Chastity


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The example I probably would have chosen was his view on oral sex in marriage, which does not seem to trigger as much contention.

I seriously doubt the bolded is true.

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Unless we are going with either extreme (all or none of their views are mistakes), this seems like the $64 question. How do we make this judgement?

We follow the counsel of our living prophets and apostles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Prove it.

(Edit: specifically, prove that this statement is false: "[masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation – practiced with another person of the same sex – and thence into total homosexuality."

I'm taking a common sense approach here, I'm not gay, most of the men I go to church with are not gay that I know of. I will assume that you also are not a homosexual (an assumption on my part is that we are all guilty of this sin) I'd go as far as to say anyone who claims not to have ever done it is a liar or needs to be immediately admitted to heaven.

I would suspect that most people myself included have not experienced the progression as outlined by then Elder Kimball.  Most gay people I know did not "become" gay. 

So no I cannot prove it, the statement on its face falls flat to most reasonable people. Was he wrong? I wouldn't rule his theory out for everyone, but for 99.9% of people I'll go with he missed the mark on that one.

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do you know your opinion on the Miracle of Forgiveness doesn't miss the mark by a country mile?

I don't.

I do know that the Miracle of Forgiveness is not an inspired work, it isn't cannon, it hasn't been ratified by the body of the church. Furthermore it was written by Elder Kimball not President Kimball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Unless they have admitted (as they have in rare cases) that something was a mistake, by what standard do we judge which of their views are mistakes and which are not?

We need to look at the works individually and see how they line up with the doctrine.  Our leaders purposefully do not speak ex cathedra. Their words are carefully chosen and we are the ones who tend to add prophetic warning/advisories to them.

When is our prophet speaking as a Prophet and when is he speaking as a wise righteous man with whom we can disagree?

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I seriously doubt the bolded is true. 

I guess I have not encountered those discussions, then.

 

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We follow the counsel of our living prophets and apostles.

I guess I agree -- maybe it depends on exactly what you mean.
Are living prophets and apostles still giving the same counsel that Pres. Kimball gave? As near as I can tell, after Pres. Kimball, the Church leadership has backed down from talking about what couples can/should do in their bedrooms. They have even gone so far as to not publish Pres. Kimball's letter on the subject. Pres. Kimball and Pres. Lee are the only ones that I know of with public opinions on oral sex. It has been said that the opinions we should follow will be repeated and reiterated. Perhaps the recent silence on the issue is evidence that Pres. Kimball's opinion is not binding.
What have prophets and apostles throughout our history counseled about following counsel? A mix of things, so some of the challenge is deciding when to reject an opinion because I don't think it concords with what is in the 4 standard works or because I have not received a confirming witness of the Spirit. I sometimes think this might be a nice topic for someone to really sift through the "follow the prophet and you will be blessed even if he's wrong" against "no one should feel obligated to follow the prophet if a teaching cannot be found in the four standard works" kind of things.
or, it still feels like "you just follow the prophet" except when you don't and how do you judge when you don't need to follow the prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I would suspect that most people myself included have not experienced the progression as outlined by then Elder Kimball.

I would suspect that the progression as outlined by Elder Kimball was anecdotal from years of hearing confessions of just such things occurring. 

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Most gay people I know did not "become" gay. 

Well that's another debate entirely. Once again...prove it. But, regardless, his statement did not say it made them "become" gay or not. He said it leads them into homosexual behavior.

6 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

the statement on its face falls flat to most reasonable people

Only in today's overly-sexualized, worldly, self-indulgent unreasonable culture. It strikes me that a culture that is primarily driven by the things our culture is driven by has very few "reasonable" views in general.

9 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I do know that the Miracle of Forgiveness is not an inspired work, it isn't cannon, it hasn't been ratified by the body of the church. Furthermore it was written by Elder Kimball not President Kimball.

Not a single one of these points has any bearing on its merits.

3 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

We need to look at the works individually and see how they line up with the doctrine. 

Which "doctrine" doesn't align with the things taught in The Miracle of Forgiveness?

4 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

When is our prophet speaking as a Prophet and when is he speaking as a wise righteous man with whom we can disagree?

You, and anyone, "can" disagree with whatever you want, whenever you want.

I'm talking about whether it's a good idea or not. And I contend that, as a general rule, it's probably better to find ways to agree with wise righteous men who have positions of authority in the church unless we have good doctrinal reasons to not do so. Defending interests in homosexuality, masturbation, and oral sex don't seem like good doctrinal reasons to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You, and anyone, "can" disagree with whatever you want, whenever you want.

I'm talking about whether it's a good idea or not. And I contend that, as a general rule, it's probably better to find ways to agree with wise righteous men who have positions of authority in the church unless we have good doctrinal reasons to not do so. Defending interests in homosexuality, masturbation, and oral sex don't seem like good doctrinal reasons to me.

On this I can agree 100%. We are better off following their council in all respects.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I guess I have not encountered those discussions, then.

We can't really have them here. But I've seen some real doosie discussions on Reddit or the like.

