102 Responses

1. Is this Jessawhy?

   Very interesting. I have a toddler boy, and I am concerned about church teachings someday making him feel like he’s committing a grievous sin if he masturbates. I expect him to masturbate. It’s the rare boy who doesn’t. I kind of feel like it’s ok, so long as he’s not doing it 5 times a day. I plan to tell my child to tell a church leader that it’s none of his business if that leader asks about my son’s masturbation habits.

   As for single women, I feel like masturbation is a much better alternative than pre-marital sex. Of course, if a person feels she doesn’t need that or sex, then that’s great.

2. I am a single late-twentysomething, and yes, I think there is much more to this issue than you’ve considered.

   I appreciate that married members of the Church are aware of the single membership and seem to be increasingly seeking to bridge the gap between families and adult singles. But I am always wary when that effort ends up reducing singles to nothing but our sexuality. I am tired of being treated as if sex would solve all my problems.

   I do think about sex, and I do look forward to it. But when I look at my married friends and relatives, they all have multifaceted lives, in which sexual fulfillment is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. And from what I’ve seen, success and peace in that larger puzzle come not from sex, but rather from living gospel principles, even when that means waiting for things we want—like sex.

   You say, “Some wait to have sex and some don’t, but I try to support them equally.” How could those EVER be equivalent decisions? Chastity is a key gospel principle, and no amount of wishing for marriage or sex or both will change that.

   “True to the Faith” is very direct on the subject of masturbation: “Determine now that you will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not arouse those emotions in another person’s body or in your own body.”

   Sure, there may be some minor benefits to masturbation. But there are lots of other ways to relax, reduce stress, burn calories, relieve cramps, etc. I am simply not willing to trade my birthright for a mess of PMS relief.

3. Caroline: Hi there! Yes, having sons does make this doctrine apply to me a little more directly. I think it can also apply to married women, but perhaps that will be a follow up post 🙂
   Sorry about the missing byline. I just went and added a few links, one to fMh in the first para, another to Mormonzero’s source, and a final one near the end, to beliefnet’s discussion on this subject.

   Melanie2,
   Thanks for your thoughts. I am sorry that you feel you are being reduced to your sexuality. My thoughts on this spring from a conversation with my 30 yo cousin who said she was talking to my sister (and other singles) and “the conversation always drifts to sex, because we’re not getting any.” Perhaps they are not normal, but I thought there was a lot of sexual angst in the LDS single women’s scene.
   Thanks for quoting that passage from True to the Faith. I’ll have to disagree that masturbating is like giving away your birthright. It’s not the same as sex, and the fact that people see it that way is a problem. There seems to be a lot of evidence that the negative associations with masturbation began in the 1800s when it was linked to insanity.
   As for my support of my single friends, that’s pretty much my choice. I want them to know that they are people and not objects to me, that I will love them no matter what they do, regardless of how it fits in with what I think is the best.
   I do appreciate your comments.

4. Wow, Melanie 2 is at a very different place than I am. I have thought about this a lot lately, being in my thirties, being still single, being still a virgin. The more married people I have talked to, the more surprised I am to find that not only are single women participating in masturbation (and I believe that there is nothing wrong with this at all, just another way that people in the church have promoted stunted sexual growth, made sex seem dirty and wrong..and why so many of my friends don’t even know or understand their bodies (married ones among these)…but many married women as well.

   In fact, it has been my married friends who have suggested masturbation as I have had conversations with them about how sexually frustrated I am getting ( I am at my peak here ladies!). These are Relief Society presidents, Young Women Leaders, faithful church attenders, all suggesting which vibrator has worked best for them, and all the benefits that they have in their own satisfaction and within their sexual relationship within marriage.

   This is just another topic that I think we take it for granted that guys will masturbate, but good girls just shouldn’t and wouldn’t and that it is wrong and dirty. When I have children, I want them to be sure of their bodies, I want my daughters and sons to understand their bodies, treat them with respect, and not be so afraid of everything sexual.

   Also, I find it horrific how many of my married friends are unable to have satisfying sexual relationships (the ones who don’t masturbate,that is, also tend to be the ones who can never reach orgasm) because they just never learned about their bodies, they don’t know how to teach their husbands to please them, they don’t dare do anything outside of the missionary position, and they think they should only have sex when they are trying to get pregnant.

   I think masturbation can be a very healthy tool for many.

5. I was 34 and a virgin when I married; I have an extremely active libido and this was TORTURE for me and it was only getting worse as I got older and more physically fit. Absolute hell. I cannot emphasize how I hurt from the lack.

   At the time I had decided to be happy being single, but also to hang up the celibacy deal, I met my husband, so I do believe that the Lord heard and answered my prayers.

   I would submit, Melanie2, that perhaps your libido may be a bit more subdued than mine, but I would not have been able to go without masturbating.

   I will also submit that the reason singles get “reduced down to their sexuality” is because they’re not getting what is natural to want and, as a corollary, what should have been happening at least 15 years earlier.

   I believe it is absolutely UNnatural (evolutionarily, even!) to go without, especially past 25 or so (okay, that was an arbitrary number, but still).

   I also believe it is absolutely UNnatural to go without the rest of the companionship outside of the issue of sex past around that age. We are meant to be together emotionally, spiritually, and sexually; it’s just that for me, the ache of being lonely got slowly overridden by the ache of being celibate.

6. Jessawhy,
   I didn’t mean to imply that I wouldn’t continue to love my friends who make different decisions than me–but I think respecting their ability to choose for themselves is distinct from my support for the decisions they make. I have quite a few friends whose choices about sex are different from mine, and they know where I stand, but we still enjoy and value our friendship.

   MoJo,
   I agree that sexuality is natural, but for me, the fact that something is natural does not, on its own, justify it. For example, it’s certainly not natural for us to be as patient or as charitable as we should be. Isn’t this life about overcoming natural tendencies when they contradict higher principles? So yes, of course we’re designed to desire sex (and I do, trust me!) but in contexts where sexuality is inappropriate, I don’t think its “natural” basis makes it okay.

7. but in contexts where sexuality is inappropriate, I don’t think its “natural” basis makes it okay.

   Okay, let me put it another way:

   I think that celibacy past sexual maturity for the sake of celibacy is an artificial construct.

8. I think it is sadistic and abusive for any individual or religion to deny singles of their sexuality.

9. I strongly feel that the Church ought to clarify the Law of Chastity, especially as it pertains to adult singles, gay and straight. It’s disingenuous, or at least perhaps intentionally confusing, to term the LOC “no sexual relations…” since we all know fully well that masturbation is a sex act. For those of us with very highly calibrated moral compasses, the guilt that accompanies masturbation is unnecessarily piquant.

   It doesn’t help that some Church leaders insist that single members confess any and all sexual activity, INCLUDING masturbation. Others deny temple recommends to those who masturbate. Some say there’s nothing wrong with even robust sexual thought, but ANY action–touching of self or others–is the basis of needed repentance, sometimes even discipline.

   I have a friend who was disfellowshipped for using a vibrator. She is a never-married woman in her forties.

   If the Church would speak up and clarify once and for all that it is unhealthy (spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically) NOT to masturbate, then some of these issues would be moot, and many single adults would feel far more comfortable attending Church. Many single adults would not feel a need to lie constantly about their normal sexual behavior.

10. I agree with Melanie2. And I was in my late 20s when I got married, so I can speak from some experience. I never believed masturbation would have been ok for me, or for any of my peers. I will teach these standards, as well as others taught by our leaders (to not deliberately arouse sexual feelings in ANY way, alone or with someone else before marriage) clearly and unapologetically to my children, although I plan to do it sensitively and openly, creating an environment where our children can talk to us about their struggles through challenges such as facing the very real and natural desires that will develop as they mature. We have already begun really open talk about the doctrine of sexuality and marriage.

    I think what this post is missing is an exploration of the purpose of sexuality and the key role of chastity in the plan of salvation. We are here, in part, to see if we can rise above the natural urges and tendencies and desires we have. This is hard doctrine, but research or opinion will not change this doctrine, rumors notwithstanding.

    We CAN teach our children that sex is wonderful, that sexual desires are God-given, but then we distort that truth, imo, if we don’t teach the purpose of those desires and the Lord’s strict, clear standards on expression (or ‘release’ if you will) of those desires. I’m sorry, but I think we do our youth more harm by facilitating behavior that prophets have declared is wrong. That will only confuse the truth about sexuality more.

    ALL the standards on sexuality are constant. Homosexuals are told that desires are not what is sinful, but acting on those desires. So are heterosexual singles. We might do well to ask ourselves why this is? Is it that our leaders are uncaring? Ignorant of how hard it is to control sexual desire? How ‘normalized’ sexual exploration outside of marriage has become, both in research and practice? No. They are not ignorant of these things. They hold to the standards for a reason.

    I believe that we can’t teach children, youth, or adults that sex is sacred, designed to bring a husband and wife together, but then turn around and say, ‘but it’s ok for you to help yourself to relief until then.’ To me, that distorts and cheapens what sex is about and risks harm, just as much as teaching only the ‘nos’ can distort youth’s understanding about sex. Of course sexual feelings are normal. Of course there is that physical element to sex in marriage. But there is much more to be understood and taught. If all that is focused on until marriage is the physical element (either as we teach about self-control or as we (imo wrongly) encourage or at least turn a blind eye to self-relief), then I think we risk distorting the more whole view of marital intimacy. We essentially teach that sex exists for physical self-fulfillment. We MUST teach the larger picture, the doctrine surrounding sex and its purpose in the plan and in marriage. We don’t simply teach youth not to masturbate, but we teach them why it is important not to…teaching them what sex is about.

    So, what I think is missing from this post is a careful exploration of why the law of chastity exists, what sexuality is all about, and why the teachings are the way they are. The Church’s teachings don’t have to be damaging if they are taught carefully, openly, and clearly.

11. Sheesh. I should have made that a post on my blog. Sorry for the length!

12. If the Church would speak up and clarify once and for all that it is unhealthy (spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically) NOT to masturbate,

    The whole point is that the Church doesn’t believe this.

13. I’m not positive it doesn’t. Guidance about masturbation has almost always been to and for adolescents. When these adolescents grow up and are in positions of leadership, they apply counsel for teenagers to single members of the Church. I have never heard a leader (apostle or prophet) claim that masturbation is absolutely against the Law of Chastity, but rational and devout members often assume it is, since it is obviously sexual behavior.

    On the other hand, common sense, common knowledge and biological imperative insist that it is harmful not to masturbate. Since Heavenly Father and our Church leaders love us, why would they advise something so physically and emotionally harmful, especially when it’s a harmless (and beneficial) activity?

14. As a single woman who was active in the church until just recently, at 30, I think one of the biggest problems is that the church continues to treat single adults like children or teenagers. “For the strength of the Youth” is quoted in chastity lessons for singles, but I just don’t feel like a youth anymore.

    Even if one believes in the plan of salvation and that marriage and sex are so vital in that, I think there is still plenty of room for masturbation, and more liberal sexual attitudes.

