Church responds to man on hunger strike

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Am I really the only person who thinks the For the Strength of Youth wording is the complete opposite of what @BJ64 calls it (confusing, "beating around the bush", representing a changed perspective toward acceptance)?

I think we all understand it, but the issue he is bringing up is that they are talking specifically about masturbation... but never saying the word. They are only using euphemisms. 

[Fether]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

Who were the prophets who throughout the ages have condemned masturbation? I can’t find them. 

You have, they were just using euphemisms as you stated above.

It is so obvious that Packer spoke of it, Spencer W Kimball did, as did many others. 

The issue I have with your question is that you are using what may or may not have been said against what IS being said today. Even if you don’t identify it as having been discussed in the past, the church does. One would have to separate themselves from the church to disagree

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

I think we all understand it, but the issue he is bringing up is that they are talking specifically about masturbation... but never saying the word. They are only using euphemisms. 

I disagree.  Sure, that quote I posted could have been as doctored below, but why?  It could also have listed explicitly various sex toys, types of sex, a copy of the Kama Sutra, blah blah blah - shall we complain that it doesn't?  None of that is needed - a nice succinct phrase tells one all they need to know, and like a parable, it allows room for one to increase in understanding (or deceive themselves, if they really wish).

Quote

Never masturbate or do anything else that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in masturbation or passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not masturbate or do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not masturbate or arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not masturbate or participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not masturbate or participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to remove yourself from the situation. Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents and leaders.

Now does that really tell you more than the original did?  I think not - unless you're looking for a way to excuse masturbation, and then this beats you over the head with it rather than letting you use your brain to derive what ought to be obvious.

Edited September 2, 2018 by zil

[Fether]

1 minute ago, zil said:

I disagree.  Sure, that quote I posted could have been as doctored below, but why?  It could also have listed explicitly various sex toys, types of sex, a copy of the Kama Sutra, blah blah blah - shall we complain that it doesn't?  None of that is needed - a nice succinct phrase tells one all they need to know, and like a parable, it allows room for one to increase in understanding (or deceive themselves, if they really wish).

Now does that really tell you more than the original did?  I think not - unless you're looking for a way to excuse masturbation, and then this beats you over the head with it rather than letting you use your brain to derive what ought to be obvious.

I agree Zil!! I personally don’t think clarification on terminology is needed xD.

But what I personally don’t get is this. Packer has an entire booklet focused on masturbation, the evils of it, how to not get trapped in it and so on. He does not once use the word masturbation but rather uses words like manipulation, self stimulating and other euphemisms. I first read it when I was 18 and on my mission. By this point I had overcome such sins and knewnof their evils. Even with my background it took me probably a dayb after reading it to finally be 100% sure about what it was he was talking about. I was so confused by the terminology, and  afterwards I was pondering on “what the heck does x euphemism’ even mean!?!? I assumed it meant masturbation, but I couldn’t 100% say for sure. It would be SO easy to just say the word and I am still confused as to why he didn’t... not even once.

[zil]

Just now, Fether said:

But what I personally don’t get is this. Packer has an entire booklet focused on masturbation, the evils of it, how to not get trapped in it and so on. He does not once use the word masturbation but rather uses words like manipulation, self stimulating and other euphemisms. I first read it when I was 18 and on my mission. By this point I had overcome such sins and knewnof their evils. Even with my background it took me probably a dayb after reading it to finally be 100% sure about what it was he was talking about. I was so confused by the terminology, and  afterwards I was pondering on “what the heck does x euphemism’ even mean!?!? I assumed it meant masturbation, but I couldn’t 100% say for sure. It would be SO easy to just say the word and I am still confused as to why he didn’t... not even once.

Have you never look up Packer's date of birth?  He was old enough to be my grandfather (just barely) and I'm pretty sure I'm old enough to be your mother.  Once upon a time, "civilized" people didn't use certain words, particularly in writing, and even more particularly in writing that might be seen by women (and perhaps children).  Once upon a time, there was such a thing as "polite society" - but I'm pretty sure that's not only gone, but a foreign, confusing concept.

2018 slang and euphemisms that were obvious to us will be obscure as all get out to people in 2100.

