instances and that it is up to us to rely on the Holy Ghost to confirm the truth of it and it is our DUTY to do the best we can to seek out the truth for ourselves. And as I said, my wife doesn't want me to do it so I generally still abstain from it because I respect her feelings (though it can be a struggle and I'm not sure this is the right approach as it can cause some tension between us when we are not both on the same page in terms of libido).

Everything that comes from general authorities on the subject for the last 30 years as far as I can tell is or is derived from a few talks by back in the 70's and 80's (search for masturbation on lds.org to see what I mean) and a line or two in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlets (which now doesn't even specifically say masturbation, and simply indicates that you should not arouse sexual feelings in your own body). Contrast that to pornography (which is clearly sinful in a scripturally supported way--unlike masturbation--i.e. "he that lusteth after a woman hath committed adultery already with her in his heart") that has been repeatedly addressed to this day. To make matters worse, in my own personal experience, opinions of local priesthood leaders have varying responses to it--some don't think it even requires a confession. Most (it seems) go for the (not-in-the-handbook) approach of "don't take the sacrament for a week", which in-and-of-itself is a major bummer for anybody who has had to do this--(you might as well tell your friends or family or whoever you sit with that you masturbated, since there isn't much else that you could have done that results in you skipping the sacrament). If it is a "serious sin" then why is there no clear direction on how it should be addressed by local authorities? (and I believe that many priesthood leaders--due to this lack of direction--address it inappropriately). I think the answer (as I said previously) is that it is either not inherently a sin if controlled or (more likely) not a serious one (i.e. try to control yourself and don't allow it to interfere with your life, but don't stress too much over it if you slip up, and don't worry about bothering the bishop about it). In fact, the latter conclusion actually seems to coincide nicely with what could be construed from the "current policy" on it which is simply the single line in for the strength of youth of "don't do it" with it not even mentioned in the church handbook. If that's all God's prophets have to say about it then I honestly have a hard time believing that God sees it as a great and malignant sin. Furthermore, I actually think that labelling it as a great bishop-confession-requiring sin induces far too much shame in proportion to its sinfulness... shame that I personally believe too often leads to hard to resist feelings of "I'm already so messed up and dirty, why not [masturbate more | view pornography too | do other uglier sins | etc.]". Furthermore, masturbation can be done without lustful thoughts (could masturbation possibly be a positive thing if involves thoughts of pleasuring your eternal companion or future eternal companion? I think so, but such possibilities are completely out of the question when the dogmatic "it's a great sin, confess to the bishop and don't take the sacrament for a week" perspective is used... and lead to the "well if I'm doing it I might as well think of the dirtiest most arousing thing I can think of while I do it (or even seek pornography to go along with it, which is definitely a terrible idea).

Now, a case-in-point (and personal experience) regarding 1st presidency direction on sexual matters:

about 30 years ago the first presidency issued a letter to all the units stating that they (the First Presidency) interpreted oral sex as "an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice" and in the temple recommend interview questions, members were asked if they participated in any "unnatural, impure, or unholy practice". Having been married only these last 4 years, my wife and I had never heard of this letter or any stance on the morality of oral sex between married couples whatsoever. We discovered through our own self discovery that oral sex added a LOT to our sexual relationship (especially in that it was pretty much the only way that she is able to reach orgasm, though we have since just last year decided to try a vibrator (which has been great for us)--sex toys: another issue that the church is silent upon as far as I know), and after finding that letter while researching mormon views on masturbation, I can say that I just don't feel right about that stance. If one partner is seriously uncomfortable with it, that's one thing... but to be "unholy" is quite another.

Obviously that specific counsel against oral sex by Spencer W. Kimball (same one who is generally quoted for masturbation abstinence) has "gone away"--if it hasn't I sure HOPE that I would have heard of it before getting married. (I can only imagine the awkward interviews it caused when that came out). As far as I know, bishops are now counseled to basically stay out of the married couple's bedroom. BUT please note that it's not that the first presidency sent a letter out saying "nevermind about oral sex being unnatural, impure, and unholy... it's up to you to follow the spirit whether you feel it is or not between you in marriage"... I can understand why this is the case, however, as a lot of members would flip because they are operating (much to Brigham Young despair, as he very directly told the members not to act this way) under the pretense that the first presidency can't make mistakes and that they should be followed in every instance without question. (side note: Based on this, I can understand how much the first presidency struggled sending out the proclamation ending the practice of polygamy).

