Law of Chastity and Masturbation

[Guest]

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.

[MarginOfError]

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

That's an awfully pretty way of saying, "I don't have any good response to that."

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

For any reason other than, "I don't like that it makes my argument weak?"

[log2]

Ah, I see Pam changed her post after I'd responded.

No, I'm not trying to make the board less orthodox.

[log2]

That's an awfully pretty way of saying, "I don't have any good response to that."

If you think that's what I was saying, then maybe it was actually an awfully ugly way of saying "your observation draws a distinction which makes literally no difference."

For any reason other than, "I don't like that it makes my argument weak?"

Well, gee, if we free words from their definitions, then maybe yes means no, and the world goes topsy-turvy. I'm kind of fond of being able to say "interpersonal does not equal intrapersonal," myself, so losing that capability would seem to weaken any arguments which depend upon that distinction.

Or, as that one guy said on Law and Order: "I concede your point. If things were different they wouldn't be the same."

Edited May 7, 2012 by log2

[MarginOfError]

If you think that's what I was saying, then maybe it was actually an awfully ugly way of saying "your observation draws a distinction which makes literally no difference."

How convenient for you to only have to respond to one sentence in the temple ordinances and not to any of the statements from Church leaders cited in this thread.

Well, gee, if we free words from their definitions, then maybe yes means no, and the world goes topsy-turvy. I'm kind of fond of being able to say "interpersonal does not equal intrapersonal," myself, so losing that capability would seem to weaken any arguments which depend upon that distinction.

Or, as that one guy said on Law and Order: "I concede your point. If things were different then they wouldn't be the same."

Don't change the subject. The statement I made was that it is reasonable to extend the temple definition of the law of chastity to intrapersonal relations, not that they were the same as interpersonal relations.

[log2]

How convenient for you to only have to respond to one sentence in the temple ordinances and not to any of the statements from Church leaders cited in this thread.

Unless you wish to be held to the same standard, you show wisdom in leaving well enough alone.

Don't change the subject. The statement I made was that it is reasonable to extend the temple definition of the law of chastity to intrapersonal relations, not that they were the same as interpersonal relations.

I said it wasn't reasonable. I'm sorry if my oblique manner of saying that was difficult to parse for you.

Neither do I think the WoW covers cold drinks. Some people think THAT is a reasonable inference... go figure.

[MarginOfError]

Unless you wish to be held to the same standard, you show wisdom in leaving well enough alone.

Bring it on.

I said it wasn't reasonable. I'm sorry if my oblique manner of saying that was difficult to parse for you.

Neither do I think the WoW covers cold drinks. Some people think THAT is a reasonable inference... go figure.

And I'd be happy to listen to their reasoning. As I'd be happy to listen to your reasoning that intrapersonal relations are not a reasonable interpretation. As yet, you have not presented any such reasoning other than "I don't like it."

[log2]

As I'd be happy to listen to your reasoning that intrapersonal relations are not a reasonable interpretation. As yet, you have not presented any such reasoning other than "I don't like it."

You bear the burden of proof. You can dispute this, but the formal statement of the Law of Chastity, as I have already observed, contemplates solely interpersonal relations. Period. Full stop. Therefore, I am justified on the face of things in asserting that the Law of Chastity pertains solely to interpersonal relations. Period. Full stop.

There is no demonstrable bridge from "interpersonal relations" to "intrapersonal relations" - which phrase is self-contradictory in any event.

That's the sole reasoning employed, and the sole reasoning required.

Edited May 7, 2012 by log2

[skippy740]

On the day of judgment, should a non-repentant masturbator tell the Lord that "the dictionary said I could"?

[log2]

On the day of judgment, should a non-repentant masturbator tell the Lord that "the dictionary said I could"?

I think in the day of judgement you will find that the unrepentant will have far more than masturbation to justify.

Your question presumes too much. Nobody has said masturbation isn't a sin. What has been said is that it is not a violation of the Law of Chastity.

The Law of Chastity, let me remind you, was the subject of Brigham's "blood atonement" preaching. He was extremely clear on what he was talking about - adultery and fornication. These are the kinds of thing that makes Sons of Perdition out of endowed members, if you believe Brigham.

Would you say the unrepentant masturbator - if masturbation is, however improbably, the sole sin someone is guilty of - is a Son of Perdition, out of curiosity?

[MarginOfError]

You bear the burden of proof. You can dispute this, but the formal statement of the Law of Chastity, as I have already observed, contemplates solely interpersonal relations. Period. Full stop. Therefore, I am justified on the face of things in asserting that the Law of Chastity pertains solely to interpersonal relations. Period. Full stop.

There is no demonstrable bridge from "interpersonal relations" to "intrapersonal relations" - which phrase is self-contradictory in any event.

That's the sole reasoning employed, and the sole reasoning required.

See here and here

It isn't so clear to me that the current definition only applies to interpersonal relations. Men and women are to have no sexual relations except with whom they are legally and lawfully married? Can a man marry himself? Can a woman marry herself?

