settle a dispute

[mdfxdb]

Does self-pleasure prevent an otherwise worthy individual from leaving home, and serving a mission.  From entering the MTC?  Would someone get sent home for this? 

 

What quantifies a "problem" with this behavior?  How much of this behavior is acceptable, how much is not?  Under what circumstances should it be discussed with church leadership?

[The Folk Prophet]

Per the first 2 questions (prevent from mission and entering MTC), the answer is going to be yes, per prophetic direction.

 

"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." Kimball 1980

 

As to would someone get sent home? That is up to the mission president and I don't think there is a clear cut answer.

 

As to how much is acceptable? The answer is clearly none. Regardless of how severe or not, sin is sin and no sin is acceptable.

 

As to what circumstances it should be discusses with church leadership (which should be clarified as, specifically, one's bishop) -- I cannot see any reason to argue against discussing it with one's bishop. And yes, that means even if it only occurs one time.

[MarginOfError]

You aren't going to settle this dispute here, if for no other reason than Folk Prophet and I both exist here.

 

I wouldn't consider a one time instance of masturbation to be an offense worth confessing to the bishop any more than I would consider a one time viewing of pornography.  Yes, there will be some that think that any instance of viewing pornography ought to be confessed, but I disagree.  When I read Let Virtue Garnish Thy Thoughts, (the Church's pamphlet on pornography addiction), I cam away with the impression that habitual and/or compulsive behavior needs to be confessed to the bishop.  Infrequent, non-habitual behavior I don't think is something worth taking to a formal priesthood confession.

 

At what point does a pattern of behavior constitute habitual or compulsive?  I don't know.  So I guess my advice isn't all that helpful.  But there it is anyway.

[Windseeker]

^{When I served my mission in Asia I was greeted by this huge American in a cowboy hat and cowboy boots. When all of us arrived and got settled in the mission home he noticed one of the Elders wearing a CTR ring the Mission President stated matter-of-fact-ly "In my experience missionaries who wear CTR rings have problems with masturbation"...lots of nervous laughter and side-glances ensued.}

 

^{I struggled with this problem thru my whole two years and I always fought it but never could rid myself of it. Despite having the struggle I quickly became a senior companion, District Leader, Mission Presidents Secretary and Mission home DL and finished my mission as a Zone Leader for several months. My President was disappointed that I never could beat this, but said I served an honorable mission. In my leadership positions I was often tasked with working with other missionaries that had the same struggle,.}

 

^{In my experience I have never heard of anyone sent home because they struggled with this. But it's been over 20 years since my mission and things could have changed..but I doubt it.}

 

^{I would work with your Bishop and not let this discourage anyone from giving their all to the Lord by serving him on a full-time mission.}

[The Folk Prophet]

You aren't going to settle this dispute here, if for no other reason than Folk Prophet and I both exist here.

 

I wouldn't consider a one time instance of masturbation to be an offense worth confessing to the bishop any more than I would consider a one time viewing of pornography.  Yes, there will be some that think that any instance of viewing pornography ought to be confessed, but I disagree.  When I read Let Virtue Garnish Thy Thoughts, (the Church's pamphlet on pornography addiction), I cam away with the impression that habitual and/or compulsive behavior needs to be confessed to the bishop.  Infrequent, non-habitual behavior I don't think is something worth taking to a formal priesthood confession.

 

At what point does a pattern of behavior constitute habitual or compulsive?  I don't know.  So I guess my advice isn't all that helpful.  But there it is anyway.

 

Actually we don't disagree as much as you think on this. I was only saying that there is no reason to argue against it -- I was not, per se, arguing for it. It cannot hurt if one feels motivated to do so.

 

Edit: to be clear, the OP question was 'when should it be discussed', not 'when must it be confessed'.

 

2nd edit: to be more clear. I do not feel that masturbation falls into the category of requiring confession to the bishop for complete repentance. I do feel that if one is planning a mission and still is troubled by it that it should be told to the bishop. I also do not feel that one can honestly answer the question as to keeping the law of chastity in the positive if one is so engaged. So upon an interview that asks such a question, a discussion would and should surely ensue. As to what time frame constitutes long enough to be able to answer the question in the positive...I do not know. So I would argue to err on the side of discussion with the bishop rather than essentially lying to yourself and him. Clearly, however, this also relates to patterned behavior. If one has consistently involved themselves in this, and then has stopped for a week, it might be a bit dishonest to imply complete repentance. If one has never done it before (or only very, very rarely made the mistake) and it has been a week and they have clearly put it behind them, then it might be a different story.