    I agree with MoJo that celibacy past sexual maturity is an artificial construct. I keep hearing all of these appeals to statements by the general authorities and official documents, but I believe that in many cases they are acting as men with their own biases, coming from conservative backgrounds. We have seen this in relation to racism, and I think it can apply in other areas, such as sexuality as well.

15. I was planning on only passively observing this but feel I should at least chime in for a moment.
    First, I think this is a very good post. Why? Because it wasn’t trying to tell anyone what to think, believe, or do. It simply was bringing up another side that most ppl probably are not as aware of. Most here are probably more than familiar w/ the Law of Chastity and the church’s stance on masturbation. The church has plenty of resources for this…however, you rarely are going to find the other side.

    For those who are completely opposed to masturbation their arguments or opinions are heavily influenced by 1. Church Leaders (i.e. prophets, apostles) 2. Church Resources (SS Manuals, True to the Faith, For Strength of Youth) 3. Previous Personal Conviction, which was founded in their successful masturbation abstinence and the blessings thereof.

    IMO, all of these are excellent resources for one to develop an opinion by way of study, meditation, and prayer.

    My only problem is if this develops an attitude or perception that this is the ONLY right way.

    I can already tell that this is going to get lengthy so if I am boring or you just can’t stand what I am saying feel free to skip to the next comment.

    IMO, whether masturbation is always wrong depends on whether one views this issue as an absolute truth (i.e. Jesus Christ is our Savior) or a relative truth (i.e. abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest, or the poor health of the mother), which depend on the circumstance to know whether it is right or wrong. If it is indeed a relative truth then it all falls upon the individual to seek personal revelation by way of “search, ponder, and pray” (D&C 8).

    For instance, President David O. McKay (former prophet) ate some rum cake and when he was asked about it he said, “I’m not drinking it, I’m eating it.” He also didn’t hesitate when offered a ceremonial drink of KAVA KAVA on a south pacific island. Those were just fun examples, but a more serious example is in the case of Nephi when he goes back to pick up the brass plates and is prompted to kill Laban. At this time the standing commandment was, “thou shall not kill.” However, according to circumstance he was told to kill a man.

    Some would say that a man or woman will never receive a prompting to do something contrary to what the prophet said. However, there are plenty of examples that would show otherwise. The lifting of the ban on blacks and the priesthood went against previous teaching by both apostles and prophets. Former prophet, President Heber J. Grant, after WWI was telling the membership that we should support the idea of the U.S. joining the League of Nations…this was b4 the church really took a stand on not getting involved in political matters…in fact, some Q12 members went so far as to say U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson, was chosen by God to be an advocate for the LofN. The majority supported this idea, however, there were a few who did not agree w/ the prophet…namely Joseph Fielding Smith (later president of the church), David O. Mckay (later president of the church), J. Reuben Clark (later member of the church’s first presidency) and also Reed Smoot (who was at that time a U.S. Senator and also member of the apostleship or Q12).

    Because a prophet says something it does not make it an absolute truth; it does not make it an absolute truth that cannot be re-interpreted at a later time by another prophet or in the NOW by each respected individual by way of respect to proper authority, desire to do what is right, proper motivation, adequate study and thinking, and counsel w/ God himself through prayer. That is what PERSONAL REVELATION is for; and that is what it is–PERSONAL. If you can trust your personal revelation to lead you into the church and into believing most if not all of its teachings, then you also have to learn to trust your revelation and inspiration even while w/in the church no matter what authority says what. The important thing is developing a relationship w/ our Heavenly Father. This does set us up to make mistakes from time to time as we learn how to recognize right from wrong, this reminds me of Eve’s statement…”Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have KNOWN GOOD FROM EVIL(caps added)” (Pearl of Great Price | Moses 5:11) IMO, one can never really know the difference between good and evil w/o making mistakes. Many of the more treaturous mistakes can be avoided if we simply teach responsibility and consequence (similar to what m&m was saying).

    I believe there are certain times where a person can receive personal revelation that allows that person to know that a certain ideal or teaching is not applicable to them. They can also receive revelation that builds further upon the original concept that was taught by a church leader.

    For example, the first prophet mentioned in the BoM, Lehi, had a revelatory dream about the Tree of Life in which he saw a rod of iron, a tree w/ white fruit, a spacious building, among other things. Did Nephi sit back and say, “Oh, that is exactly what God wants because that is exactly what my dad the prophet said.” No, instead he studied, pondered, and prayed to our Heavenly Father so that he could better understand the prophet’s dream. Nephi then received a personal revelation and saw the same dream that Lehi did, except he saw more…he even saw the river of water and the filthiness thereof. Nephi explains the following to his older siblings…

    “And [Laman & Lemuel] said unto me: What meaneth the river of water which our father saw?
    27 And I said unto them that the water which [Lehi] saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that HE BEHELD NOT (caps added) the filthiness of the water.
    28 And I said unto them that it was an awful gulf, which separated the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the saints of God.
    29 And I said unto them that it was a representation of that awful hell, which the angel said unto me was prepared for the wicked.”

    (Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 15:26 – 29)

    However, by following this line of logic and one must respecfully honor one’s potential personal revelation that he or she must always follow the prophet. What I am mainly stressing is that there is no one way to eat a Reese’s and there is also no one way to be a member of the LDS church.

    Christ when he taught during the Sermon on the Mount showed us the importance of one’s desires and feelings rather than emphasizing specific behaviors. He said blessed are the poor in spirit, they that mourn, meek, they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, and don’t be angry or lustful.

    Anyway, I just leave the right to each individual to choose and “…the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of [his/her] own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. (PoGP AofF 1:11)

    Now, if one’s opinion is solely founded on what church leaders say and nothing else Brigham Young gives the following warning

    “…Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the POWER OF GOD, and the INFLUENCES of the Holy Spirit, then to be led entirely by ANOTHER person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will NEVER be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They will never become Gods…Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true INDEPENDENCE of heaven…” (JD 1:312)

    Whether one believes he or she can become a God in the life hereafter is irrelevant because his point is that you cannot progress if you only rely on the thoughts and opinions of others to make your decisions.

    I recently read a talk by President Ezra Taft Benson where he states that sometimes men are w/held from the truth in order that they may be of greater use to God’s plan for both His kingdom and the man himself. If God can do this, I don’t see why he couldn’t let a person know when they are an exception to a particular rule, teaching, or ideal; Even masturbation.

    So I ask, was it wrong when Elder Reed Smoot disagreed w/ the prophet’s teachings about the League of Nations? Was it wrong if a woman received revelation or felt it important (inspired) to use birth control during the times when the use of birth control was considered a damning act? Was it wrong when Joseph Smith ordained black men to receive the priesthood b4 blacks were supposedly allowed to get the priesthood? Or was Brigham Young EXACTLY right with his blacks are descendants of Cain and shall never receive the priesthood? Is it wrong if one feels it is important to their health or sanity to masturbate?

    The only true way to know, at least from a Mormon perspective, is by way of personal revelation.

    For those who struggle w/ the morality of masturbation and have been unable to stop then you have a few options if you use the logic of the apostle Paul…

    “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
    But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

    (New Testament | 1 Corinthians 7:8 – 9)

    It appears that Paul is clearly acknowledging that different people have varying levels of capacity to “contain” oneself. Some people have a really strong sex drive and for others it can be nearly non-existent. If one accepts Paul’s idea here then I see three immediate options for the masturbator.

    1. Get married (not always possible nor ethical for the 14 year old boy or girl)
    2. Acknowledge and accept that you have a problem “containing;” it is better to masturbate than look at porn or worse fornicate.
    3. If it is truly dominating your life as in you are doing it 7x a day and think about nothing else and your grades/work/family/spouse are suffering from it then you should get help from a professional trained in handling sex addictions.
    4. Don’t look at masturbation as a sin and understand and accept the fact that it is a healthy expression of one’s sexuality. And just as everything else you do has a time and a place so does masturbation.

    If you don’t or never had a problem nor an urge to masturbate then that is fine too.

    I believe that our sexuality is one of the distinct factors in being mortal—it can be one of the greatest joys, but misused, it can also be part of our greatest sorrows. Misuse is not just adulterous affairs but also unnecessary denial and fear of sexuality, which is relative to each unique individual.

    To me, telling young ppl or any person at all for that matter, that NO ONE PERSON should masturbate because righteous ppl don’t do that sort of thing is like saying to a spouse that because you can go on just having sex one time a month or year then he or she should just adhere to your vision of adequate sexual expression.

    Even Paul did not attempt to do anything remotely unto that when explaining that he could go w/o marriage and sex.

    Sorry, I do have a tendency to get carried away when writing. Hope I did not offend anyone but brought some unique perspective to the conversation.

16. I understand the thought about personal revelation, but there are a few things that I think your comment doesn’t acknowledge.

    First, a law and commandment (such as the law of chastity) is a lot different from something a bit more up for grabs, like a comment about whether or not the US should be part of the League of Nations. The latter has no direct bearing on the plan of God. The law of chastity is an essential law to follow if one wants to enter into the celestial kingdom. You have in a sense compared apples to oranges.

    The Lord cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance. Just because we struggle with something doesn’t mean He will justify us in our sin. He expects us to put it ALL on the altar. Sure, our growth and progression is a process, but I think we need to be very, very careful about suggesting that He will actually inspire us to sin. If you look at the Savior’s teachings, He says even lusting in one’s heart is wrong. I think we need to be careful about justifying sin in any form.

    I also think it’s flawed to suggest that feeding a natural urge is the way to overcome it. That to me is like saying an alcoholic can drink a little if the urge gets really overpowering. Or that someone who is prone to physical abuse should yell really loud instead to ‘get the anger out’ so as not to hit someone. Or that it’s ok to look at ‘soft porn’ — after all at least it’s not ‘hard porn.’ If someone is that consumed by sex, the answer is not sex. The answer is changing one’s nature (and that could be within a marriage, too — we are not supposed to be driven by our appetites). The Lord teaches that we should flee the behaviors that feed our passions in sinful ways.

    I think looking to the world’s ways to ‘solve’ these problems ends up at some level denying the Savior’s power and ability to help us. I think He can rescue any of us and help us no matter how overpowering our natural tendencies may be, but I think we invite him to do that less by engaging in behavior that is sinful.

    I think also that it’s one thing to suggest that we each can choose our behaviors and interpretations of things (of course we can) but it’s a completely different thing to then justify such behavior and suggest that prophets may be wrong or that there is somehow some wiggle room in the commandments. If someone wants to choose to go against what prophets say, I respect that choice. But personal choice does not have the power to declare what is or is not sinful for others. Personal choice won’t ever change eternal laws. And just because someone makes a personal choice doesn’t mean it is the correct one. Of course, that is between that person and God, but my comment here is about taking personal choice and then making it generally justifiable, which to me crosses a line.

    I think it’s also important to remember that we CAN be deceived into thinking sin is correct and even inspired. There are plenty of scriptural examples of such deception. To me, one way to test personal revelation is to hold it up to what prophets have taught.

    I know that the Lord loves each of us. I believe in personal revelation. I believe we each will have our journeys unfold in different ways. But I think it’s risky business to take something that has been declared sin by prophets of God and call it anything else, in any way, shape or form. We may have stewardship over our personal choice, but it is outside of the realm of our stewardships to define God’s laws or what has been laid down as the definition of sin by His mouthpieces.

