Law of Chastity and Masturbation

[MarginOfError]

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.

Oh, but Pam, you can't prove a negative!

[log2]

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.

No need. The Law of Chastity explicitly governs sexual relations between individuals.

Frankly, the fact that no prophet has ever said "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity" ought to give some pause to those who claim that it is such a violation.

Again, nobody is saying masturbation is not a sin. It simply is not covered by the Law of Chastity.

[Leah]

Then prove me in a lie.

So very telling that when anyone asks you to back up your claims, you can't/won't, but make the demand of others. Can we say hypocrite?

I don't have to "prove" your lie. It's already been proven by several others in the thread. And anyone with any knowledge of the teachings of the Church regarding the LoC can clearly see your lie.

Sometimes when I come across a person with such a desperate need to be right, I wonder at the cause of their desperation. It's a bit baffling to me why - when the Church teaching is very clear - someone is so invested in declaring that masturbation is not against the LoC. I could see someone taking this approach so that when they go for Temple interviews, they feel they can "honestly" answer that they do abide by the LoC....when they don't.

[log2]

Educate yourself on the Correlation Department.

Too bad we're talking about Relief Society, I guess; your cite isn't relevant in any case.

[slamjet]

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.

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Spencer W. Kimball: 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.

Spender W. Kimball again: Masturbation: To sexually stimulate oneself. “Masturbation … is not approved of the Lord nor of his Church, regardless of what may be said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower” (Spencer W. Kimball, President Kimball Speaks Out [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], p. 10).

That's what I've been able to get thus far from a quick search.

[MarginOfError]

No need. The Law of Chastity explicitly governs sexual relations between individuals.

Frankly, the fact that no prophet has ever said "masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity" ought to give some pause to those who claim that it is such a violation.

Again, nobody is saying masturbation is not a sin. It simply is not covered by the Law of Chastity.

...or it could be as shown by the logic presented by members of this board. Both are valid lines of reasoning.

[Wingnut]

Again, nobody is saying masturbation is not a sin. It simply is not covered by the Law of Chastity.

I have a question for you that I don't think has been asked yet. In order for something to be a sin, it must violate a heavenly law or commandment -- I think we can all agree on that, right? So assuming your premise is correct, that masturbation is not a violation of the Law of Chastity, what commandment or law does it violate? You must have some answer to this, since you acknowledge that it is, in fact, a sin.

[MarginOfError]

Too bad we're talking about Relief Society, I guess; your cite isn't relevant in any case.

The Correlation Department, under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reviews and approves every Church manual (hint: that includes Relief Society manuals).

[log2]

So very telling that when anyone asks you to back up your claims, you can't/won't, but make the demand of others. Can we say hypocrite?

I already explained - I don't remember where I read it. How hypocritical of me, I know.

Call me a liar for that, if you will.

I don't have to "prove" your lie. It's already been proven by several others in the thread. And anyone with any knowledge of the teachings of the Church regarding the LoC can clearly see your lie.

That's a long way of saying "I can't prove your lie."

Sometimes when I come across a person with such a desperate need to be right, I wonder at the cause of their desperation. It's a bit baffling to me why - when the Church teaching is very clear - someone is so invested in declaring that masturbation is not against the LoC. I could see someone taking this approach so that when they go for Temple interviews, they feel they can "honestly" answer that they do abide by the LoC....when they don't.

The Temple recommend interview questions ask, among other things, "Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?" As I have already explained, masturbation is an "unholy and impure practice," and its practice means the practitioner is not temple-worthy; that charge, be it remembered, is received by covenant.

So, explain again why you have a problem with my position?

[MarginOfError]

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Spencer W. Kimball: 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.

Spender W. Kimball again: Masturbation: To sexually stimulate oneself. “Masturbation … is not approved of the Lord nor of his Church, regardless of what may be said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower” (Spencer W. Kimball, President Kimball Speaks Out [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], p. 10).

That's what I've been able to get thus far from a quick search.

but, but, but....but the words "law of chastity" don't appear anywhere in those quotes.

[MarginOfError]

Sadly, I'm going to have to bow out of the fun to go get some sleep. I offer a peace token of sorts to you, log2. From now on, whenever someone disagrees with you, just post the image below and all will be well again.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=3964&d=1264779393

[log2]

The Correlation Department, under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reviews and approves every Church manual (hint: that includes Relief Society manuals).

Your cite still does not establish what you purported it to establish - namely, the heading in the RS manual was personally added to President Kimball's words by a member of the First Presidency.

I stand corrected on the dominion of the Priesthood Correlation Committee.

[Wingnut]

What part of "under the direction of the First Presidency" is confusing?

[log2]

I have a question for you that I don't think has been asked yet. In order for something to be a sin, it must violate a heavenly law or commandment -- I think we can all agree on that, right? So assuming your premise is correct, that masturbation is not a violation of the Law of Chastity, what commandment or law does it violate? You must have some answer to this, since you acknowledge that it is, in fact, a sin.

It violates the charge to avoid all light-mindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, the taking of the name of God in vain, and every other unholy and impure practice - which charge is received by covenant.

If you violate this charge, you are in violation of your covenants.

[Guest]

It was added under their direction and with their approval, which is the same thing as them adding it themselves. I think I read a scripture about that once but I don't wanna look it up and anyway I'm right.

[log2]

What part of "under the direction of the First Presidency" is confusing?

Nothing at all. What part of "not necessarily done personally by a member of the First Presidency" is confusing?

[log2]

It was added under their direction and with their approval, which is the same thing as them adding it themselves. I think I read a scripture about that once but I don't wanna look it up and anyway I'm right.

That wasn't the nature of MOE's claim. He said a member of the First Presidency did it.

[Wingnut]

That wasn't the nature of MOE's claim. He said a member of the First Presidency did it.

No, he said that they thought it was reasonable to add.

[log2]

No, he said that they thought it was reasonable to add.

Whichever. As it turns out, that claim is unsubstantiated.

[Wingnut]

How is it unsubstantiated?

[Guest]

You change the rules as you go. I bet you were a big hit on the playground.

On the other hand, I'm sure you've found great success in middle management, which is where I imagine you work.

[log2]

How is it unsubstantiated?

It is unsubstantiated that any particular member of the First Presidency felt anything at all about it, or even thought about it, or even vetted it.

[log2]

You change the rules as you go. I bet you were a big hit on the playground.

On the other hand, I'm sure you've found great success in middle management, which is where I imagine you work.

Gee. If I need lessons in triumphalism and sneering, what are your rates? And will you telecommute?

[Leah]

I already explained - I don't remember where I read it. How hypocritical of me, I know.

Call me a liar for that, if you will.

That's a long way of saying "I can't prove your lie."

The Temple recommend interview questions ask, among other things, "Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?" As I have already explained, masturbation is an "unholy and impure practice," and its practice means the practitioner is not temple-worthy; that charge, be it remembered, is received by covenant.

So, explain again why you have a problem with my position?

It is easy to explain...but you clearly have reading comprehension problems, especially when you read things you don't like.

I have a "problem" with your position because it is NOT the truth. It is a lie. See? So simple!

Your judgment of others is laughable, especially considering the fact that you make a statement you claim is fact - masturbation is not against the LoC - based on something you claim to have read somewhere....but then cannot remember where you read it and therefore you cannot provide the back-up you claim to have.

Yeah...and I "read somewhere" that I was going to be tall and blonde.

[slamjet]

but, but, but....but the words "law of chastity" don't appear anywhere in those quotes.