[Guest]

You aren't going to settle this dispute here, if for no other reason than Folk Prophet and I both exist here.

 

At what point does a pattern of behavior constitute habitual or compulsive?  I don't know.  So I guess my advice isn't all that helpful.  But there it is anyway.

In my opinion, it would be at that point when you consciously know it is wrong but you can't stop yourself from doing it...

[mdfxdb]

It would appear the answers are all over the map on this one.  On one hand there is a zero tolerance policy, and even one instance is sufficient for confession, and could even prevent someone from serving a mission if it were to happen close to the leave date.

 

On the other hand, this falls onto the home repentance plan, and likely does not rise up to full confession status unless it is a problem/habitual.

 

If an otherwise worthy member of the church confesses to the bishop that he/she has masturbated within the last month, and it probably happens 2-3 times a month what would be the consequence?  Would there even be one?  Could you lose your temple recommend? 

 

Zero tolerance seems like an awful tough standard for a 18 year old young man..

[The Folk Prophet]

It would appear the answers are all over the map on this one.  On one hand there is a zero tolerance policy, and even one instance is sufficient for confession, and could even prevent someone from serving a mission if it were to happen close to the leave date.

 

On the other hand, this falls onto the home repentance plan, and likely does not rise up to full confession status unless it is a problem/habitual.

 

If an otherwise worthy member of the church confesses to the bishop that he/she has masturbated within the last month, and it probably happens 2-3 times a month what would be the consequence?  Would there even be one?  Could you lose your temple recommend? 

 

Zero tolerance seems like an awful tough standard for a 18 year old young man..

 

This is entirely up to the bishop. There is no specific standard in the handbook on it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Zero tolerance seems like an awful tough standard for a 18 year old young man..

 

What do you mean by tolerance? Stoning to death? Of course not. But it is perfectly reasonable to expect an 18 year old young man to be able to control themselves. And there are certain things that are perfectly reasonable to withhold if he does not. There are other things that would be unreasonably to withhold.

 

The biggest thing that will be withheld is the Spirit though. One cannot have the spirit when involved in transgression.

 

Here is Gordon B. Hinkley on missionary worthiness, for what it's worth:

 

“This work is rigorous. … It demands clean hands and a pure heart. …

 

“What a solemn and serious undertaking this work is. It demands that those who serve as missionaries be worthy in every respect. We simply cannot permit those who have not qualified themselves as to worthiness to go into the world to speak the glad tidings of the gospel.

 

“I am confident that raising the bar on eligibility will cause our young people, particularly our young men, to practice self-discipline, to live above the low standards of the world, to avoid transgression and take the high road in all their activities. We will not knowingly send young men to reform them. If their lives need reforming, that must happen well before they go. …

 

“… We need missionaries, but they must be capable of doing the work. They must be spiritually sensitive to do that which is expected of them, which is essentially a spiritual work. They must be morally worthy in every respect, having kept themselves clean from the evils of the world. If there have been offenses, there must have been adequate repentance. …

 

“We are not asking for perfection. The work of the Lord is done by ordinary people who work in an extraordinary way. The Lord magnifies those who put forth the effort. Nowhere is this more evident than in missionary service. … With small means the Lord accomplishes His marvelous work” (“Missionary Service,” First Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, Jan. 2003, 17–18).

[mdfxdb]

I'm not so sure it is entirely 100% reasonable for us to expect an 18 year old man to control himself.  Obviously we do not want them committing major transgressions.  However, if a young man commits this particular sin, feels bad about it, repents, then goes to see the bishop for a mission call or something else of the sort, how reasonable is it for the bishop to withhold the missionary opportunity?  Let's say the young man has had a relapse post mission interview, is ready to leave on his mission, genuinely feels bad about it, and commits to not do it again.  Should he not go on his mission?

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not so sure it is entirely 100% reasonable for us to expect an 18 year old man to control himself. 

 

Then you are denying God's will and word. Anyone truly incapable of choice is unaccountable. Are you claiming all 18-year-olds are unaccountable because they have strong sex-drives?

 

Obviously we do not want them committing major transgressions.  

 

What defines "major"? Who puts these things on a scale of 1 to 100 and sets the line wherein something is considered major? But this is irrelevant. Major is irrelevant. We (and by "we" it should be clarified, "we" are irrelevant too...so I'll replace "we" with "God")...God does not want them committing ANY transgressions.

