Law of Chastity and Masturbation

[skippy740]

D&c 58:26

26 for behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

[MarginOfError]

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

So you still hold that your interpretation is the only reasonable and acceptable one?

[log2]

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

That wasn't what I was responding to, and you know it. Brigham taught violations of the Law of Chastity make Sons of Perdition out of endowed members. If masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, then it too must make Sons of Perdition out of endowed members. So, are you able to find even a single prophet - either modern or ancient - who said masturbation makes Sons of Perdition out of endowed members?

No?

[MarginOfError]

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

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

No, but what they have said is that we should not stir within ourselves the emotions connected to sexual reproduction. Furthermore, they have done so in the context of keeping the law of chastity.

[log2]

D&c 58:26

As I said, I agree it is a sin.

[skippy740]

President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality - New Era Nov. 1980 - new-era

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. Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission or receives the holy priesthood or goes in the temple for his blessings.

The next thing we'll probably see is that since it's not the CURRENT president of the church "it doesn't count", right?

Oh, and the entire article is about morality and chastity. So, I would say that because it's included in such an article, it is part of the Law of Chastity.

Edited May 7, 2012 by skippy740

[log2]

So you still hold that your interpretation is the only reasonable and acceptable one?

I hold that the Law of Chastity is not properly interpreted to pertain to your self-contradictory notion of "intrapersonal relations."

That concept is literally nonsense.

[log2]

President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality - New Era Nov. 1980 - new-era

The next thing we'll probably see is that since it's not the CURRENT president of the church "it doesn't count", right?

He didn't say anything about anything I'm talking about.

[MarginOfError]

That wasn't what I was responding to, and you know it. Brigham taught violations of the Law of Chastity make Sons of Perdition out of endowed members. If masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, then it too must make Sons of Perdition out of endowed members. So, are you able to find even a single prophet - either modern or ancient - who said masturbation makes Sons of Perdition out of endowed members?

No?

Please provide source and context.

[pam]

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

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

Yet we have had a prophet state this:

The law of chastity prohibits all sexual relations outside marriage.

That the Church’s stand on morality may be understood, we declare firmly and unalterably it is not an outworn garment, faded, old-fashioned, and threadbare. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and his covenants and doctrines are immutable; and when the sun grows cold and the stars no longer shine, the law of chastity will still be basic in God’s world and in the Lord’s church. Old values are upheld by the Church not because they are old, but rather because they are right.3

Total chastity before marriage and total fidelity after are still the standard from which there can be no deviation without sin, misery, and unhappiness.4

Those who seem to flout the institution of marriage, and who regard chastity before marriage with fidelity after as old-fashioned, seem determined to establish a new fashion on their own and impose it upon others. Can they not see the gross selfishness that will lead finally to deep loneliness? Can they not see that, pushed by pleasure, they will become more and more distant from joy? Can they not see that their kind of fulfillment will produce a hollowness and an emptiness from which no fleeting pleasure can finally rescue them? The law of the harvest has not been repealed [see Galatians 6:7].5

The early apostles and prophets mention numerous sins that were reprehensible to them. Many of them were sexual sins—adultery, being without natural affection, lustfulness, infidelity, incontinence, filthy communications, impurity, inordinate affection, fornication. They included all sexual relations outside marriage—petting, sex perversion, masturbation, and preoccupation with sex in one’s thoughts and talking. Included are every hidden and secret sin and all unholy and impure thoughts and practices. One of the worst of these is incest

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - The Law of Chastity

[log2]

No, but what they have said is that we should not stir within ourselves the emotions connected to sexual reproduction. Furthermore, they have done so in the context of keeping the law of chastity.

That does not mean that masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity.

[log2]

Pam,

That doesn't touch anything I'm saying either.

Once again, I agree masturbation is a sin.

[Guest]

Her point was that masturbation is grouped in with other sexual sins. You know, the ones included in the Law of Chastity.

[log2]

Please provide source and context.

Sorry - you first.

As it is, I haven't kept track of all these things. Not all of Brigham's discourses are available online, but I remember them as I read them.

Feel free to call me a liar, though.

[log2]

Her point was that masturbation is grouped in with other sexual sins. You know, the ones included in the Law of Chastity.

And others which aren't. As I'm sure you noticed.

[pam]

But it does. You are stating it doesn't fall under the Law of Chastity. The link I provided states it does. It's under the heading

The law of chastity prohibits all sexual relations outside marriage.

[MarginOfError]

I hold that the Law of Chastity is not properly interpreted to pertain to your self-contradictory notion of "intrapersonal relations."

That concept is literally nonsense.

To you, but it is an entirely valid and justifiable line of reasoning.

[log2]

To you, but it is an entirely valid and justifiable line of reasoning.

Calling the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

[log2]

But it does. You are stating it doesn't fall under the Law of Chastity. The link I provided states it does. It's under the heading

The law of chastity prohibits all sexual relations outside marriage.

You're reading into it more than it actually claims, Pam.

And, being perfectly clear, the Law of Chastity is only that which is stated in the Temple.

And, the original article lacked the heading, too.

Edited May 7, 2012 by log2

[MarginOfError]

Sorry - you first.

As it is, I haven't kept track of all these things. Not all of Brigham's discourses are available online, but I remember them as I read them.

I have provided sources and context for all of my claims throughout this thread. Your response each time has been to the effect of, I disagree with your conclusion, therefore your logic is flawed.

I've looked for statements from Young that justify the claim that violations of the law of chastity make one a son of perdition. Basic web searches have turned up nothing. If you wish to be able to continue to use that claim, then the burden of proof is yours.

Or do you not like to play by the rules when they don't work to your benefit.

Feel free to call me a liar, though.

I've done no such thing. I've requested that you show your line of reasoning with supporting documentation. do you find it insulting that I just don't take your word for it?

[log2]

I've done no such thing. I've requested that you show your line of reasoning with supporting documentation. do you find it insulting that I just don't take your word for it?

I have already given my line of reasoning.

And, no, I quite expect you, of all posters here, to challenge each and every one of my claims. Why would I be insulted? I likewise don't trust you.

[MarginOfError]

Calling the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Five. See, that wasn't so hard was it?

[pam]

You're reading into it more than it actually claims, Pam.

And, being perfectly clear, the Law of Chastity is only that which is stated in the Temple.

And, the original article lacked the heading, too.

And I could say you are not reading into it what it actually says. You want to be right and that's all there is to it. The majority of people in this debate disagree with you. That should say something. In this case, I go with the majority.

[MarginOfError]

I have already given my line of reasoning.

So give the sources that support your line of reasoning.

And, no, I quite expect you, of all posters here, to challenge each and every one of my claims. Why would I be insulted? I likewise don't trust you.

Me of all posters here? Oooooo...I'm special!

[MarginOfError]

And I could say you are not reading into it what it actually says. You want to be right and that's all there is to it. The majority of people in this debate disagree with you. That should say something. In this case, I go with the majority.

Oh, but Pam, if everyone went and jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?

Listen to me! I'm smarter than everyone else and I'm right because I said so!