Considering that the temple-specific definition of the law of chastity has already changed include more activity that just intercourse, how can we be sure that it wouldn't expand even further if it were deemed necessary.

And again, you are relying on a single interpretation of a single statement and ignoring the other statements made by recent Church leaders.

I don't really care that you have your own interpretation. But the implication that your own interpretation is the only reasonable and acceptable interpretation is quite simple-minded.

[skippy740]

Nobody has said masturbation isn't a sin. What has been said is that it is not a violation of the Law of Chastity.

3 Nephi 27:4

4 And the Lord said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing?

[log2]

See here and here

It isn't so clear to me that the current definition only applies to interpersonal relations.

Then you have issues far beyond those I can help you with, unfortunately.

And again, you are relying on a single interpretation of a single statement and ignoring the other statements made by recent Church leaders.

I am relying on the actual statement of the Law of Chastity, and the agreed-upon meanings of the words involved in its statement.

If you want to hold me responsible for the opinions of various and sundry Brethren, then I must ask: do you wish me to likewise hold your feet to the fire by using the Brethren's views on evolution, the age of the earth, the literal Adam and Eve, the Fall, Noah and the worldwide flood, Lot's wife, Jonah in the whale, and such like explicit, canonized teachings? No? Then maybe you had best not act the hypocrite on this issue.

I don't really care that you have your own interpretation. But the implication that your own interpretation is the only reasonable and acceptable interpretation is quite simple-minded.

If it makes you feel better to say that, then I hope you feel better now. While you saying that doesn't change reality, I can appreciate what counter-factual self-pep-talks can do for one's ego.

Edited May 7, 2012 by log2

[log2]

3 Nephi 27:4

I said much the same already.

[MarginOfError]

I think in the day of judgement you will find that the unrepentant will have far more than masturbation to justify.

Your question presumes too much. Nobody has said masturbation isn't a sin. What has been said is that it is not a violation of the Law of Chastity.

The Law of Chastity, let me remind you, was the subject of Brigham's "blood atonement" preaching. He was extremely clear on what he was talking about - adultery and fornication. These are the kinds of thing that makes Sons of Perdition out of endowed members, if you believe Brigham.

Would you say the unrepentant masturbator - if masturbation is, however improbably, the sole sin someone is guilty of - is a Son of Perdition, out of curiosity?

And what of the current prophets?

[pam]

various and sundry Brethren

Just who are you calling various and sundry Brethren?

[MarginOfError]

Then you have issues far beyond those I can help you with, unfortunately.

I am relying on the actual statement of the Law of Chastity, and the agreed-upon meanings of the words involved in its statement.

If you want to hold me responsible for the opinion of various and sundry Brethren, then I must ask: do you wish me to likewise hold your feet to the fire by using the Brethren's views on evolution, the age of the earth, the literal Adam and Eve, the Fall, Noah and the worldwide flood, Lot's wife, Jonah in the whale, and such like explicit, canonized teachings? No? Then maybe you had best not act the hypocrite on this issue.

Like I said, bring it on.

If it makes you feel better to say that, then I hope you feel better now. While you saying that doesn't change reality, I can appreciate what counter-factual personal pep talks can do for one's ego.

More deflection. It's like you don't have a reasoned argument to give.

[log2]

More deflection. It's like you don't have a reasoned argument to give.

It has already been given. That you don't like it, and don't have a cogent response, is hardly my problem.

[log2]

Just who are you calling various and sundry Brethren?

The phrase is not an insult - various means "several", and sundry means "diverse".

[log2]

And what of the current prophets?

Can you find even a single one who said masturbation qualifies one to be a Son of Perdition?

[skippy740]

It has already been given. That you don't like it, and don't have a cogent response, is hardly my problem.

No, that your opinion and stance is not in keeping with the teachings on the subject by the current and modern day prophets... that we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators.

Either you sustain the prophet... or you don't.

[log2]

No, that your opinion and stance is not in keeping with the teachings on the subject by the current and modern day prophets... that we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators.

Either you sustain the prophet... or you don't.

The prophet has nowhere said "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity."

If he had, we'd not be having this conversation.

[MarginOfError]

I don't really care that you have your own interpretation. But the implication that your own interpretation is the only reasonable and acceptable interpretation is quite simple-minded.

If it makes you feel better to say that, then I hope you feel better now. While you saying that doesn't change reality, I can appreciate what counter-factual self-pep-talks can do for one's ego.

More deflection. It's like you don't have a reasoned argument to give.

It has already been given. That you don't like it, and don't have a cogent response, is hardly my problem.

Would you now like to actually respond to the charge that " the implication that your own interpretation is the only reasonable and acceptable interpretation is quite simple-minded?"

[log2]

Would you now like to actually respond to the charge that " the implication that your own interpretation is the only reasonable and acceptable interpretation is quite simple-minded?"

That's a simple statement of your personal taste (opinion), and, as has already been covered, de gustibus non disputandum est.

[MarginOfError]

Can you find even a single one who said masturbation qualifies one to be a Son of Perdition?

Don't change the subject. The issue is about whether masturbation violates the law of chastity.