 

However, if a young man commits this particular sin, feels bad about it, repents, then goes to see the bishop for a mission call or something else of the sort, how reasonable is it for the bishop to withhold the missionary opportunity?

 

Per the bolded word, it would be unreasonable. But I think maybe you need to do a bit of research into what it actually means to "repent".

 

Let's say the young man has had a relapse post mission interview, is ready to leave on his mission, genuinely feels bad about it, and commits to not do it again.  Should he not go on his mission?

 

That's between him and his bishop. But if he relapsed, he didn't really repent.

 

My opinion, (which is fairly easily supportable via a variety of prophet/apostle comments, some already in this thread): Absolutely! He should not be sent out on a mission until he has truly repented. And that means not relapsing a week later.

[mdfxdb]

"We are not asking for perfection.  The work of the Lord is done by ordinary people who work in an extraordinary way.  The Lord magnifies those who put forth effort......."

 

Pretty sure 18 year old men are imperfect.  Also, is a relapse really representative of lack of sincerity in repentance? At some point it may be, depending on the sin and level of transgression.  I'm not sure this particular sin rises to that strict of an interpretation.  I would not categorically state that someone who relapsed with this particular problem is unrepentant, or was unrepentant. 

 

It seems like we as LDS in general take a pretty extreme line on this type of stuff, and is there a possibility we are stifling progression?  If this is the great sin that prevents someone from serving a mission how much better off is that potential, otherwise worthy missionary at home?

[Quin]

^{When I served my mission in Asia I was greeted by this huge American in a cowboy hat and cowboy boots. When all of us arrived and got settled in the mission home he noticed one of the Elders wearing a CTR ring the Mission President stated matter-of-fact-ly "In my experience missionaries who wear CTR rings have problems with masturbation"...lots of nervous laughter and side-glances ensued.}

 

^{I struggled with this problem thru my whole two years and I always fought it but never could rid myself of it. Despite having the struggle I quickly became a senior companion, District Leader, Mission Presidents Secretary and Mission home DL and finished my mission as a Zone Leader for several months. My President was disappointed that I never could beat this, but said I served an honorable mission. In my leadership positions I was often tasked with working with other missionaries that had the same struggle,.}

 

^{In my experience I have never heard of anyone sent home because they struggled with this. But it's been over 20 years since my mission and things could have changed..but I doubt it.}

 

^{I would work with your Bishop and not let this discourage anyone from giving their all to the Lord by serving him on a full-time mission.}

You have single handedly ruined CTR rings for me.

Q

[mdfxdb]

If I were a bishop, and a young man came to me and wanted to serve a mission, and confessed that he had masturbated within the last month, and was truly repentant and felt horrible about it, and it wasn't a habit, nor was it frequent I would probably sign his papers and send him on.

 

If prior to leaving he confessed he had a relapse, I would discuss the relapse with him, and unless there were any other circumstances surrounding the relapse I would probably send him on his mission.....

 

Am I wrong?

[Quin]

It would appear the answers are all over the map on this one.  On one hand there is a zero tolerance policy, and even one instance is sufficient for confession, and could even prevent someone from serving a mission if it were to happen close to the leave date.

 

On the other hand, this falls onto the home repentance plan, and likely does not rise up to full confession status unless it is a problem/habitual.

 

If an otherwise worthy member of the church confesses to the bishop that he/she has masturbated within the last month, and it probably happens 2-3 times a month what would be the consequence?  Would there even be one?  Could you lose your temple recommend? 

 

Zero tolerance seems like an awful tough standard for a 18 year old young man..

There's no way to tell what the consequence may be... As people are all over the map as to their beliefs on this subject.

For some it's zero tolerance, for others it's a normal healthy part of life. And all the folk in the middle.

There's no way to know where your bishop falls in the spectrum, so no way to guess his reaction.

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

If I were a bishop, and a young man came to me and wanted to serve a mission, and confessed that he had masturbated within the last month, and was truly repentant and felt horrible about it, and it wasn't a habit, nor was it frequent I would probably sign his papers and send him on.

 

If prior to leaving he confessed he had a relapse, I would discuss the relapse with him, and unless there were any other circumstances surrounding the relapse I would probably send him on his mission.....

 

Am I wrong?

 

When and if you are a bishop you will have the right to do as you feel best and according to how the spirit directs you.