    And I know I’m being vocal about this, but like my husband says…there is a problem with blogs sometimes, and that is that some things are discussed as though they are up for grabs and personal interpretation when in fact they are not. To me, the law of chastity, with all of its specifics, is one of these things. And it’s one thing for someone to say ‘I choose not to follow it in this way’ but personal choice does not truth or law make.

17. Masturbation is to intercourse as twinkies are to a whole grains and fresh veggie diet. In short, it’s junk that satisfies but that short-circuits what is meant to be the body’s normal functions.

    Real sex is nothing like masturbation and if you want a normal sex life later, you shouldn’t be creating those habits and expectations now. Real sex is hard enough; why handicap yourself from the start?

18. In short, it’s junk that satisfies but that short-circuits what is meant to be the body’s normal functions.

    I would agree with you that it can be a stop-gap measure and that the body’s normal function is sex, but if you have no reasonable expectation of having sex within the framework of marriage, I don’t see that masturbation short-circuits anything.

19. I don’t see that masturbation short-circuits anything.

    What about one’s spiritual life? Once again, you have reduced sexual drives to simply something to be fulfilled rather than understanding them in their eternal context. We simply can’t approach the topic of the law of chastity without understanding its purpose and importance in the eternal plan and in our eternal welfare.

20. “First, a law and commandment (such as the law of chastity) is a lot different from something a bit more up for grabs, like a comment about whether or not the US should be part of the League of Nations. The latter has no direct bearing on the plan of God. The law of chastity is an essential law to follow if one wants to enter into the celestial kingdom. You have in a sense compared apples to oranges.”

    I understand, you are entitled to think that. To clear one thing up though. To you the LofN example may seem unimportant but to Joseph Fielding Smith it was. He felt quite ostracized from the church especially as he heard his fellow brethren teach that Woodrow Wilson was raised up by the Lord. He felt so concerned on the matter that he wrote a letter to the prophet of his concern about being in line w/ the brethren. It was also taught that birth control led to damnation; do you still believe that? Was that not applicable to the plan of God?

    I think blacks receiving the priesthood had a lot more to do w/ one’s salvation than masturbation. Yet the priesthood mandate was changed. Brigham Young, Mark E. Petersen, and Bruce R. McConkie all said some pretty derogatory things about blacks. BRM then said this…

    “Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

    Who is to say that if they made a mistake about blacks and the priesthood that they can’t make a mistake about masturbation? If one feels masturbation to be okay, then that is fine. If one feels it is wrong, then that is fine too. *sigh*

    “The Lord cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance. Just because we struggle with something doesn’t mean He will justify us in our sin. He expects us to put it ALL on the altar. Sure, our growth and progression is a process, but I think we need to be very, very careful about suggesting that He will actually inspire us to sin. If you look at the Savior’s teachings, He says even lusting in one’s heart is wrong. I think we need to be careful about justifying sin in any form.”

    Agreed…but if there are exceptions nearly every commandment why could there not be one w/ masturbation…heck, even murder has exceptions.

    If God inspires us then it is not sin. I agree one need be careful to not rationalize sin but I also believe one need be careful to not explain traditional perceptions and ideas as sin…just ask the Pharisees.

    I also think it’s flawed to suggest that feeding a natural urge is the way to overcome it. That to me is like saying an alcoholic can drink a little if the urge gets really overpowering. Or that someone who is prone to physical abuse should yell really loud instead to ‘get the anger out’ so as not to hit someone. Or that it’s ok to look at ’soft porn’ — after all at least it’s not ‘hard porn.’ If someone is that consumed by sex, the answer is not sex. The answer is changing one’s nature (and that could be within a marriage, too — we are not supposed to be driven by our appetites). The Lord teaches that we should flee the behaviors that feed our passions in sinful ways.

    I agree. But in all honesty the real difference, and I am completely fine w/ agreeing to disagree is that I perceive masturbation as not being part of the law of chastity but as a tradition that men have accepted as part of the law of chastity. There is no scripture that deals w/ this issue. You on the other hand see it as part of the law.

21. First, a law and commandment (such as the law of chastity) is a lot different from something a bit more up for grabs, like a comment about whether or not the US should be part of the League of Nations.

    Or like the commandment about not murdering people… except Nephi killed Laban…

    I also think it’s flawed to suggest that feeding a natural urge is the way to overcome it. That to me is like saying an alcoholic can drink a little if the urge gets really overpowering.

    Now that’s an apples and oranges comparison. I think you’ll agree that alcohol cravings aren’t a natural desire.

    Abstinence from fulfilling natural appetites can create an unhealthy fixation. I like comparing it to not swallowing. See how long to you can go without swallowing. It varies from person to person, but I think you’ll find it’s a very short time. Toward the end, it becomes the only thing I can think about, the center of every thought.

    So to it was with my youthful efforts to abstain from masturbation because the church told me it was sinful. Masturbation became a central part of my life. Later, when I came to a more nuanced understanding (i.e. when I realized that it isn’t a sin, nor has it always been considered so by the LDS church), it took its proper place in my life as a pretty minor diversion.

    I think it’s also important to remember that we CAN be deceived into thinking sin is correct and even inspired.

    From my experience, it is also possible to be deceived into believing that something is unhealthy or sinful when it isn’t.

22. Who is to say that if they made a mistake about blacks and the priesthood that they can’t make a mistake about masturbation?

    I don’t discount the possibility that counsel could change in the future (though, admittedly, I find that very unlikely in this case). But the comparison to blacks and the priesthood is weak. You are talking about individuals ignoring counsel because they find it wrong. That would be like someone ordaining another to the priesthood when they were not authorized to do so. Yes, there were many people opposed to the priesthood ban, and who asked and prayed for the situation to change, etc.–but the change came through approved institutional, revelatory channels, not through individuals taking the decision into their own hands contrary to prophetic instruction.

    I also think the earlier comparison to Nephi killing Laban is problematic. In that situation, inspiration came to Nephi to do something he didn’t want to do. That’s very different, IMO, than wanting to masturbate and then seeking confirmation that that breaking of the law of chastity is OK. Remember also that Laban’s death allowed Nephi’s family to take scriptures with them to the Promised Land, to avoid their nation from “perish[ing] in unbelief”. What does masturbation do for anyone but the individual involved?

23. Oops, my last comment should have had quotes around the first paragraph.

24. Yet at the same time, we should take the individual into account. While we philosophize, lonely and devout singles allow their sexual needs to remain unfulfilled for no good reason. Many of them emdure emotional and psychological pain because of it.

25. Let’s face it. We’re animals. Programmed for reproduction. And none of that discounts us being spirit children of our Heavenly Father. Do some reading on the Coolidge Effect. This is not to say that we don’t have control over many of our actions. But our reproductive desire is one of the strongest biological drives. I’m planning on teaching my kids that masturbation is healthy and normal. And for all the women out there who can’t grasp this – I indulged since I became a teenager and could still feel the Spirit quite strongly throughout my adolescence.

26. “Real sex is nothing like masturbation and if you want a normal sex life later, you shouldn’t be creating those habits and expectations now. Real sex is hard enough; why handicap yourself from the start?”

    Huh?
    I’m feeling rather dense. What are these expectations that masturbation sets in place, and what’s this about sex being so hard?

    `

27. “I don’t discount the possibility that counsel could change in the future (though, admittedly, I find that very unlikely in this case). But the comparison to blacks and the priesthood is weak.
    You are talking about individuals ignoring counsel because they find it wrong. That would be like someone ordaining another to the priesthood when they were not authorized to do so. Yes, there were many people opposed to the priesthood ban, and who asked and prayed for the situation to change, etc.–but the change came through approved institutional, revelatory channels, not through individuals taking the decision into their own hands contrary to prophetic instruction.”

    My belief is that masturbation is not an institutional decision that needs to come down through proper revelatory channels. It is an action that only effects the individual and thus only subject to personal revelation, imo. If the church feels that masturbation is an institutional decision then they need to start teaching which sex positions are appropriate or not in order to stay consistent. In fact, they tried this w/ oral sex and it didn’t go over very well. Maybe we are like the Israelites and are neglecting the higher law.

    “I also think the earlier comparison to Nephi killing Laban is problematic. In that situation, inspiration came to Nephi to do something he didn’t want to do. That’s very different, IMO, than wanting to masturbate and then seeking confirmation that that breaking of the law of chastity is OK. Remember also that Laban’s death allowed Nephi’s family to take scriptures with them to the Promised Land, to avoid their nation from “perish[ing] in unbelief”. What does masturbation do for anyone but the individual involved?”

    The first time I masturbated I didn’t know what it was and it is hard to want to do something that you know nothing of. When I did discovered what it was (read my blog post Mormon Superstar part 1 to know how i did) I was devastated. After confessing didn’t help my self-esteem reached rock bottom. I lost interest in my spiritual pursuits and even temporal pursuits; naturally this affected my relationships w/ family and friends…not because I was masturbating deliriously cuz trust me I wanted to abstain so bad it would make me cry…but because I felt dirty, ashamed, guilty, depressed, and damned. I prayed and studied scripture continuously and w/o going into too much detail about what I consider sacredly personal I can say that I know that God gave me an answer. I know it, God knows it. Ppl can ramble on about what prophets say is right or that this scripture doesn’t justify anything or this argument doesn’t hold up but until God tells me otherwise I don’t really care what ppl or a prophet tells me in regard to this issue. Even w/ other issues I make sure that I feel right about it between me and HF b4 agreeing w/ the prophet or any apostle. They are not infallible. My answer helped improve meaningful relationships…so in my case it affected more than just myself. If you have received a personal testimony that masturbation is sin then go out and live by that…You are master of your domain 😉

    All this said, let me make one thing clear…my goal is not to convince others that I am right–that defeats the whole concept of personal revelation. My goal is simply to present another viewpoint, perspective, point of view, and opinion rooted in deep testimony that is not orthodox in hopes to develop more empathy and understanding. That is all.

28. And in regard to all the medical jargon about masturbation being good for you…the reason I use this information as a reference is for the same reason FAIR and FARMS try to present scientific backing for believing in Mormonism…It can help those who believe in something to feel better or at least remind them why they have made a good and/or correct decision.

29. Thanks for all of your comments.
    Whew! That was quite a lot to read (and I thought my POST was long 🙂
    Wisteria:
    It’s interesting that your married friends are the ones suggestion m*. It does seem to be something more open in married sex lives than in single sex lives (is that contradictory?)
    Also, I’ve always had a hard time listening to people who are having sex lecture those who aren’t to just grin and bear it. It seems like a kind of hypocrisy.
    MoJo:
    I like what you said about the emotional, spiritual and sexual joining of marriage. I also agree that having an outlet for natural urges is important.
    Melanie2:
    Thanks for clarifying your position on supporting friends. It can be tricky to show love and not support their specific actions.
    MoJo:
    Well said, “I think that celibacy past sexual maturity for the sake of celibacy is an artificial construct.”
    I wonder if perhaps Adam and Eve had access to their own sexuality in the Garden when they were innocent (like little children touching themselves) before the fall.
    singleswardveteran:
    Thanks for stopping by and commenting. This is a very sensitive subject and I hope that you have found some peace in this area.
    Alizarincrimson:
    I echo your call for clarification. In fact, if anyone has access to the CHI and can verify that the book is silent on the matter of masturbation, I would appreciate it. This conversations turns on the notion of masturbation being a sin, and possibly a sin equal to (or part of) the Law of Chastity.
    If the questions about masturbation are not being asked in recommend interviews (or if it varies from unit to unit) then that indicates some kind of change in the doctrine, or the application of the doctrine, which definitely deserves clarification.
    Also, it’s interesting that you’ve heard of people refusing to answer a question about m* that resulted in their being denied a temple recommend.