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

Have you never look up Packer's date of birth?  He was old enough to be my grandfather (just barely) and I'm pretty sure I'm old enough to be your mother.  Once upon a time, "civilized" people didn't use certain words, particularly in writing, and even more particularly in writing that might be seen by women (and perhaps children).  Once upon a time, there was such a thing as "polite society" - but I'm pretty sure that's not only gone, but a foreign, confusing concept.

2018 slang and euphemisms that were obvious to us will be obscure as all get out to people in 2100.

I know, but in the words of Reuben J Clark The youth of the Church are hungry for things of the Spirit; they are eager to learn the gospel, and they want it straight, undiluted.”

I also don’t think that a time where people refused to say the true and simplistic form of a word is a superior time. I don’t understand that at all. It’s one thing to speak in parables, but another to refuse to say the simplest form of a word because it has a dirty sound.

Im open to the idea that I may be wrong, maybe we shouldn’t use the ‘M’ word... but I can’t fathom why not 

[zil]

Who said it was superior?  It may have been, it may not have been.  But I'm pretty sure J. Reuben Clark wasn't thinking of "masturbation" when he wrote those words - he was probably thinking of more glorious things.

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

 

 Who said it was superior?

 

The furocity in which you typed

20 minutes ago, zil said:

Once upon a time, "civilized" people didn't use certain words, particularly in writing, and even more particularly in writing that might be seen by women (and perhaps children).  Once upon a time, there was such a thing as "polite society" - but I'm pretty sure that's not only gone, but a foreign, confusing concept.

 

[Fether]

I love ya @zil,!

I love you like I love my great great grandmother!

We ain’t ganna see eye to eye on this

[zil]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

The furocity in which you typed

 I was explaining a probable cause, not justifying (though I see no problem with Elder Packer's choice - probably because I'm closer to remembering such things; but it should be pretty obvious I don't feel the need to use euphemisms myself).  I suspect I've used the word "masturbation" more than any other poster in this thread, so you all have some catching up to do.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

I love ya @zil,!

I love you like I love my great great grandmother!

We ain’t ganna see eye to eye on this

Mind yer manners, young whippersnapper!

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

We ain’t ganna see eye to eye on this

That's only cuz of how short I am.

[BJ64]

55 minutes ago, Fether said:

But what I personally don’t get is this. Packer has an entire booklet focused on masturbation, the evils of it, how to not get trapped in it and so on. He does not once use the word masturbation but rather uses words like manipulation, self stimulating and other euphemisms. I first read it when I was 18 and on my mission. By this point I had overcome such sins and knewnof their evils. Even with my background it took me probably a dayb after reading it to finally be 100% sure about what it was he was talking about. I was so confused by the terminology, and  afterwards I was pondering on “what the heck does x euphemism’ even mean!?!? I assumed it meant masturbation, but I couldn’t 100% say for sure. It would be SO easy to just say the word and I am still confused as to why he didn’t... not even once.

This is the sort of thing that I was referring to which can cause confusion for some.

However do you know that the printed copy has been unavailable for many years and the online PDF version was removed from lds.org within a very short time after his death? It was never printed in the Ensign and I just noticed recently that the video of the conference talk is not on the lds gospel library. To my knowledge this talk can only be found on lds.org. 

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Have you never look up Packer's date of birth?  He was old enough to be my grandfather (just barely) and I'm pretty sure I'm old enough to be your mother.  Once upon a time, "civilized" people didn't use certain words, particularly in writing, and even more particularly in writing that might be seen by women (and perhaps children).  Once upon a time, there was such a thing as "polite society" - but I'm pretty sure that's not only gone, but a foreign, confusing concept.

 

Do you know that the talk was given in general priesthood meeting October 1976. The talk was never printed in the Ensign likely for the very reason you state so it wouldn’t be seen by women and children. It was made int a pamphlet which was given to young men for many years. 

Why, I wonder was an anti masturbation pamphlet never handed out to young women? It’s not like it’s just a guy thing. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by BJ64

[BJ64]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

You have, they were just using euphemisms as you stated above.

It is so obvious that Packer spoke of it, Spencer W Kimball did, as did many others. 

The issue I have with your question is that you are using what may or may not have been said against what IS being said today. Even if you don’t identify it as having been discussed in the past, the church does. One would have to separate themselves from the church to disagree

What I am looking for are the teachings of prophets throughout the ages not just those of the last few decades. 

I’ll repeat that I’m not saying it’s not a sin I’m just saying that I think there are many who believe it to be a much more serious sin than it is and thus lay a lot more guilt on people than is deserved.