[The Folk Prophet]

"We are not asking for perfection.  The work of the Lord is done by ordinary people who work in an extraordinary way.  The Lord magnifies those who put forth effort......."

 

Pretty sure 18 year old men are imperfect.  Also, is a relapse really representative of lack of sincerity in repentance? At some point it may be, depending on the sin and level of transgression.  I'm not sure this particular sin rises to that strict of an interpretation.  I would not categorically state that someone who relapsed with this particular problem is unrepentant, or was unrepentant. 

 

It seems like we as LDS in general take a pretty extreme line on this type of stuff, and is there a possibility we are stifling progression?  If this is the great sin that prevents someone from serving a mission how much better off is that potential, otherwise worthy missionary at home?

 

There is a difference between not asking for perfection and the accepting of activities that assuredly drive away the spirit and have been specifically stated to disqualify someone as worthy to go on a mission. You can't quote the imperfection part and ignore the "It demands that those who serve as missionaries be worthy in every respect" part.

 

Change and repentance is a literal matter. Repentance means change. It means to forsake the sin. Go read some articles on lds.org about repentance. Not repeating the sin is part of it. Thoroughly making up one's mind against repeating the sin is part of it. To claim sincere repentance implies that one will not commit the sin any longer. Return to sin either indicates that the sincerity was false or that the commitment slipped. But literally, if one continues in sin, one has not repented. When we look back at our lives and see the patterns we weaved it will be very clear, and one who has returned again and again to the same behavior, constantly writing it off as not that big of a deal, and claiming re-repentance each time, will quickly and easily see that there was nothing of the sort that ever occurred.

 

I understand that people make the same mistakes and have to repent again. I do so all the time. But it is not some cavalier, "whoopsie", thing like you're making it out to be. The depth of humility, sorrow, anguish, and effort that it takes to repent of one's sins, is not some passing, casual thing. And that is true no matter how severe the sin is or is not. If we cannot truly come to the Lord with a broken heart, pleading with all our might for His forgiveness, with a commitment to change, then we have not truly repented?

 

This isn't about masturbation and whether the church takes too hard a line on it or not. This is about what repentance means and what a change of heart actually entails. And it is not some church policy. It is God's standard. Sin is never justified.

 

As to hard lines stifling progression -- garbage. The only thing that stiflles progression is sin. The only means to progress is to repent and to obey. Your entire argument is based on the lie that a young man cannot control himself. He can. It's as simple as that. The only reason not to take a hard line on sin is to justify it. I repeat: Sin is never justified. The hard line is on all sin. It is a big deal. Every sin you or another commits is a big deal and there is a distinct and clear line on it. Agency demands consequence for action.

 

Lest you misunderstand me, I have not said that a bishop should never make the decision to allow someone who has masturbated recently go on a mission. That is the purview of the bishop and should always be decided on a case-by-case bases as the Spirit directs. But to approach any sin with an attitude that diminishes the standard based on a claim that we just can't help ourselves is entirely invalid.

[Guest]

[omegaseamaster75]

If the standard is full and complete repentance and a total control over our natural man in order to go on a mission I'm surprised any 18yo male lives up to it. I don't dismiss the concept that all sin is bad and that God hold us to the higher standard we are after all commanded to be perfect.

We are all in a circle of sin we repent and we relapse it is human nature. It is the effort I think that is what God requires. Sometime our efforts can lead us to abandon the sin, sometimes depending on the person and personality it can be much more difficult.

To have a zero tolerance policy or deny someone the blessing of a mission because of a few instances or lapses in their repentance process would be a mistake.

I fear our church is breeding a culture of zero tolerance and shame.

[Guest]

If the standard is full and complete repentance and a total control over our natural man in order to go on a mission I'm surprised any 18yo male lives up to it. I don't dismiss the concept that all sin is bad and that God hold us to the higher standard we are after all commanded to be perfect.

We are all in a circle of sin we repent and we relapse it is human nature. It is the effort I think that is what God requires. Sometime our efforts can lead us to abandon the sin, sometimes depending on the person and personality it can be much more difficult.

To have a zero tolerance policy or deny someone the blessing of a mission because of a few instances or lapses in their repentance process would be a mistake.

I fear our church is breeding a culture of zero tolerance and shame.

 

 

Are you trying to say that all 18 year old males can't help but masturbate?

 

That's a pretty low opinion of 18 year old males...