30. m&m,
    It’s good to see you around here. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your fervor for this subject and your testimony about how truth can’t be changed by just wishing it, or acting against it.
    However, I’m beginning to think that M*, to the extent that it is part of the Law of Chastity (which I’m not sure that it is) is actually a kind of hedge around the law. The problem is, it seems to be a poor hedge. Those who have extra sexual tension can rush into unwise marriages, or fornicate, or leave the church, etc. Of course we’d agree that M* is a better alternative than these things, but that isn’t the root of my argument. Perhaps by embracing our sexuality through open education about M* (among other things), we could head off the sexual tension before it begins and we’d have fewer problems with these things (and maybe porn, though maybe not)
    But, again, if you think of this law as on par with “Thou shalt not commit adultery” then there really can be no conversation beyond that. And I respect that as well.

31. I’m 31, single, and faithful LDS….waiting until marriage for sex. If someone wants to masturbate to keep their sanity than go for it! I know I’ve done it plenty of times of the years. I’ve even discussed it with a few different bishops. Two of them said it was a great stress reliever and didn’t take any course of disciplinary action. And like Joe, I too have continually felt the Spirit. IMO, it is completely different from actually having sex.

32. Flygirl:
    Having the church treat singles as adolescents must be terribly irritating. Your point about the older conservative GA’s preaching this doctrine from the comfort of their own marriages does seem to taint the doctrine. “You can’t have sex or anything that would be remotely sexually satisfying, but I can.” That just has a bad taste.

    Mormonzero:
    Thanks for joining the discussion. There is a lot of interest in this topic and I hope that readers are checking out your post and the links.
    You make a lot of great points, but one that I read on your post and from other comments is the idea that M* doesn’t take away the Spirit.
    I really think this is key, as is the idea that we are entitled to receive personal revelation to support official church revelation.
    Eh? Nony Mouse:
    Like bbh, I’m not sure what you mean here. I’ve only thought of the benefits after marriage, helping your spouse understand how your body works and how best to help you climax. This seems like a benefit, and not a drawback. But, maybe you have experienced the opposite?
    M&M,
    You think that M* will shortcircuit someone’s spiritual life, but that assumes they believe it is a sin. People on this thread have claimed to continue to feel the Spirit and not feel guilt for an act they consider natural and beneficial. So, for them is it spiritually damaging?
    Johnathon Blake;
    I like your analogy to Pharisees (a little like my explanation of hedges above) and I think it fits.
    Also, I agree with your idea of obsessing about m* because you can’t do it, rather than having it be a small diversion. Thanks for your perspective.
    Melanie2:
    I think the analogy to killing is weak, as you do. I also respect someone who thinks m* is a sin. Have you been asked about this practice in your interviews? Has anyone?

    Nanci;
    Thanks for your comment. I agree, for many singles, the risk/benefit makes m* worth it.

    Joe:
    The Coolidge Effect sounds interesting, though I’m inclined to think that we are here to overcome some of our more “natural” desires (selfishness, pride, etc), I am not sure exactly where we draw that line.

    bbh, Not sure where you’re coming from personally, but yes, sex can be hard. There’s lots of posts at fMh and Visitor’s Center about some of these scenarios (lack of education, differences in libido, dysfunction, etc)

    Mormonzero,
    Thanks for your personal story. One of the links from your post was to the story of an LDS doctor who had a similar experience. I hope that others will see your perspective and what you’ve done to get there and that it can help them.

33. A-okay;
    Thanks for chiming in. I’m glad that you have had positive experiences with m*.
    It’s also interesting that your bishops (2 of 3) have been encouraging. It seems like there is such a wide range of attitudes regarding this behavior. I hope that we get some clarification on this soon.

    (that’s it for me, I’m tired!)

34. The 1999 edition of the CHI doesn’t mention masturbation by name as far as I can find.

    Regarding you interviews it says:

    Another matter for discussion should be the importance of obeying the commandments, particularly:
    …
    2. Being modest in dress and action, refraining from any kind of sexual activity, and refraining from reading, listening to, or viewing pornographic material.

    Regarding missionary worthiness:

    A prospective missionary who has been guilty of adultery, fornication, heavy petting, homosexual activity, other sexual perversions, drug misuse, serious violation of civil law, or other serious transgressions must repent before he or she may be recommended for missionary
    service.

    Regarding disciplining church leaders:

    As used here, serious transgression is defined as a deliberate and
    major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, rape,
    forcible sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery,
    fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery,
    burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing.

    Defining chastity and fidelity:

    Chastity and Fidelity

    The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, expressed within the bonds of marriage. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful.

    Sorry for getting carried away with the quotations.

    Anyway, the 1999 CHI is never comes around to mentioning masturbation. It talks about transsexuality several times, but not masturbation. I guess it comes down to a church leader’s interpretation of “unholy, unnatural, or impure practice”.

35. Sorry not to have been more clear. I was questioning the connection between masturbation and sexual “hardship.” Eh Nony Mouse states “Real sex is nothing like masturbation and if you want a normal sex life later, you shouldn’t be creating those habits and expectations now. Real sex is hard enough; why handicap yourself from the start?”

    How does masturbation “handicap” a person’s chances of having a “normal” sex life?

36. Who is to say that … they can’t make a mistake about masturbation?

    This is frankly one of those arguments that I think is inappropriate in any conversation. First of all, I don’t think anyone can declare that the pre-1978 situation 1978 blacks and the priesthood was a mistake (I have never heard a leader suggest that, only that the 1978 revelation was from God). Secondly, it’s simply a slippery slope to justify one’s personal choices or perspectives by suggesting that the prophets are wrong. If one wants to make a personal choice, keep it personal. That’s really all I’m saying…and I think that is important because in the end, we will each be held accountable for our personal choices, and also based on what the prophets have taught (however that plays out for each of us and what we have known) — not for what we *think* they might teach or change in decades to come. I can respect that some people may make a different choice than what they teach. Like I said, I just think it goes too far to then try to suggest that the prophets are wrong and somehow time will show that you are right. That is where I get protective. If someone wants to choose something other than what they teach they should own that choice, not try to change or undermine the Church’s teachings to support that choice. Do you see what I’m driving at? (Sorry for the repetition…it’s late)

    Those who have extra sexual tension can rush into unwise marriages, or fornicate, or leave the church, etc. Of course we’d agree that M* is a better alternative than these things, but that isn’t the root of my argument. Perhaps by embracing our sexuality through open education about M* (among other things), we could head off the sexual tension before it begins and we’d have fewer problems with these things (and maybe porn, though maybe not)

    I think you may not be understanding my position on this. I am suggesting that I don’t think ’embracing our sexuality’ is the answer. I don’t believe that masturbation is what will help people marry when they should, etc. I believe true doctrine is what changes behavior, not simply catering to the struggles of the flesh. I don’t believe we are supposed to simply have our sexual tensions released whenever we want. I believe part of life is to learn to deal with them in appropriate ways. If that isn’t in a marriage situation, then I believe a personl should turn to the Lord to face these challenges.

    I realize that isn’t necessarily a popular view around these parts, but I believe it strongly. I have already seen and felt the power of the doctrine as I teach my children about sex. I feel the power of the doctrine in my marriage and as I read about this topic (most married people will attest to the fact that sexual struggles and unmet needs don’t go away just because one is married, and we are supposed to work together and with the Lord, not simply aim for release of sexual tension alone).

    To be blunt, I simply don’t believe that keeping one’s sexuality in check in every way is hedging the law. I believe that is part of the spirit of the law. Consider this as an example:

    27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery;
    [that was the old line, the clear-cut line]
    28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. [Even LOOKING to lust, to feed the sexual drives from a distance, simply by looking — even as those drives are natural and strong — is a sin.]
    29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer *none* of these things [what things? things associated with sexuality, I believe] to enter into your heart;
    30 For it is better that ye should *deny yourselves* of these things [the Lord said it, not me!], wherein ye will take up your across, than that ye should be cast into hell.

    I hear people saying here that denying ourselves is simply wrong, too much for our leaders to ask. But that is what I hear the Lord asking. To me, there is purpose in this. For some, this may indeed be a heavy, heavy cross. (I was single until my late twenties. I know a tiny bit of what that cross feels like.

    But, again, if you think of this law as on par with “Thou shalt not commit adultery” then there really can be no conversation beyond that.

    I am not putting them on par (although the Lord has come pretty close above!) I am suggesting, however, like I said before, that I believe our sexuality is not to be explored but respected and harnessed and kept within the boundaries and standards the Lord has set. And His standards as we see above are not simply about not having sexual intercourse. They are about controlling our sexual appetites. I don’t see Him talking about exploring or embracing or releasing our sexual tension as has been suggested here by some. Even Paul never left room for anything outside of marriage, so I think it’s crossing a line for people to create a new interpretation of the law that has never been supported by anything in scripture or in prophetic teachings (at least not to my awareness).

    I am not at all unsympathetic to how hard this is for those who aren’t married. I was single until my late twenties so I have an idea of how hard it is. But like I said, these principles apply to us all, and I think secular teachings want us to think of sexuality as a right instead of a sacred responsibility. To me, seeing it as the latter changes everything…added to the fact that I think prophetic teachings and the teachigns of the Savior are pretty clear on His expectations in this regard, I just don’t think that we can dismiss the boundaries as taught as a mistake. I think it’s a mistake to dismiss them, because real joy comes from obedience and sacrifice. And at some point for all of us, that will ask us to be tested to our limits. For some, it will be this test. For others, it will be others. All tests exist, though, to point us to Christ. I don’t see masturbation as the solution, but rather turning to the Savior for help and strength, in faith that all will be given to those who overcome. I really believe that.

37. And once again I apologize for being so longwinded and repetitive in some places. I’m not doing very well getting some of my thoughts down succinctly.

38. Er. Is “birthright” Mormon women’s code for virginity?

39. Hi, Jessawhy:

    Thanks for your comments. To clarify: I personally know of bishops who deny temple recommends to those who masturbate, not those who refuse to discuss/confess it.

    In a certain singles ward I was once in, the bishop would give an annual “chastity talk.” In this hour-long lecture during RS/PH meeting time on a 5th Sunday, he would rattle off all the dos/do nots to the congregation of 25-40 year old single members (mainly graduate students in an East Coast ward). Among the don’ts was “do not masturbate.” He went as far as to say, “Anyone who masturbates should be coming in to see me to confess. It’s against the law of Chastity and should be repented of.”

