Law of Chastity and Masturbation

[log2]

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?

If directly asked if masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, I would say (and, in fact, have publicly said) it is not.

I would also say that masturbation is a sin, and one ought not do any such things, and I would give some (to my mind) compelling reasons why it ought to be avoided.

[MarginOfError]

Aliens from Mars are possible, too.

Then I'd be interested in your reasoning for why the Church changed the formal definition of the law of chastity.

De gustibus non disputandum est.

That may be my preference, but it stands in good company. As I already showed, at least one member of the Quorum of the Twelve is of the opinion that masturbation violates the law of chastity. On the Church's website, it states under a subtitle of "Keeping the Law of Chastity"

We can determine now that we will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. (link)

In the For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet, it states

Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. (link)

End point: The correlation department, under the direction of the First Presidency, seems pretty satisfied that the law of chastity concerns more than just the acts, but also the emotions. For the past 14ish years, they've been teaching that one can violate the law of chastity without involving another person.

So if your preference is your stated definition, that's fine. But there are much more credible people than yourself that disagree with you.

[log2]

Then I'd be interested in your reasoning for why the Church changed the formal definition of the law of chastity.

To catch some of the exceptions that others have noted in previous posts about sexual relations between people that fall short of intercourse. The simplest explanation, you see, is usually the correct one.

That may be my preference... is of the opinion ... seems pretty satisfied... people ...disagree.

I am aware that there are traditions of the fathers in the Church.

Now, however, let's play a game of tu quoque: shall we discuss the teachings of the brethren with respect to Darwinian evolution, or any of a host of other interesting topics, and see if you, personally, part company with them over these issues?

[skippy740]

Now, however, let's play a game of tu quoque: shall we discuss the teachings of the brethren with respect to Darwinian evolution, and see if you, personally, part company with them?

I would suggest that if you wanted to discuss this, that you start a new thread.

[pam]

We aren't talking about Darwinian evolution. We are discussing masturbation and how it relates to the law of chastity. Usually when one changes the subject they realize they have lost the argument.

Edited May 6, 2012 by pam

[MarginOfError]

To catch some of the exceptions that others have noted in previous posts about sexual relations between people that fall short of intercourse. The simplest explanation, you see, is usually the correct one.

I am aware that there are traditions of the fathers in the Church.

Now, however, let's play a game of tu quoque: shall we discuss the teachings of the brethren with respect to Darwinian evolution, and see if you, personally, part company with them?

I'm not sure you want to play that game. The inevitable result is that we will conclude that Church leaders will adjust and clarify upon the doctrines and commandments of the Lord when it is necessary. In your example, they gave up on teaching against Darwinian evolution. In my argument, they changed the definition of the law of chastity to better reflect its actual principles. So if we play your game, I win.

My advice to you, get with the times.

[log2]

I would suggest that if you wanted to discuss this, that you start a new thread.

We aren't talking about Darwinian evolution we are discussing masturbation and how it relates to the law of chastity. Usually when one changes the subject they realize they have lost the argument.

I'm sorry - the argument I'm engaged in here is proving that MOE is hypocritically appealing to common beliefs in the Church, while excusing himself from common beliefs in the Church. The official doctrines of the Church consist in that which has been canonized, and I my argument is perfectly sound on those grounds (combined with a dictionary).

[MarginOfError]

I'm sorry - the argument I'm engaged in here is proving that MOE is hypocritically appealing to common beliefs in the Church, while excusing himself from common beliefs in the Church. The official doctrines of the Church consist in that which has been canonized, and I my argument is perfectly sound on those grounds (combined with a dictionary).

Your analogy to Darwinian evolution fails here because evolution was never a doctrine.

[log2]

Your analogy to Darwinian evolution fails here because evolution was never a doctrine.

You cannot be serious in affecting to not understand the thrust of my charge of tu quoque.

Neither has "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity" ever been a doctrine.

[MarginOfError]

You cannot be serious in affecting to not understand the thrust of my charge of tu quoque.

Neither has "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity" ever been a doctrine.

Exactly the point. The law of chastity has never been a doctrine either. It is a commandment that reflects an underlying doctrine of family and procreation; much in the same way that the word of wisdom is a commandment that reflects an underlying doctrine of caring for ourselves and the sacred gifts we've been given.

As you may have noticed, commandments aren't all that static throughout the history of the world.

[pam]

I'm sorry - the argument I'm engaged in here is proving that MOE is hypocritically appealing to common beliefs in the Church, while excusing himself from common beliefs in the Church. The official doctrines of the Church consist in that which has been canonized, and I my argument is perfectly sound on those grounds (combined with a dictionary).

So we should tell our youth not to follow the Strength of Youth pamphlet which is put out by the church because it isn't canonized? Which is what MOE did quote from.