So is that what is happening to masturbation? Is it simply an issue that previous leaders hard-lined about, but now are practically ignoring / leaving it up to individuals to feel out? It kind of seems that way to me. And that sucks for a lot of members like me always question whether a little indiscretion requires confession to the bishop. If you search masturbation on lds.org, it hasn't been mentioned in conference talks (and even then, only a few times) since the 80's (and specifically removing it from the For the Strength of Youth and replacing it with the single line "do not arouse these feelings in your own body"-- that being the only direction there is on the subject, it seems). Very unfortunate, considering how for me (and others no doubt) my struggle with shameful feelings related to masturbation have severely distracted me from focusing on other things related to worthiness that I could be improving upon.

The unfortunate side effect of the "ignore it" or (without specifically saying so to the members) the "leave it up to them" stance (if I'm not mistaken in guessing that is truly what's happening here) is that we now have many many many local priesthood leaders who, without specific direction, continue to probe members and deal with masturbation the way it has generally been dealt with in the past (based on their own personal experience): it seems to me that the standard result in is "don't take the sacrament for a week"... this in spite of the fact that it is not even mentioned in the handbook. I've heard of mission presidents threatening to send a missionary home if they "did it again". I personally had a mission president who said "don't confess to me, just don't take the sacrament for a week" if you masturbated. At the end of my mission we got another mission president who, when he found out that a missionary in my zone (I was a zone leader) wasn't taking the sacrament, said to me "that's not what should be happening".

Years ago when I took Bro. Bott's Doctrine and Covenants class at BYU, he said that he believes (and I hope I don't misrepresent what he said) that while it's not right to masturbate, that you shouldn't hesitate to take the sacrament and move on (and he is a former bishop and stake president), and not bother with confessing unless it is really an addiction / dragging you down in some way. He even said he's written the first presidency about this issue, begging them to give more direction to local priesthood leaders (as he, in his experience, has seen some priesthood leaders go to the extreme and tell members not to take the sacrament for extended periods of time due to some masturbation).

No doubt the fact that no official direction on oral sex has been forthcoming has resulted in many couples who may have benefited from incorporating it into their sexual relationship still probably refraining from it due to 30 year old counsel that has not been directly refuted by subsequent general authorities. Even though it hasn't been directly refuted by general authorities, have my wife and I been sinning? I don't think so.

Just my 2 cents. I hope my perspective is helpful to somebody.

Should you answer "yes" to the "are you keeping the law of chastity" question of the temple recommend interview if you masturbate? That's between you and God. You should probably take the time to find out. I don't think God wants you to beat yourself up too much, though.

PS. there is an excellent Sexual Health journal article from 2005 that addresses Mormons and masturbation (I won't link to it, but you can search it out easily)--it investigates the history of it which I found very interesting:

In a Nutshell: Mormons and Masturbation

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young: completely silent on the issue (though lots of other sexuality topics were very specifically addressed... very odd indeed). About that time around the world, the scientific community had some gross misconceptions about masturbation causing insanity, etc., and pretty much everybody in the world believed it to be terrible medically and/or sinful.

1890's was the first recorded first-presidency-involved discussion on it as a gross evil based on some meeting minutes.

1920's-1930's after science proved it to not cause insanity, etc., a church manual shows the stance on it appears to have softened a great deal (even compared with today).

1950's-1980's started to hardline against masturbation (as a sin) including youth interviews specifically addressing it...

last 2 decades--nothing in the church handbook, and a single "don't do it" sentence in the for-the-strength-of-youth book, many local priesthood leaders don't ask about it directly and some do. Many differing opinions regarding its seriousness / requirements for repentance.

Edited August 5, 2013 by skippy740

[skippy740]

Your post is well constructed and thorough. I do appreciate it.

However, the official stance of this forum will be to continue to recommend youth counsel with their Bishops and work it out between themselves, their Bishops and the Lord.

With that final thought...

Thread closed.

Edited August 5, 2013 by skippy740