    Dutiful, guilty members would go in to him to confess. If they wanted to renew their temple recommends, they would either lie about masturbating, quit masturbating, or confess and wait an appropriate period in order to qualify for a temple recommend.

40. First of all, I don’t think anyone can declare that the pre-1978 situation 1978 blacks and the priesthood was a mistake (I have never heard a leader suggest that, only that the 1978 revelation was from God).

    This attitude is one of the things I find horrifying about the Church.

41. …I just don’t think that we can dismiss the boundaries as taught as a mistake. I think it’s a mistake to dismiss them, because real joy comes from obedience and sacrifice.… I don’t see masturbation as the solution, but rather turning to the Savior for help and strength, in faith that all will be given to those who overcome. I really believe that.

    I accept that you believe those things very strongly. Can you accept in return that what you believe is contrary to my personal experience?

    Real joy and peace didn’t enter my life until I gave up (among other things) the idea that masturbation was sinful. I had prayed for comfort and strength to overcome this behavior. I could be successfully celibate for long stretches, but I was never healed permanently which was among my deepest heartfelt desires. It hurt to read Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7–11

    Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

    I couldn’t understand why my pleadings for help in living according to God’s will went unanswered when it seemed like a perfectly righteous request.

    Now that I don’t see masturbation in the same light, I have peace, increased spirituality, and greater strength to do good. It feels like the good gift that I pled and longed for from my Father all those years.

    I can accept that that you believe I’ve got it wrong (for good reason given your personal experience, interpretation of scripture, and worldview). Can you also accept that my experiences lead me (also for good reasons) to believe differently?

42. John (with-an-h). I’m with you. Never let us admit that, for many decades, the emperor had no clothes.
    Alizarincrimson’s first comment “sexual relations.” The temple definition of the LoC used to say “sexual intercourse” but was changed in the 90s, I believe, to the broader, more encompassing “sexual relations.”

    I think we wouldn’t be having this dicussion if the Church minded its business with regard to our very personal like and our underwear.

43. Our very personal life not like.

44. Drink a beer
    Smoke a cigarette
    Go to an R rated movie
    Have some coffee
    Kick back and masturbate
    Shop on the sabbath

    All are not that big a deal.
    All are minor sins
    I have never seen so many people try to justify something so much in my life.

    Big deal if you mess up and shop on Sunday. Big deal if you masturbate once in a while. If you do every other day you may have a problem, but that is a different issue.

    Why can’t all you masturbation fans just admit that (A)you are a horn dog with less self control than some others and (B)it is a sin (like so many other minor sins) and get over it.

45. There are some aspects of our personal lives that we should never have to discuss with anyone else unless we want to. I believe masturbation to be one of those. I don’t believe that it is the business of a church to police such personal behavior. I have told my children that if/when they are ever asked by a church leader about masturbation they are to reply that “that’s personal.”

    Yes, I realize that my views may be extreme, but they are based on many discussions about this issue with friends who have been absolutely traumatized by having to confess such personal details to their bishop or SP or mission president. I see no reason why church leaders need to know such things. Even between married couples I think such things can be kept private/personal. Why then would some strange man need to ask my child about their most intimate, personal moments? That just makes no sense to me, especially when research shows that masturbation is a perfectly healthy and normal behavior. It has not been shown to lead to deviance or even increased sexual activity.

    Thanks Jessawhy, for bringing up this difficult subject.

46. This may have been brought up (in a round about way) but I just wanted to add this. The law of chastity to which we covenant, is that one doesn’t have any sexual relations except with one’s spouse. That abstinence includes relations with one’s self, which is what masturbation is, right?

47. I accept that you believe those things very strongly. Can you accept in return that what you believe is contrary to my personal experience?

    Certainly there is nothing I can say relative to your personal experience. But read my comments — I am responding to people who want to then turn around and declare that the prophets are wrong, the Church is wrong. The rule is the rule. If your personal experience differs, that is between you and God. But that’s where your personal experience ends. It is not my business to decide whether your decision is correct, but I do believe it is within my realm of interest to defend the Church as an institution, the leaders who teach the standards, and the standards they teach. I hope you can separate that out. I may not agree with your decision, but I can respect your agency. All I ask is that you respect the Church’s right to draw lines where it believes it should and not try to suggest that the lines are wrong. (I’m saying ‘you’ here in a general sense.)

    I was never healed permanently which was among my deepest heartfelt desires.

    Although my need for healing is different from yours, I understand how very, very hard this is. I also believe that sometimes healing comes in different ways and in a timetable that is not our own. Only someone who has prayed with that kind of fervency, desiring something so reasonable, could understand some of what you have been through. I can understand.

    And yet, many of us still have to wait on the Lord. That is possible, too.

    Again, your decision is between you and God. But please understand that my own experience teaches me that just because God doesn’t answer in the way we hope in the time we want, that not being healed means that God doesn’t care or doesn’t answer our heartfelt pleas or that the leaders are wrong in expecting us to endure. He doesn’t always take away our pain — sometimes He strengthens us to face the pain. And sometimes we have to endure with hope that some sort of healing or help will come. I know this from personal experience. We all have to endure in one way or another.

    So, although the specifics may be different, I can empathize in various ways with your struggle. I am truly sorry for your pain. But please don’t be frustrated when I say that I still won’t stop hoping that people like you can find other ways to face this, though. I believe there are standards and ideals for a reason. Still, I wish you best to you in your journey.

48. That abstinence includes relations with one’s self, which is what masturbation is, right?

    I was thinking about this, too.

    And p.s. to the person who didn’t like my comment about not suggesting the priesthood ban was a mistake — My point is not to address whether or not it was but to say that none of us is authorized to declare it was. Until and unless I hear an authorized leader declare such a thing, I think it best that we leave it alone and deal with what we know. We know the prophets now teach that racism is wrong. We know that Elder Holland has said that the folklore explanations about the ban were misguided. So, let’s not offer any more explanations and let the present doctrine and teachings and practices stand on their own.

    Sorry for that threadjack, but I felt my position was worth explaining.

49. Random wrote:
    “The law of chastity to which we covenant, is that one doesn’t have any sexual relations except with one’s spouse. That abstinence includes relations with one’s self, which is what masturbation is, right?”

    Well, it doesn’t include that caveat/clarification in the wording of the covenant, so it’s my assumption that personal interpretation will vary (as is evident by this thread). Also, very few teens have made this specific covenant (unless they marry _very_ early), so by your logic would you assume that they are not beholden to it?

50. Who is to say that … they can’t make a mistake about masturbation?

    M&M said…

    “This is frankly one of those arguments that I think is inappropriate in any conversation. First of all, I don’t think anyone can declare that the pre-1978 situation 1978 blacks and the priesthood was a mistake (I have never heard a leader suggest that, only that the 1978 revelation was from God).

    It would seem that this is what Bruce R. McConkie was trying to do in the aforementioned statement. He said they had limited light and knowledge on the subject yet they did not feel impeded on speaking about the matter. BY, BRM, MEP were of the opinion that blacks would never hold the priesthood and then blacks received the priesthood….that is not a mistake?

    “Secondly, it’s simply a slippery slope to justify one’s personal choices or perspectives by suggesting that the prophets are wrong. If one wants to make a personal choice, keep it personal. That’s really all I’m saying…and I think that is important because in the end, we will each be held accountable for our personal choices, and also based on what the prophets have taught (however that plays out for each of us and what we have known) — not for what we *think* they might teach or change in decades to come. I can respect that some people may make a different choice than what they teach. Like I said, I just think it goes too far to then try to suggest that the prophets are wrong and somehow time will show that you are right. That is where I get protective. If someone wants to choose something other than what they teach they should own that choice, not try to change or undermine the Church’s teachings to support that choice. Do you see what I’m driving at?”

    Elder Stephen L. Richards said… “When the gospel was restored in this age all the goodness and mercy of Christ was restored. The Bible was accepted, the Ten Commandments were still the law, but they were to be expounded and enforced in the spirit of Jesus, and not in the rigorous, unrelenting, unmerciful spirit of those who crucified the Savior…the essence of the new constitution of the priesthood…was and is election w/o coercion, persuasion not compulsion, no unrighteous dominion, only patience, long suffering, meekness, kindness, and love unfeigned…and the judgment of a presiding officer holding the priesthood is GENERALLY an inspired judgment. It is the product of noble motive and fervent prayer…in matters of individual guidance to members, THEIR COUNSEL IS DIRECTORY AND PERSUASIVE ONLY. In the interpretation of scripture and doctrine, they are dependent on their knowledge and experience and inspiration…First I hold it is entirely compatible w/ the genius of the Church to change its procedure and interpretations as changes in thought, education and environment of ppl from time to time seem to warrant…I would not discard a practice merely because it is old…But on the other hand, I would not hang on to a practice or conception after it has outlived its usefulness in a new and ever-changing and better informed world. Old conception and traditional interpretations must be influenced by newly discovered evidence. Not that ultimate fact and law change, but our understanding varies w/ our education and experience…Men are permitted to hold individual views and express them w/ freedom so long as they are not seditious to the basic doctrines, practices, and establishments of the Church…if anyone holds views and gets satisfaction from them, I say let him have them, and for one I won’t abuse him for them…You know when you have done wrong…I have no intention to lower standards. I want only better understandings…Shall we be intolerant of those guilty of infractions of our counsel?…For my part I desire to deny none entrance for weaknesses of the flesh if the spirit is willing…Everyone who does wrong in any degree will forfeit a blessing. But God is our judge, and as I expect mercy, I want to give it…my heart and purpose are right…I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut if up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of the sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black and white, for religion in life abundant, glowing life, w/ all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees…Truth and love will save the world. May they be our portion.

    Elder Charles W. Penrose said… “President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus said the Lord’ comes from him, the saints investigate it: They do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent being, until he turns from his folly…When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the ppl, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.”

    President Brigham Young said… “I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied w/ anything that I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied…Suppose that the ppl were heedless, that they manifested no concern w/ regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the ppl, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.”

    Elder George Q. Cannon said… “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you a some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and you support be gone;”

    Someone once put it to me like this…”You don’t need an irrigation system when you have rain.” But by all means if the rain ain’t comin’ go ahead and use the irrigation system.

    The small handful of masturbation manifestos are largely based on incorrect ideas and information…masturbators don’t turn gay, masturbators don’t turn up their factory speed, and no polygamy will not solve the masturbation epidemic.

    Those who have extra sexual tension can rush into unwise marriages, or fornicate, or leave the church, etc. Of course we’d agree that M* is a better alternative than these things, but that isn’t the root of my argument. Perhaps by embracing our sexuality through open education about M* (among other things), we could head off the sexual tension before it begins and we’d have fewer problems with these things (and maybe porn, though maybe not)

    I think you may not be understanding my position on this. I am suggesting that I don’t think ‘embracing our sexuality’ is the answer. I don’t believe that masturbation is what will help people marry when they should, etc. I believe true doctrine is what changes behavior, not simply catering to the struggles of the flesh.