[log2]

Exactly the point. The law of chastity has never been a doctrine either. It is a commandment that reflects an underlying doctrine of family and procreation; much in the same way that the word of wisdom is a commandment that reflects an underlying doctrine of caring for ourselves and the sacred gifts we've been given.

As you may have noticed, commandments aren't all that static throughout the history of the world.

I have noticed. However, unless and until it can be shown that the Law of Chastity, of necessity, incorporates a prohibition against self-gratification - and that is impossible, because the formal statement of the Law of Chastity considers only interpersonal relationships - then that's it.

On the other hand, you might make a case that masturbation is a violation of the Word of Wisdom - that would be an interesting route to take.

[log2]

So we should tell our youth not to follow the Strength of Youth pamphlet which is put out by the church because it isn't canonized? Which is what MOE did quote from.

Pam,

I am a parent in Zion with two young children of my own. If you want to know what I shall tell them, I shall tell them to follow all the injunctions in the FTSOY pamphlet. I will not necessarily endorse the reasoning behind the injunctions.

[pam]

Pam,

I am a parent in Zion with two young children of my own. If you want to know what I shall tell them, I shall tell them to follow all the injunctions in the FTSOY pamphlet. I will not necessarily endorse the reasoning behind the injunctions.

That is your choice as a parent. But I will never agree with you that masturbation is not a violation of the Law of Chasity nor do I ever think we should state otherwise. It sends out wrong signals to our youth and to anyone that may be struggling with this.

[log2]

That is your choice as a parent. But I will never agree with you that masturbation is not a violation of the Law of Chasity nor do I ever think we should state otherwise. It sends out wrong signals to our youth and to anyone that may be struggling with this.

The truth harms nobody. I am a firm disbeliever in the notion of the "noble lie." If the Lord directs me otherwise, I will do otherwise, but until then, things are what they are.

Incidentally, you'll find upon examination that masturbation is a symptom of other problems in a person's spiritual life.

[Guest]

Incidentally, you'll find upon examination that masturbation is a symptom of other problems in a person's spiritual life.

As are a lot of things that we aren't supposed to engage in. What's your point?

[log2]

As are a lot of things that we aren't supposed to engage in. What's your point?

My point is that if someone has a problem with masturbation, they actually have another problem that is being ignored or justified, which, if fixed, will lead to the fixing of the masturbation problem too.

[skippy740]

Somehow, the word "duh" is coming to my mind... I wonder why?

[Guest]

It's still a sin.

[log2]

Where have I ever said otherwise? Edited May 7, 2012 by log2
included link to my first post in this thread for illustration

[Guest]

[MarginOfError]

I have noticed. However, unless and until it can be shown that the Law of Chastity, of necessity, incorporates a prohibition against self-gratification - and that is impossible, because the formal statement of the Law of Chastity considers only interpersonal relationships - then that's it.

On the other hand, you might make a case that masturbation is a violation of the Word of Wisdom - that would be an interesting route to take.

That was a good attempt, but it still falls short. the "formal statement of the Law of Chastity considers only interpersonal relationships" requires a modifier. That would be "the current formal statement of the law of chastity considers only interpersonal relationships."

Also, it is entirely reasonable to interpret the current statement to include intrapersonal relations. The current statement that you appear to be referring to comes from the temple ordinances, and states that a person shall have "no sexual relations except with whom they are legally and lawfully married."

There are whole fields of research committed to intrapersonal communication. I see no reason one couldn't claim intrapersonal sexual relations exist. Indeed, given the evidence that addictive and compulsive patterns of masturbation can interfere with normal development of interpersonal relationships, I'd say there's a good case in favor of acknowledging such intrapersonal relations.

Lastly, just because the current statement interpreting the doctrines underlying to law of chastity doesn't cover masturbation, or x, or y, or theta doesn't mean that the act isn't contrary to the underlying principles.

[pam]

Log2 are you trying to change this board to be not be quite so orthodox? I mean that seems to be your opinion of this site enough to start a thread on another site to have people do nothing but bash this site.

Edited May 7, 2012 by pam

[log2]

That was a good attempt, but it still falls short. the "formal statement of the Law of Chastity considers only interpersonal relationships" requires a modifier. That would be "the current formal statement of the law of chastity considers only interpersonal relationships."

In any event, it is the only one we've got.

Also, it is entirely reasonable to interpret the current statement to include intrapersonal relations.

I humbly beg to be allowed to differ from you in this opinion of yours.

[log2]

Log2 are you trying to change this board to be more orthodox?

No, I'm not trying to change it. I understand it to be orthodox, and that's really enough for me at this point. As I spend more time here, getting to understand your personalities, I am finding that it's actually more orthodox, really, than Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board.

I mean that seems to be your opinion of this site enough to start a thread on another site to have people do nothing but bash this site.

Ah, that was early on in my examination of this board. Please excuse my poorly informed first impression of you.