[The Folk Prophet]

Honestly these references to "zero tolerance" tells me 2 things. First, that some people are interested in twisting words and ideas to bolster their arguments. Second, that some people genuinely misunderstand the sanctity of the priesthood and the temple.

 

First:

 

It is the Lord's standard that is zero tolerance. D&C 1:31 "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"

 

The twist is when people start claiming that this means the church has a zero tolerance policy concerning these matters. That is simply not true. If that were true then we'd all be excommunicated. If that were true then no one would go on missions. It's simply not the case.

 

The twist is when people start claiming a mission is a blessing that we deserve to be given despite lack of worthiness. A mission is not a blessing. That is a side effect. A mission is a duty. A mission is a calling. A mission is a sacrifice. A mission is a privilege.

 

The twist is when people start claiming "shame culture" because the church teaches strict standards of righteousness.The Lord's standards of righteousness as taught by the church are not to blame for the guilty taking those standards hard.

 

Second:

 

The sanctity of the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God is no light thing. It is not something that anyone who reaches a certain age should just be given. It demands a level of righteousness that is higher than what is common. It is a higher standard. If one does not understand this, perhaps one is not ready to have the higher standard applied to them, in which case one is certainly not prepared to enter the holy temple and make solemn covenants. Without a willingness and commitment to this higher standard one should not go on a mission.

 

The bottom-line concerning zero tolerance -- it is not a standard the church applies, obviously. But it is a standard that we should be applying to ourselves.

[mdfxdb]

"Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission....." Pres. Kimball

 

Note he says fettered, and habit.  I am talking about neither.  Just an individual who has occasionally slipped up, and maybe had a relapse.  You may call it insincere repentance, I call it a temporary relapse. 

 

When I am bishop I will let those who are not fettered by weakness and habit serve their missions.  Those that are fettered by weakness and habit will not serve.

[omegaseamaster75]

 

Honestly these references to "zero tolerance" tells me 2 things. First, that some people are interested in twisting words and ideas to bolster their arguments. Second, that some people genuinely misunderstand the sanctity of the priesthood and the temple.

 

First:

 

It is the Lord's standard that is zero tolerance. D&C 1:31 "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"

 

The twist is when people start claiming that this means the church has a zero tolerance policy concerning these matters. That is simply not true. If that were true then we'd all be excommunicated. If that were true then no one would go on missions. It's simply not the case.

 

The twist is when people start claiming a mission is a blessing that we deserve to be given despite lack of worthiness. A mission is not a blessing. That is a side effect. A mission is a duty. A mission is a calling. A mission is a sacrifice. A mission is a privilege.

 

The twist is when people start claiming "shame culture" because the church teaches strict standards of righteousness.The Lord's standards of righteousness as taught by the church are not to blame for the guilty taking those standards hard.

 

Second:

 

The sanctity of the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God is no light thing. It is not something that anyone who reaches a certain age should just be given. It demands a level of righteousness that is higher than what is common. It is a higher standard. If one does not understand this, perhaps one is not ready to have the higher standard applied to them, in which case one is certainly not prepared to enter the holy temple and make solemn covenants. Without a willingness and commitment to this higher standard one should not go on a mission.

 

The bottom-line concerning zero tolerance -- it is not a standard the church applies, obviously. But it is a standard that we should be applying to ourselves.

 

First let me say that I agree with you the Lord is very clear that he has no tolerance for unclean things. We strive to achieve that higher standard however difficult it maybe. 

 

Mosiah 26:29-31

 

29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

 

 30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.

 

 31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation

 

If I as a youth confess to my bishop that I have masturbated in the past, but I am repentant of it and lets say it happened one month before I was due to leave. Should I not be allowed to serve? I am not trying to twist anything, I am not trying to "win", but if this person in my example is denied the blessing to serve is that not a zero tolerance church policy?

 

With regards to my culture of shame statement I stand by it. This is why. I know many people who do not attend church because they have some issues, living with their significant other "not married", smoke, drink coffee, drink alcohol, etc. these are good people who have problems. Shouldn't these be the people we want attending our meetings? Aren't these the people we need to bring back into the fold? These people stay at home because when they go to our church they feel judged, and shamed for their weaknesses. These are the people we should be encouraging, but when I sit in elders Quorum and the lesson is on the WoW, and it is all hell and damnation if we don't obey, why would anyone struggling with those issues want to be in that room?

 

Think of the YM and YW who fall away, they think that one misstep and they are being judged, they feel horrible, so they stop coming to activities, soon they stop coming to church all together. Talk to your YM and YW ask them how they really feel.

