Keeping the Flame Alive, long distance

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps the lack of any authoratative statement from church leaders on what is acceptable or not within the confines of marriage speaks volumes itself. I don't think the church wants to dictate to consenting adults what they should or should not do.

Saguaro, as I recall, the Church did presume to dictate what was acceptable within the confines of marriage in a letter from the First Presidency dated January 5, 1982. It specifically condemned oral sex, for example, and more generally ended with (paraphrasing here) "if you have to ask, it's not OK". That condemnation was not an isolated instance. But the counsel has been widely ridiculed amongst the Mormon left, and even many orthodox Mormons generally seem to feel that the First Presidency overstepped its bounds.

So, I ask you: Is the Church's silence a true excuse for engaging in questionable behavior, when we've spent the last three decades making it quite clear that we don't give a rat's patootie what the Church says about the topic anyways?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

The statement in For the Strength of Youth seems to be warning youth to avoid masturbation because it arouses feelings that can lead to breaking the loc. Doesn't seem to be applicable to a married couple having relations via Skype

It may seem so to you. But off the top of my head, any instruction concerning marital intimacy instructs us to become one, cleave unto each other, and not arouse feelings within ourselves. It seems to me that the onus of proof falls on you and Saguaro to show where there is any indication that masturbation is not okay, except when your spouse is watching.

[Vort]

I don't think the church wants to dictate to consenting adults what they should or should not do. What do we want, a list?

The fact that the Church is silent on a particular practice does not make that practice acceptable. The fact that a couple agrees on a particular practice does not make that practice acceptable.

We teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves. This system works great, as long as the people are righteous enough to govern themselves. What if they are not? What if they, like many of the ancient Hebrews, are so wicked that they search for loopholes and ways to gratify their lusts that, they think, are still technically "allowed", as if God's laws are a morass of complex legalities to be navigated skillfully?

It has long been observed that a free people must, of necessity, be a righteous people, and that when people as a group become wicked, they cannot sustain freedom. I believe this is a principle of human reality that applies as much to spiritual concerns as to politics.

If the principle is something like, "Sexual feelings are not for self-stimulation or self-gratification, ever, but for building strength in marriage," how long would it take people to talk their way around to including, well, pretty much ANYTHING they wanted to do with the excuse that it is somehow "building their marriage"? Masturbation, bondage, sex with animals, multiple partners -- hey, it's all in the cause of making your marriage "good", right? And, of course, "good" gets to take whatever form is necessary to justify the particular practice you want to do.

I'm not looking for lists, either. But I wish the Saints were honest enough to seek after such knowledge and agree to live by it rather than see what they can get away with. If the Saints had that attitude, I have no doubt that the whole issue would evaporate.

[RipFoster]

Which is why I use the word seems. Never stated it as fact, just my opinion.

[pam]

I also look at it as nothing is private when it goes over the airwaves. I certainly wouldn't want to be doing something that I even thought could possibly be picked up by others. That's just weird.

[Guest]

Is it really THAT hard to abstain for 3 months? There are thousands of ways to express your love for your spouse.

Unless, of course, the sex is just personal gratification and not an expression of love, then yeah... something is wrong there. There is a reason sex is reserved for married couples. It is not supposed to be for personal gratification - it is supposed to be the ultimate expression of love between spouses. If sex is impossible between the couple, there are other ways to express love. When you're masturbating within the marriage - are you doing it for personal gratification or are you expressing your love for each other? That right there is the difference.

Edited November 26, 2012 by anatess

[pam]

Try abstaining for 13 years. hahaha I know TMI huh?

[AaronArthur]

Dr. Hilton ,a neurosurgeon out of Texas, has seen chemical differences in the brain between the bonding of two married pair and masturbation. The latter has been proven to be damaging to the brain causing logical deduction and problem solving in the brain to be impaired. His recommendation is never to masturbate before or during marriage because of the damage that may occur. And if you want more information read his book He Restoreth my Soil.

[pam]

He Restoreth my Soil?

[Connie]

Erosion... it's a killer.

[kristina12]

I would say no to photos, just because you dont know if they could end up in the wrong places.