    I believe teaching the doctrine (absolute truths i.e. scriptures, AofF, essentials) will change behavior faster than teaching behavior (i.e. in this case masturbation but could go for any behavior) will change behavior. (Taken from discourse by BKP)

    I don’t believe we are supposed to simply have our sexual tensions released whenever we want. I believe part of life is to learn to deal with them in appropriate ways. If that isn’t in a marriage situation, then I believe a person should turn to the Lord to face these challenges.

    I agree, so long as we remember that what is appropriate for one is not always appropriate for another and also that the Lord doesn’t answer our prayers in the same exact fashion. If this was the case we may as well of gone w/ Satan’s plan.

    I realize that isn’t necessarily a popular view around these parts, but I believe it strongly. I have already seen and felt the power of the doctrine as I teach my children about sex. I feel the power of the doctrine in my marriage and as I read about this topic (most married people will attest to the fact that sexual struggles and unmet needs don’t go away just because one is married, and we are supposed to work together and with the Lord, not simply aim for release of sexual tension alone).

    I respect your strong views. If you have found peace and comfort from your choice, you should continue to run w/ that. I do not wish to change your personal views…why would I want to change something that makes you happy? But to say what makes you happy will make everyone happy is perhaps where our opinions diverge. My only goal is to open up paths of empathy and understanding so that ppl can see that every path is different and God can interact w/ his children on an individual basis. This whole conversation for me is not even about masturbation but about tolerance and understanding for the respective views, opinions, and yes personal revelations of the individual rather than looking at things en masse.

    To be blunt, I simply don’t believe that keeping one’s sexuality in check in every way is hedging the law. I believe that is part of the spirit of the law. Consider this as an example:

    To be blunt, I simply believe that masturbation is beyond the hedge of the law of chastity.

    27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery;
    [that was the old line, the clear-cut line]
    28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. [Even LOOKING to lust, to feed the sexual drives from a distance, simply by looking — even as those drives are natural and strong — is a sin.]
    29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer *none* of these things [what things? things associated with sexuality, I believe] to enter into your heart;
    30 For it is better that ye should *deny yourselves* of these things [the Lord said it, not me!], wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.

    You emphasize the wrong word. The operating verb is “to lust.” Jesus is not talking about how a man looks at the woman or thinks about a woman, but about a man lusting after a woman (looking being an instrument of lusting). That makes a world of a difference.

    He was primarily addressing married men who had desires for women other than their wives. That same desire should have been directed toward their own wives (Prov. 5:15-21), it could very well be that Jesus is saying that you should not covet another woman who is not yours but to covet your own. It would appear the lust Jesus spoke of was a determined desire to attain some outside woman. It may be important to note the words that were used to translate this text.

    The most common words translated as lust in the Bible are epithumeo, epipotheo, and orego. They all mean to desire, to covet, to long for intensely, to set one’s heart upon. The idea of intent or volition is usually present. Consider 1 Tim 3:1 If any man desires (orego) the office of a bishop, he desires (epithumeo) a good thing. Clearly both Greek words are being used interchangeably i.e. they are synonymous. No one who desires to be a bishop, sits and fantasizes all day about being a bishop. He actively pursues the calling. He does whatever he has to do to achieve his goal.

    I hear people saying here that denying ourselves is simply wrong, too much for our leaders to ask. But that is what I hear the Lord asking. To me, there is purpose in this. For some, this may indeed be a heavy, heavy cross. (I was single until my late twenties. I know a tiny bit of what that cross feels like.

    I am not putting them on par (although the Lord has come pretty close above!) I am suggesting, however, like I said before, that I believe our sexuality is not to be explored but respected and harnessed and kept within the boundaries and standards the Lord has set. And His standards as we see above are not simply about not having sexual intercourse. They are about controlling our sexual appetites. I don’t see Him talking about exploring or embracing or releasing our sexual tension as has been suggested here by some. Even Paul never left room for anything outside of marriage, so I think it’s crossing a line for people to create a new interpretation of the law that has never been supported by anything in scripture or in prophetic teachings (at least not to my awareness).

    Scripture is extremely vague when it comes to sexuality except in cases of blatant abuse of the 7th commandment…I don’t see what this proves. I don’t see him talking about not releasing sexual tension either. I think it’s crossing a line for ppl to create and/or interpret the law to encompass everything from masturbation to oral sex, which have never been specifically addressed in scripture or has never been addressed during prophetic discourse while only using truth to support their claim.

    I am not at all unsympathetic to how hard this is for those who aren’t married. I was single until my late twenties so I have an idea of how hard it is. But like I said, these principles apply to us all, and I think secular teachings want us to think of sexuality as a right instead of a sacred responsibility. To me, seeing it as the latter changes everything…added to the fact that I think prophetic teachings and the teachings of the Savior are pretty clear on His expectations in this regard, I just don’t think that we can dismiss the boundaries as taught as a mistake. I think it’s a mistake to dismiss them, because real joy comes from obedience and sacrifice. And at some point for all of us, that will ask us to be tested to our limits. For some, it will be this test. For others, it will be others. All tests exist, though, to point us to Christ. I don’t see masturbation as the solution, but rather turning to the Savior for help and strength, in faith that all will be given to those who overcome. I really believe that.

    Masturbation is not a solution anymore than not masturbating is a solution, unless you view life’s test like a math test where 2+2=4 all the time…I view life’s test as an open ended essay question where two people can write different and distinct things while still answering the questions original desires and intentions. I have turned to the Savior for help and strength and he gave me a different answer than you…both our answers are rooted in the same gospel principals. “One man sees the meaning of a scripture so clearly and definitely that he exclaims w/ contemptible deprecation of a contender’s view, ‘Why, it’s as plain as the nose on your face,’ and the other replies, ‘It is silly and foolish.’ Both are sincere. Who is right? What position does the Church take? Generally, I think, the Church takes no official position and ought not to, in the large majority of mooted questions” (Stephen L. Richards)

    Yes the principles of the gospel apply to all…i.e. faith, repentance, love, hope, charity, obedience to God, etc…masturbation is not a gospel principle. Yes, from a mormon point of view, sexuality must be viewed as a sacred responsibility, but I am of the opinion that misuse of sacred responsibility is not just adulterous affairs but also unnecessary denial and fear of sexuality.

51. Sorry =(, that was ridiculously long.

52. Double sorry, it appears some of the quotations are not present.

    If you click on mormonzero to the right it will take you to my blog where the quotations and the comment will make more sense. Just be sure to make your comments here rather then my blog.

53. Wow – comment firestorm.

    I don’t have much to add, except that I appreciate Jessawhy’s thoughtful post on the topic, which is clearly a much more complicated topic than we sometimes give it credit for.

54. Also, that the VC post was really funny.

    Also — I do think that in some relationships, being a Seinfeld-style, master of one’s own domain can cause problems. Particularly if it’s used to escape relationship issues.

    But, damn. The amount of stress and guilt and shame that is often heaped on this issue — that seems to be much more potentially damaging.

    (Plus, weird stuff like Pres. Kimball’s statement that if you masturbate, you’ll become a homosexual. (!))

55. What about within the context of marriage? Solo? Phone sex?

    I know my marriage would be a lot easier if that were an option.

56. mormonzero,
    On one hand, I think you don’t really understand my position. I don’t disagree with the quotes you include. I simply just don’t agree with you on how you have applied them or the position you take on masturbation. But hey, I’m used to agreeing to disagree.

    I also don’t disregard personal guidance and revelation. I’ll say that again. I’ll say again that I just think we need to be really careful about 1) making sure what we are doing really is in line with God’s will (people often talk about prophets being wrong, but what about individuals?) and secondly that we don’t take personal revelation beyond its limits and then turn around and generalize it to the Church.

    So if you want to defend personal revelation, I understand that. I understand how life is a journey and a process and unfolds a little differently for everyone. But that doesn’t make our line-upon-line choices higher or more correct than the general counsel or standards or principles taught. The Lord can take us step by step, but that doesn’t mean He is telling us absolutes about the Church and its positions. It’s how revelation works. There are limits to it, and personal revelation simply cannot be interpreted to then interpret or undermine or minimize general Church counsel or standards or teachings.

    So I agree and disagree with you all at the same time. 🙂

    And Kaimi, I also appreciate that this is difficult. When I comment, I tend to speak to general standards. As I said before, I’m not unsympathetic to individual trials. But again, individual trials don’t erase general counsel. FWIW.

    I’m really not trying to be difficult here. It’s hard to navigate topics like this, but if we are talking about something that the prophets take a stand on, we simply shouldn’t dismiss that for opinion or study or even personal experience. It should have a significant place in the conversation, imo.

57. I’ve been thinking about this some more, and I have started to believe that perhaps the idea of masturbation’s being part of the law of Chastity originated with President Kimball. He seemed to be irrationally fearful of homosexuality, and overly concerned that “(sexual) immorality” would damn a personal eternally if not truly and agonizingly repented (he often stressed how bloody and painful it needed to be to be sincere).

    It was during his tenure that Elders Packer, Peterson and Featherstone made outlandish pronouncements against homosexuality and masturbation, respectively. President Kimball warned that “(M)asturbation is the introduction to the more serious sin of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality.”

    It was during President Kimball’s tenure that bishops and stake presidents began to ask young prospective missionaries whether they masturbated. Leaders at the LTM, later the MTC, also asked and chastised, as did mission presidents all over the world.

    I do think this will be an ugly blip in the Church’s social history. Countless young people have been damaged by repressive techniques and fearmongering such as this.

58. With regard to President Kimball, this was also the time period during which married couples were asked about their oral sex practices during their temple recommend interviews.

59. In answer to bbh:

    Huh?
    I’m feeling rather dense. What are these expectations that masturbation sets in place, and what’s this about sex being so hard?

    I’m not sure how I can answer this without getting too graphic but I’ll try. The physical sensations of masturbation versus intercourse are completely different. They’re different because there are different body parts involved. (Your hand versus their *ahem*). Then there’s the differences in the nervous system involved. Did you know that you can’t actually tickle yourself? Your body processes the things YOU do to your body differently than the things your PARTNER does.

    That’s one side of things. The other side is that intercourse is hard. It takes a lot of physical effort and it takes a lot of communication for both people to enjoy it. Peoples’ bodies and desires are different and as none of us are telepaths, there’s no other way but experimentation and talking for anyone to learn how to please their partner. If, through years of masturbation, you’ve trained your brain to expect your bio-chemical reward to come easily, then actual intercourse is going to be a rude awakening. You will likely find yourself turning more to masturbation than to intercourse because it seems so much easier. Or you’ll find your spouse doing so, leaving you unfulfilled and feeling rejected. It’s simply not fair to anyone.

60. M&M…I just want to apologize if I came across as overly aggressive about this issue. Truly, I hope I did not come across as someone who just wanted to push forth an agenda. I believe in Elder Richard’s words when he said one is free to explain his/her beliefs w/ others as long as it is not seeking to undermine the core/essential doctrine. I really don’t seek to condone a particular behavior as much as I just seek to ensure that proper motives are emphasized…i.e. faith, hope, charity and love; no matter whether one decides to masturbate or not, or whether one decides to have one or two earrings in each ear, or whatever other example you can think of–w/o those key attributes it is irrelevant which commandments you obey…the Pharisees are/have learning(ed) this the hard way.

