Spouse Swapping

[BJ64]

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do you think of your wife as an object?  If so, then I feel sorry for your wife.

No I think of her as my eternal companion but I do think of her as the object of my love and affection. 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by BJ64

[person0]

@BJ64,

There is no way you are going to convince us that masturbation is acceptable for a married person.  And there is no way that we are going to acquiesce to the idea that it could be acceptable.  It goes against a straightforward understanding that sex is a sacred and special bonding experience to be shared between husband and wife.  No matter the context, a man or woman pleasuring themselves is not sacred or special as a joint marital act and never can be.  You are free to believe as you wish, but I see no reason to continue discussing this.

I had never considered this passage in this context, but as a closing remark, I think it is applicable:

Quote

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
(1 Cor. 7:4)

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by person0

[BJ64]

3 minutes ago, person0 said:

@BJ64,

There is no way you are going to convince us that masturbation is acceptable for a married person.  And there is no way that we are going to acquiesce to the idea that it could be acceptable.  It goes against a straightforward understanding that sex is a sacred and special bonding experience to be shared between husband and wife.  No matter the context, a man or woman pleasuring themselves is not sacred or special as a joint marital act and never can be.  You are free to believe as you wish, but I see no reason to continue discussing this.

I’m not trying to convince anyone that it is okay. I am merely stating that it is not so clear cut as people think. 

Ive made a big effort to assure people that it is better to obey even if one has questions about an issue. 

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I’m not trying to convince anyone that it is okay. I am merely stating that it is not so clear cut as people think. 

Ive made a big effort to assure people that it is better to obey even if one has questions about an issue. 

It IS very clear cut.  You're lying when you say it isn't.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-5?lang=eng

You won't quote the specific text due to the graphic nature of it, but any honest person can find it.  It is the epitome of cut and dry.  There are plenty of other examples, too.

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

There is genuine doubt or there wouldn’t be bishops who don’t ask about it. 

I have only had one bishop that asked about it.  That was when I was in my mid teens.  It was creepy when he asked. Made me feel very uncomfortable. 

[BJ64]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

I have only had one bishop that asked about it.  That was when I was in my mid teens.  It was creepy when he asked. Made me feel very uncomfortable. 

Asking about masturbation is a big issue right now. The church has changed its worthiness interview process to include a parent in the room if desired. Those parents who pushed for this change also do not want any questions asked about masturbation and they want to be in the room to insure that such questions are not asked. It remains to be seen how this is going to work out and whether the church will someday ask that there  be no questions about masturbation. 

The crux of the issue is that these people feel that masturbation shaming is more spiritually damaging than the act itself. 

I won’t link you to the page but there are many hundreds of personal accounts of the perceived harm done from masturbation shaming. 

It seems like leaders on the general level get this. But many local leaders press far beyond what is outlined in the handbook as far as questioning is concerned. 

I have said that there seems to be no clear cut stance on the issue. This is evident by accounts people relate of never being asked about masturbation and happily living their life doing it as desired without guilt or concern to the accounts of people being asked to give every detail of exactly what they did and going through this process with every interview. As they say it’s a matter of leadership roulette. 

I will add that my stake president asked me if I do it when I was interviewed to be ordained a high priest. We discussed it and I asked whether it was okay to stimulate yourself while making love with your spouse. He thought about it and answered “that would be for you and your wife to decide”. He answered in the appropriate way since church leaders are counseled not to get into the private sex lives of couples. 

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

It IS very clear cut.  You're lying when you say it isn't.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-5?lang=eng

You won't quote the specific text due to the graphic nature of it, but any honest person can find it.  It is the epitome of cut and dry.  There are plenty of other examples, too.

That manual is 33 years old. Other less forceful statements have been made since then.  

Edited May 22, 2018 by BJ64

[Grunt]

8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

That manual is 35 years old. Other less forceful statements have been made since then.  

Again, you’re lying.  That manual is still there.  Age has nothing to do with it.   Nothing has been said to change it.  A “less forceful statement” doesn’t mean less true.  