It’s perhaps less of a sin than pride, envy, jealousy, greed, anger, gossip, back biting, etc. and madturbation certainly causes less harm to others than many of these sins I list. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by BJ64

[Overwatch]

7 hours ago, BJ64 said:

What I am looking for are the teachings of prophets throughout the ages not just those of the last few decades. 

I’ll repeat that I’m not saying it’s not a sin I’m just saying that I think there are many who believe it to be a much more serious sin than it is and thus lay a lot more guilt on people than is deserved.

It’s perhaps less of a sin than pride, envy, jealousy, greed, anger, gossip, back biting, etc. and madturbation certainly causes less harm to others than many of these sins I list. 

I can see where you are coming from. Don't lessen the sin of masturbation but also don't blow it out of proportion. Demonizing a young man or woman for doing this rather than encouraging them to keep striving to not give up is key. I can almost guarantee they beat themselves up more than anyone else. It's a hurtful action to self esteem and the holy spirit will always let the faithful latter-day saint know it is wrong. Very few members, I believe, masturbate and immediately feel proud of themselves but rather the opposite; they feel shame and embarrassment.

[Fether]

8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

What I am looking for are the teachings of prophets throughout the ages not just those of the last few decades. 

I’ll repeat that I’m not saying it’s not a sin I’m just saying that I think there are many who believe it to be a much more serious sin than it is and thus lay a lot more guilt on people than is deserved.

It’s perhaps less of a sin than pride, envy, jealousy, greed, anger, gossip, back biting, etc. and madturbation certainly causes less harm to others than many of these sins I list. 

I also see where you are coming from. I can’t find specific references beyond that of Packer.

However... the fact that bishops won’t let missionaries go serve until they overcome this sin is insight to me that it is more serious than the sin of pride. 

[Guest]

On 8/30/2018 at 9:24 PM, JohnsonJones said:

What's even worse is SOME of the questions which have been asked by church leaders in the past WOULD QUALIFY AS CHILD ABUSE!!!

What you say to a child and how explicitly you talk to them IS considered child abuse when it hits a certain level. 

Things that I was asked about when I went on a Mission many years ago, if asked to someone today under the age of 18 by JUST ABOUT ANYONE unless pursuing it in a court case or legal matter would be considered Child Abuse.

There was a time when the big debate was whether or not sex education should be part of public schooling.  I believe (and I'm no historian) the arguments were:

CON: It's the parents' job to teach these things to their children.  Anyone else teaching them would open the door to child molestation and sexual indoctrination.
PRO: Parents aren't doing their job! Some outrageous percentage of youth don't even know they are engaging in sex because they were never told what it was.  And they have no idea how a baby is made.

Well, we see where the world went with that.

But I see a double standard here.  We're not crying out for public schooling to stop providing sex ed.  But we're crying out for bishops to stop asking about whether a youth has lived up to his baptismal covenants.  What is the comparable rate of teacher abuse cases vs., say, the Catholic priest scandal?

It seems that the argument is not really about protecting the children at all.  If it were, then I'd be all over it.  But why is it so important for bishops to be hamstrung from helping youth, but it is not so important for teachers to be hamstrung?  Which is more important?  Their spiritual education or their intellectual education?  Which avenue is providing better success rates?  (Social Justice degrees anyone?)

BTW, I just had to share:

Quote

The Census Bureau reported literacy rates of 86% based on personal interviews of a relatively small portion of the population and on written responses to Census Bureau mailings.

-- Illiterate America, Jonathan Kozol

Uhmm...

Edited September 2, 2018 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

15 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Excuse for what? I don’t M, I’m merely stating that M is not as great a sin as many make it out to be. Compare the 413 references to pornography to the handful of direct references to M and a few vague references to it in general conference. It seems clear which is a greater concern. 

You’ve been quite careful about what you say overall, but the mask does come off occasionally.  

Example:

Quote

I also think this is not a clear cut issue. If it was it would say right out that it is a sin. President Kimball said it is a sin and others have quoted him but none since him have said anything about it specifically. When you consider how much is said about porn I would think that if it was a big concern there would be frequent repetitive mention of it. Another thing which indicates to me the that it is not clear cut is that a lot of bishops say they don’t ask about it nor are they required to. 