    You say we both agree and disagree…but to me the most important thing is that we agree on the key essential principles, which it appears that we do.

61. Eh? Nony Moose…

    Honestly, after a lot of research, using strictly a secular opinion here and letting go of all my religious beliefs for a moment, I will just say that the benefits far outweigh the negatives…most sex therapists actually advise masturbation as a way to help fix many of the marital sex problems you are alluding to and ascribing to masturbation.

    If a person always wants to masturbate rather than have sex w/ a spouse then that is a problem that should be dealt w/ accordingly.

    Now, putting my religious helmet back on I would just advise that you do what you feel is right…who cares what the doctors say?

62. I am grateful for the wise counsel about not masturbating.

    Two years into my marriage, I had my first orgasm. I had sexual pain issues and, as some women on a Christian intimacy board had suggested, I was dutifully trying to “relax” with a vibrator. It accidentally hit the right spot and when I realized what was going on, I prayed it would work. Yes, that’s right. I prayed for my first orgasm.

    And then felt guilty about it, even though I felt like I had actually been given a gift. (And it really was. Being able to orgasm made my body finally “get” sex and it greatly enriched my marriage.) Part of me spent a lot of time resenting that I had religious beliefs that made me feel guilty about something that obviously helped me in the long run. But now, I am so grateful that I was always referencing what I had been taught by the Church because it led me to ponder very carefully the potential consequences of my behavior. I quickly told my husband and made sure to involve him as much and as soon as I could so that my pleasure could rightfully stay within the bounds of our couple relationship. It took a year or two for him to be able to bring me to orgasm by himself, but we worked diligently because sex is supposed to be between husband and wife, not self and vibrator/hand/whatever.

    Obviously, I have had an experience where I was an “exception” to the “rule”, so I have empathy for those who cry “personal revelation”. But by holding as close to that rule as I could, I was able to respect the fact that I was dealing with something so powerful that it would be easy to fall into any number of traps. I know my experience isn’t everyone’s experience, but if I had allowed myself to discover orgasm before marriage, I would’ve been fornicating like crazy! “Awakening desires” (obviously I had a lot, but I wasn’t actively cultivating them with masturbation) would’ve been a disaster for me. I am glad that the Church leaders warned me.

    No, I don’t think masturbation is a reasonable way to handle being single and LDS. Granted, I realize that not everyone who masturbates will go off and fornicate, like I am sure I would have, but any kind of active sexuality like that is A BIG DEAL, precisely because we can’t know how everyone will respond to orgasm. The potential traps are many and Satan would love to grab us in any way he can.

63. Thanks for taking the time to answer, Nony Mouse. I see why I didn’t get your point…what you describe doesn’t match my experience at all.

    I’m married and have been very happily getting it on with my honey for 20 years. Even though he has been my only sexual partner, I was not a stranger to the wonderful world of orgasm when I got married. I’ve always felt that this familiarity with my own body enhanced our shared sexual experiences from the very beginning.

    Just my experience.

64. So many assuptions here, I don’t know where to begin. “sex is hard” “M* leads to certain expectations,” “this and that will happen if you masturbate,” you’ll want your spouse less.”
    Wow, everyone’s an expert on what everyone else’s sex life should be like. Please, don’t deny it, most everything posted reflects that.

    After 35 years of marriage, good sex, bad sex, no sex for months at a time after the death of two children, no orgasm, discovering orgasm thru M* I can say, do whatever works for you. Sex with my husband is better than it ever was when we were in our 20’s, 30’s and 40’s but I have no guilt masturbating when he’s not available as he did when we were younger and I was not available b/c sex meant having children and we shouldn’t have anymore. Sex is less frequent–once a week now–but of much higher quality. However, I still can get myself there much easier and faster than he can–my poor communication skills,perhaps–and he has no trouble working on other areas and watching. If M doesn’t work for you, don’t do it but don’t tell other people how to have a fullfilling sexual relationship and intimacy with their spouse.

    My husband is also my bishop and says there are no references to M in the handbook and he never asks the youth about it. P*rn yes, M no.

    Very easy for married people to tell singles not to. I think of my mother who has been alone for many years and wonder how she’s gone so long without that physcial affection.
    Do we expect widows and widowers to go without too?

65. I think the church is clear that masterbation is wrong. Is it as serious as adultery and fornication? No.

66. Jks, I think the point is that various leaders have given their opinions based on a combimation of gut feeling, tradition, ignorance, superstition, and prejudice.

67. For those who have the impression that the church has been consistent in condemning masturbation, please read my timeline which is based on Historical Development of New Masturbation Attitudes in Mormon Culture.

    (If you’ll pardon the expression, I feel like I’m whoring my blog because I keep linking to it. Please forgive me. I’m just trying to inform.)

68. At orgasm, we release a hormone, oxytocin, which creates strong feelings of attachment. Ideally, we attach to the person who helped us get to the big O. In masturbation, there’s only the self to attach to. Does masturbation make one a self-absorbed narcissist? Probably not. But, I do think 2 person sex requires a lot more work than 1 person sex (communication, patience, etc.)
    As an woman who didn’t marry until her late 20s I struggled mightily with morality issues. I have total compassion for singles in the church, and am glad I don’t have to be in a position of judgment.

69. mormonzero, to be honest, I did feel like you have an agenda.

    I do think we need both basic principles as you state and efforts toward obedience. I should have charity no matter what. I should care about people no matter where they are on the path. And I try to. But that doesn’t change what the standards are, ya know?

    To be honest, I am still not sure exactly where you stand on all of this, but I do appreciate your follow up comment.

    I have probably said enough for this thread, though. Thanks again for the comment, mormonzero.

70. My opinion can be easily summed up in saying that I don’t believe the church belongs in the bedroom of married or single persons; if the spirit abides then that is all that matters…if I had a masturbation agenda I would be trying to persuade you to change your mind…I am not…If there is an agenda that I have it is that ppl have the necessary facts to study it out in one’s mind and pray about it themselves…If you do not feel satisfied w/ a prophet or apostles teaching then you should as BY explained w/draw from the idea…If you read my blog posts I make it fairly clear that all I recommend is that you are aware of the necessary information to make a proper decision…All sides need to be presented to make a proper decision…I hardly believe that when we chose God’s plan over Satan’s that we did not know what Satan’s plan was…we were aware, had a war of words, and decisions were made.

71. As Kaimi said, this has been somewhat of a firestorm, so I won’t attempt to respond to everyone at this late hour.
    I am interested in people with personal experiences about church leaders and interview questions including masturbation. It seems to me that there is more literature that alludes to masturbation (For Strength of Youth, etc) than there are leaders asking about it in interviews.
    My sincere hope is that there will be some clarity on this subject from the church leaders in the future. It seems to be applied so unevenly that it is easy to question the seriousness of the sin.

    Elizabeth W described oxytocin, which is a chemical that does many things, including enhancing relaxation. If it does create attachment, perhaps that is where the benefit of self-esteem comes from.

    m&m and mormonzero: I’m glad you guys are working through your differences. I think you are both trying to win longest comment for next year’s Nacle Number’s post at ZD.
    🙂
    Seriously, though, I’m grateful for the open discussion and I hope that people can think about this subject in a new way.

    As far as calling the prophets wrong, I would submit that sometimes they don’t ask God if something should or could change. I don’t believe that God reaches down and shakes the prophet to instruct him on some specific matter. I think the prophet goes to God and asks about issues the same way we do. Perhaps this is one of those issues that isn’t getting face-time with God.

    Married: My guess is that most married people would say that their decisions about their sex life are up to them, not to their church leaders (including masturbation, phone sex, etc) Like Jana, I don’t think the church has any place in the bedroom of consenting adults. There is a thread at Visitor’s Center called “For Married Mormons, Where does OK end and Sin begin?” It’s a multiple choice test, and it’s pretty varied.

    Lastly, not to make light of this serious discussion, did anyone watch the Mr. Diety clip?

72. Well, mormonzero, I think net net you and I probably disagree more than we agree. I think it’s a little too convenient to say, “I don’t like what the prophets say” and then withdraw from it. If it was always easy, or always made sense, or always squared with what our natural inclination was, I don’t see that we would really need prophets at all. I think trust in the prophets goes a long way, although I understand people’s desire to study more than that. I just think we shouldn’t expect that their counsel will square with secular studies or even personal experiences of some people. I trust them explicitly, and I have my own personal experience with their counsel that has convinced me that I can trust their counsel. I don’t need to know everything to know that following them is best for me.

    But like I said, I’m pretty accustomed to agreeing to disagree. 🙂

    Jessawhy, similarly, I am also definitely not a fan of the ‘well, prophets haven’t struggled through this issue enough’ position. Again, that seems far too convenient to be able to use that argument whenever one comes up against some counsel or position that is inconvenient, hard, etc. Following prophets isn’t supposed to be easy, or even logical. Scriptures prove that time and time again – the parting of the Red Sea, the serpent in the wilderness, the widow of Zaraphath’s oil and meal, the day and night and day of light…and the list could go on and on.

    All of that said, I realize that part of our journey is to each choose how to interact with and implement and regard prophetic counsel. Agency and accountability and all of that.

73. wow… well done jessawhy!

    multiple lengthy comments later… I now have nothing to add, except thank you for addressing this “touching” subject (yes, pun intended.)

74. Jessawhy,

    I think most of us who were questioned about masturbation by bishops and stake presidents (and I’m a woman!) were children of the ’70s and ’80s–again, while President Kimball was prophet, and maybe a little beyond that. i do think it has to do with missions and prospective missionaries. This is probably when teens in the MIA/YM/YW program were asked about it by their bishops, probably in preparation for when they would be asked about it for missions.

    I was also single until I was almost 40, and I attended ten or fifteen singles wards, in addition to the five student wards I belonged to at BYU. IN EVERY WARD, and IN EVERY CASE, I was asked about masturbation. This was in the early and mid 1980s (BYU) and up until 2000, when I stopped attending church.

75. “Well, mormonzero, I think net net you and I probably disagree more than we agree. I think it’s a little too convenient to say, “I don’t like what the prophets say” and then withdraw from it.”

    M&M…Wow! In all honesty I think it is sad that you say this. If masturbation is your measuring stick as to how much we agree then I find that disappointing.

    “I think it’s a little too convenient to say, “I don’t like what the prophets say and then withdraw from it.”

    I never withdrew any comment…Never for the rest of my life will I simply accept something because the prophet said so…I am not going to “force it down like a pill.” His opinions and thoughts I hold as a guide to build my own study. When he speaks authoritatively on doctrine I look into it and look for confirmation and satisfaction and if I “do his will, [I] shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether [he] speak[s] of [him]self.” (John 7:17) I have honestly lived both ways of life…I have come to a different conclusion than you on ONE behavior…I am sorry that my choice offends you so but I am not sorry about the process by which I came to my conclusions.

    I believe in God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost; I believe in the Fall and Atonement; I believe a persons life should be established on good principles and virtues including but not limited to…faith, hope, charity, love, honesty, chastity, obedience, honor, weakness, and humility. I believe in the Bible and BofM. I think there is a lot more that we could agree on than disagree.