Fair Mormon agrees. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2013/01/02/fair-questions-4-whats-wrong-with-masturbation

Edited May 22, 2018 by Grunt

[BJ64]

16 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Again, you’re lying.  That manual is still there.  Age has nothing to do with it.   Nothing has been said to change it.  A “less forceful statement” doesn’t mean less true.  

Fair Mormon agrees. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2013/01/02/fair-questions-4-whats-wrong-with-masturbation

It’s still 33 years old. 

[zil]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It’s still 33 years old. 

How old do you suppose the 10 commandments are?  Age is irrelevant when millennia constitute the blink of an eye for the law-giver.

[dellme]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I won’t link you to the page but there are many hundreds of personal accounts of the perceived harm done from masturbation shaming.

Oh please.  This perceived "shaming" crap has gone way to far.  I'm sure there are hundreds of "personal" accounts of the perceived harm done from premarital sex shaming too!  

I mean really where exactly does it end?  Admonishing that M is against the law of Chastity as shaming?  Asking a teenager (who may or may not know what exactly is against the LoC) if they do that as shaming?? I suppose leaders shouldn't ask whether they've ever drunk alcohol either for fear of "shaming".

And in general any "creepiness" comes b/c the leader doesn't address things head-on in a clear, concise, matter-of fact way.  If a Bishop asks sheepishly "well, umm, do you, umm, do you umm, self-stimulate", of course that is going to come off as bad, b/c the leader himself is making it that way. 

Just clearly, precisely, with no fear address the issue head-on, explain it is not acceptable, ask if they do and then address it if they do.  This isn't hard, complex or complicated. The parents who feel the need to sit in an interview with the Bishop with their poor little Billy are probably the ones most oblivious to the actual problems and things the kid is in reality doing.

I personally think inside Church culture this "shame" confusion has grown so much that people can't tell the real difference between when your conscience gets pricked by God telling you that you screwed up and delivering that message through a leader and real shame-which is an "I'm worthless" message vs. "I screwed up" message.  And no where in the message of the Church, no in GC, not in Bishops, not anywhere has there ever been the shame message of "I'm worthless".  No, what people want today is to NOT feel guilty and that's a big, big change.

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, dellme said:

Oh please.  This perceived "shaming" crap has gone way to far.  I'm sure there are hundreds of "personal" accounts of the perceived harm done from premarital sex shaming too!  

I mean really where exactly does it end?  Admonishing that M is against the law of Chastity as shaming?  Asking a teenager (who may or may not know what exactly is against the LoC) if they do that as shaming?? I suppose leaders shouldn't ask whether they've ever drunk alcohol either for fear of "shaming".

And in general any "creepiness" comes b/c the leader doesn't address things head-on in a clear, concise, matter-of fact way.  If a Bishop asks sheepishly "well, umm, do you, umm, do you umm, self-stimulate", of course that is going to come off as bad, b/c the leader himself is making it that way. 

Just clearly, precisely, with no fear address the issue head-on, explain it is not acceptable, ask if they do and then address it if they do.  This isn't hard, complex or complicated. The parents who feel the need to sit in an interview with the Bishop with their poor little Billy are probably the ones most oblivious to the actual problems and things the kid is in reality doing.

I personally think inside Church culture this "shame" confusion has grown so much that people can't tell the real difference between when your conscience gets pricked by God telling you that you screwed up and delivering that message through a leader and real shame-which is an "I'm worthless" message vs. "I screwed up" message.  And no where in the message of the Church, no in GC, not in Bishops, not anywhere has there ever been the shame message of "I'm worthless".  No, what people want today is to NOT feel guilty and that's a big, big change.

The shaming comes from blowing the seriousness of the sin out of proportion. Masturbation is not comparable to adultry, fornication, rape, incest, homosexual behavior, sexual assault etc but it is catagorzed into the same group by many in the church. 

The church does not put these sins in the same group. While everything else on the list would be reason for disciplinary action masturbation is not. 

