Law of Chastity and Masturbation

[pam]

To the OP, yes that question has been asked in youth interviews by various bishops and stake. We gave a letter to our bishop indicating that if anything of the sort was asked during interviews with the youth in our family it would immediately be reported to CPS.

-RM

So we're now advocating blackmailing Bishops? Nice.

[log2]

It's not? How do you figure that?

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

[Guest]

Our sins can only be justified in Christ. But we sure do try to do it ourselves, don't we?

[Guest]

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

You don't think masturbation is relations? So if someone else did it for you, that would be okay, too?

[beefche]

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

Thank you, Mr. Clinton.

Now, by your definition, oral sex is not breaking the Law of Chastity.

[MarginOfError]

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

Isn't it possible that the prior version were changed because they were inadequate?

I like the following discussion about the law of chastity:

Strongly tied to the sacred, private parts of the body are powerful emotions intended to be used within the covenant of marriage between a man and woman in ways that are appropriate and acceptable to them both. They are an important part of the love and trust that bond a husband and wife together and prepare them for the responsibilities of a family. They bring the blessing of children. These emotions are not to be stimulated or used for personal gratification outside of the covenant of marriage. Do not touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body to stimulate those emotions. Do not allow anyone to do that with you, with or without clothing. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. These things are wrong. Do not do them. Such practices would undermine your ability to be inspired by the Holy Ghost in the vitally important decisions you must make for your future. They lead to binding addictions and grievous transgressions. (Source)

[log2]

You don't think masturbation is relations? So if someone else did it for you, that would be okay, too?

That would be sexual relations, by definition.

Thank you, Mr. Clinton.

Now, by your definition, oral sex is not breaking the Law of Chastity.

That would be sexual relations, by definition.

Isn't it possible that the prior version were changed because they were inadequate?

Aliens from Mars are possible, too.

I like the following discussion about the law of chastity:

De gustibus non disputandum est.

[skippy740]

So... you're agreeing in a disagreeing fashion?

[beefche]

But masturbation is not sexual relations?

[log2]

What part of relations is so difficult to understand?

[beefche]

So, because masturbation isn't necessarily with another person, then it doesn't qualify as something that is prohibited in the LoC?

[log2]

So, because masturbation isn't necessarily with another person, then it doesn't qualify as something that is prohibited in the LoC?

Masturbation (definition 1, in context) does not violate the Law of Chastity.

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

[skippy740]

So... let's suppose that masturbation is not against the law of chastity.

Yet, we agree that it is an unholy and impure practice.

What part of the commandments does masturbation fall under? At a very minimum, it would be an extention of the law of chastity. Would there be anywhere else?

[log2]

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

[pam]

Masturbation (definition 1, in context) does not violate the Law of Chastity.

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

According to Mormonwiki it states:

Mormons are encouraged to avoid all thoughts, intents, and actions that arouse passions leading to improper sexual conduct. They are commanded not to arouse any emotions that can only be expressed between a husband and wife. Behavior such as viewing pornography and engaging in masturbation are against the Law of Chastity. Mormons are told to learn to control their thoughts and not to arouse sexual feelings before or outside of marriage. Mormon youth are taught to avoid petting, passionate kissing, and improper touching.

[log2]

When Mormonwiki is canonized, my position might change.

[beefche]

Decide now to be chaste. You need to make this decision only once. Make the decision now, before the temptation comes, and let your decision be so firm and with such deep commitment that it can never be shaken. Determine now that you will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not arouse those emotions in another person’s body or in your own body. Determine now that you will be completely true to your spouse.

Source

[log2]

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

[beefche]

Really? So, arousing sexual feelings in your own body isn't addressing the topic of masturbation?

[log2]

Really? So, arousing sexual feelings in your own body isn't addressing the topic of masturbation?

The topic that you and I are discussing - "Is masturbation (of oneself) a violation of the Law of Chastity?" - is completely untouched by your source.

I am also going to add that I am deeply confused as to why there is any opposition to the position that I've outlined. As a matter of history and definitions, I am clearly correct. Neither am I justifying wickedness - so whence cometh the opposition?

[beefche]

Your justification is astounding. I'll leave this discussion with the following.

Clearly, anyone who studies the Law of Chastity and sexual purity recognizes that arousing sexual feelings in your own body or someone else's body is expressly prohibited prior to marriage and then only with your spouse after marriage. Someone struggling with controlling these feelings must understand that sexual feelings are holy and good--but should be controlled as the Lord as instructed. Anyone struggling with the control of them should consult with a bishop if they think they are not living the law.

[pam]

The topic that you and I are discussing - "Is masturbation (of oneself) a violation of the Law of Chastity?" - is completely untouched by your source.

I am also going to add that I am deeply confused as to why there is any opposition to the position that I've outlined. As a matter of history and definitions, I am clearly correct. Neither am I justifying wickedness - so whence cometh the opposition?

Your statement about being correct and is not against the law of chastity is contrary to what the church teaches. Arousing yourself outside the bounds of marriage is against the law of chastity. This includes masturbation.

[log2]

Your justification is astounding.

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

[log2]

Your statement about being correct and is not against the law of chastity is contrary to what the church teaches. Arousing yourself outside the bounds of marriage is against the law of chastity. This includes masturbation.

You are strictly incorrect on both counts. Masturbation per se has never been taught to be a violation of the Law of Chastity; certainly it is not in the canonized teachings of the Church as such.

As a historical matter, in fact, the subject of Brother Brigham's so-called "blood atonement" preaching was violations of the Law of Chastity, and he was exceedingly clear as to what that meant to him.

[pam]

So basically what you are saying is: If our youth were to ask what would break the law of chastity..it's okay to tell them that masturbation doesn't?