Law of Chastity and Masturbation

[pam]

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!

Well I did say "In this case."

[Guest]

...

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

“And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be mined unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3–4; See also Moses 5:50–55.)

[log2]

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

I believe you stand alone.

Few subjects have been more debated and less understood than the Proclamation of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln was himself opposed to the measure, and when he very reluctantly issued the preliminary proclamation in September, 1862, he wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy. Like Mr. Clay and other prominent leaders of the old Whig party, he believed in colonization, and that the separation of the two races was necessary to the welfare of both. He was at that time pressing upon the attention of Congress a scheme of colonization in Chiriqui, in Central America, which Senator Pomeroy espoused with great zeal, and in which he had the favor of a majority of the Cabinet, including Secretary Smith, who warmly indorsed the project. Subsequent developments, however, proved that it was simply an organization for land-stealing and plunder, and it was abandoned; but it is by no means certain that if the President had foreseen this fact his preliminary notice to the rebels would have been given. There are strong reasons for saying that he doubted his right to emancipate under the war power, and he doubtless meant what he said when he compared an Executive order to that effect to “the Pope’s Bull against the comet.” In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

[log2]

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.

Since we're in judgement mode (I thought that was against board policies), I guess nobody can complain if I cite this in response:

2 ¶Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.

[MarginOfError]

I believe you stand alone.

Stubborn and no sense of humor. Such a pity.

[MarginOfError]

Since we're in judgement mode (I thought that was against board policies), I guess nobody can complain if I cite this in response:

But what if we follow a multitude to do righteousness? Is that wrong too?

[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.

Oh and BTW, the link I posted is from the authorized book used in RS curriculum and does in fact have that header just as I showed. It's directly from the curriculum approved by the Church.

You'll find it in Chapter 17.

[MarginOfError]

Oh and BTW, the link I posted is from the authorized book used in RS curriculum and does in fact have that header just as I showed. It's directly from the curriculum approved by the Church.

You'll find it in Chapter 17.

Oh snap!

[log2]

Hmm. Here's the original phrasing of the Law of Chastity, apparently (for men): ""I will never have anything to do with any of the daughters of Eve, unless they are given to me of the Lord."

[Leah]

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.

But you aren't telling the truth.

[log2]

Oh and BTW, the link I posted is from the authorized book used in RS curriculum and does in fact have that header just as I showed. It's directly from the curriculum approved by the Church.

You'll find it in Chapter 17.

Yep - but since you referred me specifically to Spencer W. Kimball's statement, I went and saw that he did not attach any such heading to his own words.

[log2]

But you aren't telling the truth.

Then prove me in a lie.

[MarginOfError]

Hmm. Here's the original phrasing of the Law of Chastity, apparently (for men): ""I will never have anything to do with any of the daughters of Eve, unless they are given to me of the Lord."

Great! Apparently, the Church felt that wasn't comprehensive enough, seeing as they've changed it...at least twice.

[Guest]

Then prove me in a lie.

It seems to me you're doing a pretty good job of that on your own.

[MarginOfError]

Yep - but since you referred me specifically to Spencer W. Kimball's statement, I went and saw that he did not attach any such heading to his own words.

Why should that matter? The First Presidency, some of whom served with President Kimball and knew him well, felt that was a reasonable heading to add.

[log2]

It seems to me you're doing a pretty good job of that on your own.

Then prove me in a lie: show where any prophet anywhere at any time has said this: "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity."

My claim is that no prophet anywhere ever said this.

[log2]

Why should that matter? The First Presidency, some of whom served with President Kimball and knew him well, felt that was a reasonable heading to add.

And that means... something. I think. To someone. Somewhere. If it's the case that the First Presidency did, in fact, feel, or even think, anything about it at all, or if it was even vetted by one of them.

[log2]

Great! Apparently, the Church felt that wasn't comprehensive enough, seeing as they've changed it...at least twice.

Yes, and in each case clarifying it, and making the reference explicit with reference to interpersonal sexual relations.

[pam]

Yep - but since you referred me specifically to Spencer W. Kimball's statement, I went and saw that he did not attach any such heading to his own words.

You believe what you want. You are wrong and I'm done debating. You continue to twist and deny anything anyone says to fit your own agenda and line of thinking and refuse to even acknowledge some of the things that others are saying.

You refuse to provide any kind of proof to back up your way of thinking. It's been asked time and time of you. Yet others are providing what they feel backs theirs.

All I can say is that I hope anyone lurking doesn't take YOUR word as fact. Because it's wrong.

[MarginOfError]

And that means... something. I think. To someone. Somewhere. If it's the case that the First Presidency did, in fact, feel, or even think, anything about it at all, or if it was even vetted by one of them.

Educate yourself on the Correlation Department.

[Guest]

You have been shown where it's been said by a prophet of the Lord and many other of His servants that masturbation is a violation of the LoC. That it isn't verbatim the way you want it doesn't make it not so, as much as you wish that to be the case.

[pam]

Let me add one thing. Please show me one reference where any Prophet or general authority says that masturbation DOES NOT violate the law of chasity.

[MarginOfError]

Yes, and in each case clarifying it, and making the reference explicit with reference to interpersonal sexual relations.

Perhaps until the last change, which made it arguably more obscure. But again, that's only if you accept the temple definition as the only definition of the law of chastity.

And that's a perfectly valid line of logic. It truly is. It just isn't the only line of logic that leads to valid conclusions.

[Guest]

Silly pam. If you're not on his side, the onus is on you to prove it.

[log2]

You believe what you want. You are wrong and I'm done debating. You continue to twist and deny anything anyone says to fit your own agenda and line of thinking and refuse to even acknowledge some of the things that others are saying.

What, pray tell, is my agenda, do you think?

You refuse to provide any kind of proof to back up your way of thinking. It's been asked time and time of you. Yet others are providing what they feel backs theirs.

I provided 1. the dictionary, and 2. the formal statement of the Law of Chastity. The two together are my sole case. The rest is interesting, but sideshow.

All I can say is that I hope anyone lurking doesn't take YOUR word as fact. Because it's wrong.

You can say that, but you cannot demonstrate it, because I'm correct. Masturbation is, itself and alone, not a violation of the Law of Chastity, because the Law of Chastity explicitly governs behavior between individuals.