Masturbation is lumped into the same category of sin as not living the word of wisdom, pornography use, not paying your tithing, not attending church meetings and failure to do your church duties. 

Many are quick to put the person who masturbates into the same category as adulterers instead of the category of those who neglect their home teaching.  

President Kimall called it a “rather common indiscretion” and Elder Packer said  “It is not anything so wicked nor is it a transgression so great that the Lord would reject you because of it, but it can quickly lead to that kind of transgression.”

So even the most outspoken on the topic understood its level of seriousness. However others seem to forget or misunderstand where it fits in on the spectrum of sinful behavior. 

com·mon

ˈkämən/

adjective

1. 1. 

   occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.

   "salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings"

   synonyms:

   usual, ordinary, familiar, regular, frequent, recurrent, everyday;

in·dis·cre·tion

ˌindəˈskreSH(ə)n/

noun

1. behavior or speech that is indiscreet or displays a lack of good judgment.

   "he knew himself all too prone to indiscretion"

   synonyms:

   imprudence, injudiciousness, incaution, irresponsibility

 

[dellme]

8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The shaming comes from blowing the seriousness of the sin out of proportion. Masturbation is not comparable to adultry, fornication, rape, incest, homosexual behavior, sexual assault etc but it is catagorzed into the same group by many in the church.

I don't think anyone has said as much; it's not good, but just b/c something isn't at the level of adultery doesn't mean we shouldn't preach against it.  There are lots of sins that fall far, far short of adultery, we still shouldn't do them. Look man, you know you shouldn't do it, so just stop, stop rationalizing, justification, etc.

Edited May 22, 2018 by dellme

[BJ64]

17 minutes ago, dellme said:

I don't think anyone has said as much; it's not good, but just b/c something isn't at the level of adultery doesn't mean we shouldn't preach against it.  There are lots of sins that fall far, far short of adultery, we still shouldn't do them. Look man, you know you shouldn't do it, so just stop, stop rationalizing, justification, etc.

First, when I was growing up in the 70’s it was drilled into us that “masturbation is a sexual sin and sexual sins are next to murder”.

That’s a lot of guilt and shame to heap upon a child who has committed “a rather common indescretion.”

Second, I do not masturbate and I’m not rationalizing anything. I’m simply pointing out that it is a controversial topic which is not understood equally among members of the church. 

By your comments it doesn’t seem like you’ve read much of what I’ve written on the topic. You’ve read one or two posts and have jumped to conclusions. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

It’s still 33 years old. 

That’s a lot more recent than the Church’s most recent statement on necrophilia.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s a lot more recent than the Church’s most recent statement on necrophilia.

Yes, and that is EXACTLY the point. What is the Church's current stance on necrophilia? Does anyone really know?

[Just_A_Guy]

51 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The shaming comes from blowing the seriousness of the sin out of proportion. Masturbation is not comparable to adultry, fornication, rape, incest, homosexual behavior, sexual assault etc but it is catagorzed into the same group by many in the church. 

The church does not put these sins in the same group. While everything else on the list would be reason for disciplinary action masturbation is not. 

Masturbation is lumped into the same category of sin as not living the word of wisdom, pornography use, not paying your tithing, not attending church meetings and failure to do your church duties. 

Many are quick to put the person who masturbates into the same category as adulterers instead of the category of those who neglect their home teaching.  

President Kimall called it a “rather common indiscretion” and Elder Packer said  “It is not anything so wicked nor is it a transgression so great that the Lord would reject you because of it, but it can quickly lead to that kind of transgression.”

So even the most outspoken on the topic understood its level of seriousness. However others seem to forget or misunderstand where it fits in on the spectrum of sinful behavior. 

com·mon

ˈkämən/

adjective

1. 1. 

   occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.

   "salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings"

   synonyms:

   usual, ordinary, familiar, regular, frequent, recurrent, everyday;

in·dis·cre·tion

ˌindəˈskreSH(ə)n/

noun

1. behavior or speech that is indiscreet or displays a lack of good judgment.