 

Our culture should be embracing weakness and teaching people to overcome. Think about this the next time WoW is discussed and ask yourself how you would feel if you had a problem with cigarettes......would you really feel welcome.

 

For what its worth in Hand Book 1 the word masturbation appears ZERO times

[The Folk Prophet]

If I as a youth confess to my bishop that I have masturbated in the past, but I am repentant of it and lets say it happened one month before I was due to leave. Should I not be allowed to serve? I am not trying to twist anything, I am not trying to "win", but if this person in my example is denied the blessing to serve is that not a zero tolerance church policy?

 

Do you have examples of this actually happening?

 

For what its worth in Hand Book 1 the word masturbation appears ZERO times

 

This is true of a myriad of sins.

 

With regards to my culture of shame statement I stand by it. This is why. I know many people who do not attend church because they have some issues, living with their significant other "not married", smoke, drink coffee, drink alcohol, etc. these are good people who have problems. Shouldn't these be the people we want attending our meetings? Aren't these the people we need to bring back into the fold? These people stay at home because when they go to our church they feel judged, and shamed for their weaknesses. These are the people we should be encouraging, but when I sit in elders Quorum and the lesson is on the WoW, and it is all hell and damnation if we don't obey, why would anyone struggling with those issues want to be in that room?

 

Think of the YM and YW who fall away, they think that one misstep and they are being judged, they feel horrible, so they stop coming to activities, soon they stop coming to church all together. Talk to your YM and YW ask them how they really feel.

 

From Jeffrey R. Holland:

 

In addition to teaching, encouraging, and cheering people on (that is the pleasant part of discipleship), from time to time these same messengers are called upon to worry, to warn, and sometimes just to weep (that is the painful part of discipleship). They know full well that the road leading to the promised land “flowing with milk and honey”⁶ of necessity runs by way of Mount Sinai, flowing with “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.”⁷

Unfortunately, messengers of divinely mandated commandments are often no more popular today than they were anciently, as at least two spit-upon, potato-spattered sister missionaries can now attest. Hate is an ugly word, yet there are those today who would say with the corrupt Ahab, “I hate [the prophet Micaiah]; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always [prophesied] evil.”⁸ That kind of hate for a prophet’s honesty cost Abinadi his life. As he said to King Noah: “Because I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. … Because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad”⁹ or, we might add, provincial, patriarchal, bigoted, unkind, narrow, outmoded, and elderly.

It is as the Lord Himself lamented to the prophet Isaiah:

“[These] children … will not hear the law of the Lord:

“[They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

“Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”¹⁰

Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.¹¹

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even thinkabout breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?

And what of those who just want to look at sin or touch it from a distance? Jesus said with a flash, if your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your hand offends you, cut it off.¹² “I came not to [bring] peace, but a sword,”¹³ He warned those who thought He spoke only soothing platitudes. No wonder that, sermon after sermon, the local communities “pray[ed] him to depart out of their coasts.”¹⁴ No wonder, miracle after miracle, His power was attributed not to God but to the devil.¹⁵ It is obvious that the bumper sticker question “What would Jesus do?” will not always bring a popular response.

At the zenith of His mortal ministry, Jesus said, “Love one another, as I have loved you.”¹⁶ To make certain they understood exactly what kind of love that was, He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”¹⁷ and “whosoever … shall break one of [the] least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be … the least in the kingdom of heaven.”¹⁸Christlike love is the greatest need we have on this planet in part because righteousness was always supposed to accompany it. So if love is to be our watchword, as it must be, then by the word of Him who is love personified, we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others. Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget: that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinite capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never ever did even once).

[mdfxdb]

While Handbook 1 does not mention masturbation it does mention that missionaries who have committed serious transgressions may have to wait past their 18th birthday to serve. In fact, as long as a year to three years.

 

My point however, is that this particular transgression doesn't rise to that level of seriousness, and unless it is pervasive and habitual should not impede an otherwise worthy person from serving his/her mission.

 

It has been opined that the missionary will suffer loss of the spirit.  I do not discount this.  Is that missionary any more bereft of the spirit than the missionary who makes fun of his companion, the missionary who doesn't follow mission rules, the missionary who goes to movies, etc, etc.?  

 

It appears the church has a zero tolerance on this particular transgression, even if happens once, or heaven forbid twice anywhere with any type of mission window then you cannot serve.  I do not think this is right.