5 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Are living prophets and apostles still giving the same counsel that Pres. Kimball gave? As near as I can tell, after Pres. Kimball, the Church leadership has backed down from talking about what couples can/should do in their bedrooms

Sounds like you're well aware of current directions given then.

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

What have prophets and apostles throughout our history counseled about following counsel? A mix of things, so some of the challenge is deciding when to reject an opinion because I don't think it concords with what is in the 4 standard works or because I have not received a confirming witness of the Spirit.

I don't think it's challenging. If the church leaders wanted it known and understood, point blank, that certain specific activities even within the bounds of marriage were explicitly forbidden they would make it known. They have not. They did not. Even that letter wasn't meant for the general public. It was, later, clarified that leadership was not meant to ask intimate detailed questions of couples. The current counsel, and therefore the doctrine, of the church is simple. It is between man and wife and the guidance of the Spirit.

I don't think it's helpful to speculate on "the letter" beyond that. I don't think it's appropriate or useful to claim it was "just an opinion" or that it was "inspired revelation meant for all people for all time." It is, plainly, irrelevant to us. What is relevant are the teachings of our living prophets and apostles in regards to intimacy in marriage. Respect. Holiness. Purity. And that is to be worked out between husband and wife.

14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I sometimes think this might be a nice topic for someone to really sift through the "follow the prophet and you will be blessed even if he's wrong" against "no one should feel obligated to follow the prophet if a teaching cannot be found in the four standard works" kind of things.
or, it still feels like "you just follow the prophet" except when you don't and how do you judge when you don't need to follow the prophet.

If and when a living prophet declares that any given activity is inappropriate I will follow. When Brigham Young counseled people to make sure their ten year old sons were up by 4 a.m. working in the fields I'm pretty sure that no longer applies. But the general principle can be applied, as can President Kimball's principles. I don't know if his views and teachings were just for that time and no longer apply or not. I don't think it's important to work out, because it's not how our living prophets and apostles are directing us. That's doesn't mean it was just his opinion, that he was wrong, or anything like that. Of course that COULD be the case. But I don't see any reason to suppose it was the case, and, in fact, see a very good reason to stand in defense of the leaders of our church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man people have a lot of time on their hands. The original poster hasn't made a return post and yet the dialogue seems to have moved away from her main concern. And I agree that the opinions of prophets are worthy considering and adopting but there are some that are not. i.e. Brigham Young with miscegenation etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A)  French kissing is not a violation of the LoC.  It can however be very arousing and put a couple in a position of being tempted to sin.  It is playing with fire.  My wife and I did not kiss like that until we were engaged, and we only did it when parting.  We never let our desires get out of control but for me at least it took a great deal of effort sometimes, including having to cut are farewell short before things went too far.

B)  Feeling sexual attraction and desire for your significant other is not a sin, but how you deal with it might be.  There are other quotes from GAs about how God gave us those emotions specifically to drive us toward marriage where they can be fully expressed.  I would say you should not marry a person until after you have felt those kinds of feeling for them.  Feeling it doesn't mean you have to act on it in inappropriate ways.  The scriptures say to bridle our passions, that means we are to keep control over them so we can put their power to good use.  It doesn't mean we bind they up and repress them.  Lust and being carnal are not simply feeling sexual feelings, they are about putting sexual gratification above the commandment of God.

C)  When Elder Scott said "Do not arouse those emotions in your own body" he was talking about masturbating, porn and whatever else a person can do to deliberately and artificially get themselves all worked up.  He was not talking about avoiding all kissing etc.

D)  Miracle of Forgiveness is not cannon, it was published by Deseret Books, not by the Church.  While some of what he says in there is his own view on things and reflect the thinking of his generation, there is a lot in there that is doctrinal too and it doesn't take a lot of effort to check doctrinal sources for confirmation.  I think people are far to eager to throw the whole thing out because it really doesn't leave any wiggle room for sin and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.  I'm hanging on to both my copies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2019 at 7:00 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

If and when a living prophet declares that any given activity is inappropriate I will follow. When Brigham Young counseled people to make sure their ten year old sons were up by 4 a.m. working in the fields I'm pretty sure that no longer applies. But the general principle can be applied, as can President Kimball's principles. I don't know if his views and teachings were just for that time and no longer apply or not. I don't think it's important to work out, because it's not how our living prophets and apostles are directing us. That's doesn't mean it was just his opinion, that he was wrong, or anything like that. Of course that COULD be the case. But I don't see any reason to suppose it was the case, and, in fact, see a very good reason to stand in defense of the leaders of our church.

I think something that needs to be taken into account when reading things Kimball and others of his generation said is that back then society pushed people away from homosexuality.  Embracing that lifestyle back then took a much deeper rebelliousness against God, society and the law than today which was part of why they were considered deviant, corrupt, dangerous and untrustworthy.  These days kids are openly encouraged to experiment with it, at a societal level it requires no rebellion at all.

The same thing can be said of adultery, in generations past it was a black mark on the adulterer's character.  The social stigma against it was great and that was a deterrent.  Today society accepts it as normal and even glamorizes it helping it to happen more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share