   "he knew himself all too prone to indiscretion"

   synonyms:

   imprudence, injudiciousness, incaution, irresponsibility

 

Again, with all due respect:  I haven’t gone through and reconciled all your posts; and I may be confusing some of your statements with those of @Lost Boy.  But it seems as though you’ve spent a lot of time trying to present Kimball as an antiquated outlier; which then makes it odd when you try to argue (as you do above) that Kimball actually agrees with you.  Similarly, you suggest that nigh-unto *everyone* masturbates but then strenuously present yourself as the exception even while suggesting it is unreasonable for the Church to suggest others to maintain your own proclaimed lifestyle.

Again, I could be confusing some of your posts; and if I am I apologize.  But the impression I’m getting is that your position is more devoted to contrarianism, or ruffling “TBM” feathers; than it is a product of a consistent worldview of what behaviors are divinely disapproved and ought to be avoided.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[BJ64]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s a lot more recent than the Church’s most recent statement on necrophilia.

My point is that things have changed in the last 33 years on the topic and most manuals have been updated including FTSOY and the handbook of instructions. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

My point is that things have changed in the last 33 years on the topic and most manuals have been updated including FTSOY and the handbook of instructions. 

I don’t know that you’ve shown that the CHI position as to masturbation has changed.  And FTSOY still says:

Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

[BJ64]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Again, with all due respect:  I haven’t gone through and reconciled all your posts; and I may be confusing some of your statements with those of @Lost Boy.  But it seems as though you’ve spent a lot of time trying to present Kimball as an antiquated outlier; which then makes it odd when you try to argue (as you do above) that Kimball actually agrees with you.  It gives the impression that your position is more devoted to contrarianism, or ruffling “TBM” feathers; than it is a product of a consistent worldview of what behaviors are divinely disapproved and ought to be avoided.

Since most would use President Kimball and Elder Packer’s statements to condemn masturbation I am merely pointing out that they seemed more lenient on it than many here. 

Many in the church like to go beyond the mark when being critical of the sins of others. I’m trying to put things into perspective. 

[BJ64]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t know that you’ve shown that the CHI position as to masturbation has changed.  And FTSOY still says:

Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

They both used to use the word masturbation and no longer do. There are other changes to the handbook but I believe it is against the rules to quote the handbook. 

[JohnsonJones]

Since we are discussing the M issue in interviews, my personal views is it is something entirely different than "Shaming". 

The reason to avoid it is called "LAWSUITS."

Why?

Because when a leader brings this topic up, it borders extremely close to sexual abuse of a child.  This is NOT okay.

The stories that are most horrific are NOT those that are about those who are shamed, but those who were pure and innocent and had NO idea what the Bishop or interviewer was talking about.  Then, they had that innocence ruined because the leader had no propriety of what was right or wrong. 

In any other setting, an adult talking so explicitly to a youth of that age would be considered sexual abuse (even if a minor way) outside of purely educational classes (Such as health class where normally a sheet explaining what is going to be discussed in class needs to be signed by an adult parent and supervision is given over the one teaching).

This is an area where PARENTS need to take responsibility and teach their children. 

The problem with leaders is that when they go off on their own assumptions, it is very easy for some to be misguided and get into far more explicit detail than they should, and thus do terrible things on their own. 

In these situations, if an individual opens up about breaking the law of chastity, a Bishop can hear and listen, but should not be the one to instruct an individual on HOW one breaks the law of chastity in a one on one situation (such as an interview).  When one gets off on that tangent, they come very close to breaking the laws of the land in some nations, and in the US are walking a thing border line between duty and the moral outrage of the public if they found out about such doings.

This is why it is important to stick to the questions given.  If questions are brought up above and beyond that BY the one you are interviewing, then using the spirit, you can go into further detail as they explain their own understanding.  However, with youth, if it gets into topics that are too explicit, sometimes it is better to pause the interview on that subject and refer them to their parents for a better explanation instead of being the one to give an explanation on the more explicit details concerning chastity.  If it means pausing the temple recommend interview until a later date when they have a better understanding from their parents, so be it.  It is better than being one that does horrific things to the youth of the church (IMO).