I think there will never be a statement supporting the practice but I think it is a teaching that is slowly fading away. Note the disappearance of To Young Men Only and The Miracle of Forgiveness.

If you truly agree that masturbation is "sinful", then why would you say that the Church's teaching against it is "slowly fading away"?  What other honest-to-gosh "sins" do you think the Church is slowly coming to accept?

And by the way, you know as well as I do that To The Young Men Only was widely misrepresented by the LGBTQ lobby of inciting violence against gays (because Packer authorizes missionaries to use force to defend themselves from sexual assaults by homosexuals).  To represent the current unavailability of that sermon's text as being primarily attributable to a supposed "fading away" of Church opposition to masturbation, is yet another instance of dishonesty and evidences a deeper agenda than what you've (usually) been willing to openly acknowledge.  

Example 2, in the which--responding to a direct question as to whether masturbation constitutes an LoC violation--you, rather than offering a comprehensive review of the literature, merely quote Elder Kim Clark's Time interview and then sum up as follows:  

Quote

What I get from this is that we should avoid masturbation because it could over time lead to sinful things but in and of itself it is not a sinful behavior. Of course the whole point of the video was a battle against porn so I would say that masturbation  done with porn would be a sinful behavior.

Whether you masturbate or not is, of course, none of my business.  What is my business, is you making a concerted effort in this forum to conceal, de-legitimize, or obfuscate every statement made under the auspices of LDS authority that condemns the practice.  What is also my business is your multiple attempts to blow Elder Clark's Time interview out of proportion in order to convince other forum members that masturbation is not in fact sinful.  And what is also my business (and more germane to the original topic of this thread) is your support of Sam Young's efforts to prevent the Church from meaningfully teaching or requiring accountability on this doctrine on an individualized basis.  

Quote

The person who teaches the non-sinfulness of self-pollution is in the same class with the teachers who prostitute the sex urge.
--J. Reuben Clark

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But I see a double standard here.  We're not crying out for public schooling to stop providing sex ed.  But we're crying out for bishops to stop asking about whether a youth has lived up to his baptismal covenants.  What is the comparable rate of teacher abuse cases vs., say, the Catholic priest scandal?

But teachers don’t impede all that young, disease-free teen-flesh from entering the sexual marketplace where it can be freely exploited and groomed for another decade or two of promiscuity.  (In fact, in many jurisdictions teachers are prohibited from encouraging abstinence at all.)  Catholic and LDS clergy, by contrast, tend to do precisely that; and so they must be stopped at all costs. 

There is a guiding intelligence and plan behind all this.  Whether Young and some of his acolytes are active co-conspirators in this plan, or mere pawns, remains to be seen.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

I think my biggest issue is how many people pick and choose about what they want to believe from Spencer W. Kimball.   He discussed Masturbation as being something we should not do (but also claimed in some of the same books and articles that it caused homosexuality and other things proven to be false in regards to Masturbation which CAN make one wonder if he was speaking as a prophet or a man in some of those). 

Kudos, I can give that to people and say, you should heed his advice.

 

HOWEVER...and this kind of infuriates me....they COMPLETELY IGNORE much of his other advice.

For example...

Quote

I never drink any of the cola drinks and my personal hope would be that no one would. However, they are not included in the Word of Wisdom in its technical application. I quote from a letter from the secretary to the First Presidency, 'But the spirit of the Word of Wisdom would be violated by the drinking or eating of anything that contained a habit-forming drug.' With reference to the cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken any attitude on this at but I personally do not put them in the class as with the tea and coffee because the Lord specifically mentioned them [the hot drinks].^[1]

Of course, it is SOOO absolutely common among Mormons now to drink Colas and Caffeinated drinks that they sell them at BYU (as per what someone reported on this forum some time ago) and we even have threads debating how much people drink colas being offered by Mormons!!!

WHY DO WE HAVE SUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS as to accept one thing stated by a prophet, but then completely and totally ignore something else?

People consider me fanatical at times (no caffeinated drinks, no R-Rated Movies or Movies that have a lot of language, violence, or other things that do not build the spirit), but a LOT of it has to do with paying heed to the prophets and their "advice" and "Suggestions" in the past.  I take them very seriously (and that also includes those of sexual discretions and items we should not do such as masturbation or other such things).

I see people repeatedly hit upon their favorite items, but then totally and completely IGNORE the advice given that they do not follow as if they can pick and choose from the gospel.

Note, there IS no punishment for drinking caffeinated drinks...BUT...the first presidency has stated in the past...

Quote

With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided.^[5

AND in relation to this...also stated in the past

Quote

The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician

We tend to overlook the harmful or habit-forming substances.  There have been some studies that have stated quitting caffeinated drinks is HARDER than quitting smoking.

In this instance, one could say that Spencer W. Kimball was speaking as a MAN, but then that also opens up an entire can of worms of asking WHEN he was talking as a man, and when he was talking as a prophet as some of the times he discussed masturbation as a sin were also times that avoiding drinks with habit forming substances was ALSO discussed.

I believe Spencer W. Kimball was a prophet, I also believe he was inspired.  I find it VERY infuriating though how much people ignore 75% of what he said (though, as this thread shows, they are very willing to pay heed to around 25% of things he stated) as a General Authority.

Just my two cents on bringing up certain things with a focus but ignoring the other elephants in the room. 

Masturbation is still something that most members are not going to think well of and will try to avoid.  Ironically, many of the other things that Spencer W. Kimball and other General authorities and prophets brought up about avoiding and not doing (R-Rated Movies, Caffeinated Drinks, improper music, Good books, read the book of Mormon specifically each day, not just scripture study in general) are things that we flagrantly ignore today.

No one is perfect, and I do not expect that, but I am shocked and surprised many times at how much of the prophets advice we toss out and sometimes wonder if the calamities on the church that occasionally happen are a result of us blatantly ignoring the "higher" law, or spirit of the law that was given as advice (but not as a commandment) previously.

 

Edit: in regards to the actual discussion, it should be NOTED that in many instances where they discussed masturbation, they ALSO pointed out that some of the things that LEAD to it or are also part of the sin is pornography.  This pornography is NOT just labeled as what society labels it as, but normally exists as R-Rated movies in many instances, or ANY film or TV or book that espouses sexuality in an explicit or inappropriate MANNER.  In MY OPINION this means around 90% of today's entertainment falls into this category which we should avoid. 

I find that MANY Mormons that are too eager to condemn their own brethren for pornography or Masturbation RELISH in today's media, which is picking and choosing, even from the SAME talks, of WHAT they wish to focus on and what to avoid.  They choose to IGNORE the advice given in the talks rather than see the WHOLE picture of all that is destructive in today's society beyond their own pet beliefs.  In doing so they project their own feelings of what is more sinful or not, rather than see that ALL of it is just as bad as the rest...and to try to say one is more destructive than the other is once again ignoring the elephant in the room of our societies quick fall from grace into the cesspool it has become today in our entertainment mediums.

Edited September 3, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[BJ64]

Thank you @JohnsonJonesVery well said. 

[Overwatch]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

MANY Mormons

I think perhaps you mean many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There have been some studies that have stated quitting caffeinated drinks is HARDER than quitting smoking.

JJ,

First, I do want to say that I really liked pretty much everything else you said in that last post.  I even gave you a like for it.  But I had to weigh in on this ^ ^.  IT IS ABSOLUTELY 100% FALSE.

Study after study and doctors upon doctors indicate that nicotine is probably the most addictive drug on the planet, both physically and psychologically.  The only reason public awareness is low, is that it is extremely low to non-existent on the psychotropic scale.  And the nicotine itself does not do nearly as much damage to the brain and body as many other drugs.  But in terms of addictive power -- there is simply no contest. 

While I would warn against caffeine because it can certainly be addictive, it simply can't be put into the same category as other drugs in terms of addiction potential.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

JJ,

First, I do want to say that I really liked pretty much everything else you said in that last post.  I even gave you a like for it.  But I had to weigh in on this ^ ^.  IT IS ABSOLUTELY 100% FALSE.

Study after study and doctors upon doctors indicate that nicotine is probably the most addictive drug on the planet, both physically and psychologically.  The only reason public awareness is low, is that it is extremely low to non-existent on the psychotropic scale.  And the nicotine itself does not do nearly as much damage to the brain and body as many other drugs.  But in terms of addictive power -- there is simply no contest. 

While I would warn against caffeine because it can certainly be addictive, it simply can't be put into the same category as other drugs in terms of addiction potential.

Exactly right. Nicotine is far and away one of the most addictive substances on earth. That's why people who have quit using heroin say quitting smoking is harder. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by MormonGator