Unfortunately, there are some leaders that do not know where their limits as a leader should be in relation to the youth, and it is due to this that I feel much of the outrage recently has arisen from.

Edited May 22, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

In relation to the above subject, one of the most perfectly situated answer was given in a pamphlet that I'm not sure if it is still in print or not.  It is also quoted in the FairMormon article Grunt posted above, and as such I've taken the quote from there so it can have a source referred to (as I'm not sure where the pamphlet may be online and my google abilities with it are weak).

It was by Boyd K. Packer who stated...

Quote

President Packer made it clear that it is not a grave, heinous sin on the order of (say) fornication or adultery, but it is still something we should avoid:

One of you, perhaps, has not fully understood until now. Perhaps your father did not talk to you. You may already have been guilty of tampering with these powers. You may even have developed a habit. What do you do then?

First, I want you to know this. If you are struggling with this temptation and perhaps you have not quite been able to resist, the Lord still loves you. It is not anything so wicked nor is it a transgression so great that the Lord would reject you because of it, but it can quickly lead to that kind of transgression. It is not pleasing to the Lord, nor is it pleasing to you. It does not make you feel worthy or clean.

(To Young Men Only, pamphlet, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

This both sides that go to the extremes...rather than a more sensible medium.  It states that it is something we probably should avoid, but at the same time, this is NOT something that is on par with many other grievous sins that break the Law of Chastity.  We should not treat it the same as adultery or fornication or things like that, and treating it as such only does a disservice to those who are struggling with it.  When they think they will be treated as if they were fornicators or adulterers rather than on the level they really are at (which is far less severe than anything dealing with the sins of fornication, or other such things) they are far less likely to come forward to try to get help or assistance in overcoming such difficulties. 

When they realize that they will not be outcast pariah's for a very common problem among young men, then they might be more willing to find the love of the Lord in their struggles and in their life and become stronger young men in the process.

[dellme]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Similarly, you suggest that nigh-unto *everyone* masturbates but then strenuously present yourself as the exception even while suggesting it is unreasonable for the Church to suggest others to maintain your own proclaimed lifestyle.

 

9 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Second, I do not masturbate and I’m not rationalizing anything. I’m simply pointing out that it is a controversial topic which is not understood equally among members of the church. 

Exactly. For those who don't M-it's pretty easy and there isn't a whole lot of issues surrounding it.  It's don't do it, to do so is sin-we should teach the youth to not do it, end of story.  For you to make a huge issue of it suggests something else is going on . . .

[BJ64]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In relation to the above subject, one of the most perfectly situated answer was given in a pamphlet that I'm not sure if it is still in print or not.  It is also quoted in the FairMormon article Grunt posted above, and as such I've taken the quote from there so it can have a source referred to (as I'm not sure where the pamphlet may be online and my google abilities with it are weak).

It was by Boyd K. Packer who stated...

This both sides that go to the extremes...rather than a more sensible medium.  It states that it is something we probably should avoid, but at the same time, this is NOT something that is on par with many other grievous sins that break the Law of Chastity.  We should not treat it the same as adultery or fornication or things like that, and treating it as such only does a disservice to those who are struggling with it.  When they think they will be treated as if they were fornicators or adulterers rather than on the level they really are at (which is far less severe than anything dealing with the sins of fornication, or other such things) they are far less likely to come forward to try to get help or assistance in overcoming such difficulties. 

When they realize that they will not be outcast pariah's for a very common problem among young men, then they might be more willing to find the love of the Lord in their struggles and in their life and become stronger young men in the process.

I quoted part of that myself on how it is not so great a sin that the Lord would reject you. 

This pamphlet has been out of print for many years but was still available on lds.org as a digital download. However within a few months of Elder Packer’s death it was removed from the website. It is no longer available from any church source. 

I was going to add earlier as you stated that when a young man thinks that M is next to murder it may lead him to lie about it rather than discuss it. That’s why I think things need to be kept in perspective.