    However, I believe righteousness is about the desires of one’s heart and what actions those desires lead us to…I don’t believe that righteousness is defined by ritualistic and traditionalist standards and behaviors…I believe this is what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5. This is why I also believe that there will be ppl who make it to heaven having done all that is necessary while emphasizing obedience but they won’t be accepted by the Lord because their obedience was not fueled by the proper desires…i.e. pharisees

    I believe if a person has faith, hope, charity and love w/ an eye single to the glory of God and decides not to ever masturbate then he/she will be fine…if a person has these same characteristics and masturbates then he/she will be fine.

    Considering all the health benefits of masturbation maybe it would be wise to add it as a part of the word of wisdom and taking healthy care of one’s body…I’m j/k 😉

76. Hey Jessawhy, you wanted examples, here you go:
    Didn’t even learn about masturbation or the concept of pleasure until age 27 (am regretting the lost time). Racked with guilt over a couple of minor “joy rides” I confessed to my bishop (a fan of discussing the topic annually in our east coast ward-although I have to say the woman always assigned to teach it in RS spoke to the Problem of your husband/future husbands “M”). Anyway, will spare you the sad details of my humiliating interview including the porn interrogation (no-didn’t use)but after my Temple recommnend was suspended, he asked me to e-mail him weekly about my habits/issues (talk about weird) this went on for about 3 months. (Luckily only fell of the wagon once out of shame/fear for having to articulate in an e-mail) imagine my rage when years later in a discussion with a close male friend (one of his former counselors) found that the fellows usually only got a “few weeks” suspention from the temple for lesser discretions (think frequency) and “who the hell e-mails”…

77. mormonzero,
    I think we are talking past each other, but I’m not sure that more talking is going to help. I, too, believe in the desires of the heart, but I also believe that we are expected to ‘do all we can do’ and strive for obedience — not as a hedge or fake, Pharasaical righteousness but because obedience can be tied to the heart and humility.

    I also can’t really fully separate this conversation from our general positions because you just seem a lot more willing to dismiss prophetic counsel than I will ever be comfortable with, even though I have never suggested it should be forced like a pill. I dunno. Something just doesn’t gel with your position, even though I think we might find that there is some agreement there. I just still don’t really feel like I know where you really stand, so I’m not sure how much we really agree. Thanks for trying to explain anyway.

78. Well…I understand. I probably don’t articulate my position very well. However, I will make one last ditch effort, not to convince, but simply to attempt to explain where I stand.

    I don’t believe that one’s obedience lies in obeying traditional behaviors. To me, obedience lies in obeying the principles and ordinances of the gospel (AoF 1:3; Moses 6:60) not specific behaviors…but these doctrinal principles most surely will influence those behaviors for “teaching doctrine will change behavior faster than teaching behavior will change behavior.” This is not to say that certain behaviors are not evidence of disobeying certain principles. But, imho, I don’t believe killing someone is the sin but I believe the anger to be the sin. Thus, Nephi did not sin when he killed Laban, when defending family you do not sin, when defending freedom, country, etc. you do not sin; I don’t believe the adultery to be the sin (simply a manifestation of sin); I believe that for the most part the 10 commandments were used as a foreshadowing of the higher law which he taught. God used those commandments to symbolically teach love and the avoidance of hate, anger, and lust. The problem was that the pharisees made the “commandment of none effect by [their] traditions.” (Matt 15:3; read vs. 1-9) I do believe the lust, coveting, or wanting of another person’s spouse or another individual w/ whom one is not married is a sin. As black and white as many ppl believe masturbation to be I personally don’t see masturbation as being synonymous w/ lust. If for an individual the masturbation is a symptom of their lustful pursuits and engagements then yes, they have sinned…not in masturbating but in lust.

    I realize that my perceived ambiguity is perhaps what makes it difficult to discover where I stand; as the strict “Follow the prophet” types would cry blasphemy, while otoh, the not so strict prophet adherents perhaps would say that I am outwardly manifesting some form of cognitive dissonance, to these possible claims I cannot apologize.

    Well…I need to get to class.

79. Just a thought…
    I have read in one of my many manuals about female sexuality, that clinically speaking, more than 70% of women are only able to orgasm through direct clitoral stimulation and not vaginal penetration. My BIG concern, having spoken to legions of women who have not experienced orgasm after 1,2 years or gasp decades of marital sex, that by spiritually criminalizing masturbation we deny these individuals what most of us consider an essential part of sexual connection with our partners because as many of my manuals direct (and several of my medical colleagues as well) women must often learn about the response and control of these sensations by self-exploration first. It breaks my heart to hear women dismiss “oh orgasm isn’t the most important part of sex” as a demure and passive coping mechanism. If nerve endings and mechanics were the same for males and lets say there were an epidemic of married men who had “loving sex” but in years (or decades) had not been able to ejaculate that the bretheren or whoever would treat this issue the same? Hell no I say…I also think that any man who goes for years (or decades) without working towards orgasm in his wife on some level seems to be just using her as his own mastubatory object…(with love and tenderness of course)

80. Jessawhy,
    another important consideration that I hope the church is taking if they are truely reconsidering thier stance on masturbation, if not for “singles” than at least for homosexuals. Our religion is already cruel in its denial of basic relationship and love needs for gays, but to doom them to a life time of asexual existence just seems cruel. I don’t even think that celebate religions take such an extreme approach (read a book once w/ interesting thoughts about nuns and masturbation. I’m glad most of my gay friends do the deed while they figure out if they want to live a limited life within the religion…If staying in the church is what they really must have, masturbation might help the pain a little more palpable.

81. m&m says:

    And p.s. to the person who didn’t like my comment about not suggesting the priesthood ban was a mistake — My point is not to address whether or not it was but to say that none of us is authorized to declare it was. Until and unless I hear an authorized leader declare such a thing, I think it best that we leave it alone and deal with what we know. We know the prophets now teach that racism is wrong. We know that Elder Holland has said that the folklore explanations about the ban were misguided. So, let’s not offer any more explanations and let the present doctrine and teachings and practices stand on their own.

    Oh, I see the difference. Members should keep their personal opinions to themselves and not say that the previous policy was a mistake.

    I find that attitude just as horrifying. Wait. Maybe a little more horrifying.

82. Beekeeper,
    That’s my concern as well. If the only way a woman is going to learn to orgasm is self stimulation, then I say go for it. I think a loving God will totally understand.

    John with an H – There has not yet been a formal repudiation of the racist folk doctrines which were once rampant in our church. But my hunch is that it is coming, I’d say within the next decade or so. I will rejoice on the day that happens.

    And church leaders may not ever formally come out and say the priesthood ban was a huge racist mistake (unfortunate – I wish they would) but you can bet that several of the GAs have been kicking themselves in the backside mentally for not being in the forefront of civil rights issues. (I know this from an insider who is friendly with many of them.) Our church really missed the boat on that one. IMO.

83. mormonzero,
    I think we are going in circles. I have reread most of your comments and come back to the same point — as long as you undermine the prophets, it undermines your position in my mind. I don’t feel you are malicious in your intent (I get the sense that you are a sincere study-er and seeker), but from where I sit, even though you say you aren’t, it feels to me like you ARE trying to convince others (maybe yourself?) that what you have decided to do is ok. If you had stopped at ‘I felt this was right for me for where I am in my life’ and still recognized and upheld the standard as it is taught, that would be one thing. But you have crossed a line that makes me uncomfortable and makes it hard for me to really continue a conversation. Sorry.

84. And I will say I have appreciated your willingness to try to explain your position. I’m not trying to dismiss that, nor the good that I think can come from trying to understand others’ positions. I have just reached a point where I really don’t have much left in me (plus I’ve been ill for nearly two weeks) that I think it’s time for me to be done.

85. I have really tried to present my thoughts, leave others to their own, and crawl back into my little hole. However, I feel like someone keeps coming up and kicking dirt back into my hole.

    “I think we are going in circles. I have reread most of your comments and come back to the same point — as long as you undermine the prophets, it undermines your position in my mind.”

    If you had ended your comment here I would have felt zero inclination to respond because for the most part you are solely explaining your pov…that said I honestly don’t believe that I am undermining the prophets especially when I have established more than enough prophetic precedence for how and why I believe what I do. Your sole position w/in the confines of this blog is that m* is wrong–again w/ prophetic precedence…to which there are only a handful of statements made by GA’s who specifically state masturbation as being wrong (all of which can be found and read on my blog…so it is not like I am trying to disregard what they say but simply presenting as much info as possible so that an objective person can choose for themselves) and who use incorrect information to explain why it is wrong.

    “I don’t feel you are malicious in your intent (I get the sense that you are a sincere study-er and seeker)”

    Thank you =)

    “but from where I sit, even though you say you aren’t, it feels to me like you ARE trying to convince others (maybe yourself?) that what you have decided to do is ok.”

    Okay…this is the statement that made me feel an obligation to respond. You are indirectly attempting to explain away everything I have said because I wish to rationalize my choices to either/both others or/and myself. However, nearly every thought or opinion I have expressed was developed and thought out b4 I ever masturbated even once.

    That said, your point is irrelevant. Even if my views are founded in apologetic rationalizations, all that really matters is whether the doctrine is sound. Also, if this is my motive is it any different than what FAIR, FARMS, and BYU studies do when they apologetically explain things like mistranslations in the BoM and BoA, the kinderhook plates, Adam-God theory, etc. There is nothing wrong w/ someone trying to understand better why they believe what they believe and then protecting those beliefs from others who would attack or discredit them. The beauty of what I have tried to say is that it allows the ppl w/ both viewpoints to still maintain their thoughts and opinions while being firm in the core doctrines found w/in the church. What is so wrong w/ that? The only way you could find this at all distasteful is if you find “no masturbation” as a core and essential principle/law, which to me seems about as legitimate as counting the number of steps you take on the sabbath.

    “If you had stopped at ‘I felt this was right for me for where I am in my life’ and still recognized and upheld the standard as it is taught, that would be one thing. But you have crossed a line that makes me uncomfortable and makes it hard for me to really continue a conversation. Sorry.”

    Me too…cuz from where I sit, it feels to me like you are using a minority of prophetic statements that were assimilated into the doctrines on mormon culture as a mask for not having to rethink your position no matter what facts or truths might be presented. Under your apparent logic you would have been unable to support or even acknowledge the protests and societal and editorial pressures that non-members put on the church and BYU (especially atheltics) for their policies and doctrines about the black ppl. If a church member disagreed w/ the prophet in regard to blacks b4 1978’s revelation and openly stated his opinions, was he undermining the prophet? This is w/ an issue that I believe has much more doctrinal relevance than masturbation.

    Crud, again, I gotta go to class.

86. I feel like someone keeps coming up and kicking dirt back into my hole.

    mormonzero, I’m sorry I offended you.

    The beauty of what I have tried to say is that it allows the ppl w/ both viewpoints to still maintain their thoughts and opinions while being firm in the core doctrines found w/in the church. What is so wrong w/ that?

    My whole point has been that I don’t see it this way. I don’t think your position keeps doctrinal integrity, because I believe this counsel is doctrinally sound.

    In a sense, though, opinion doesn’t really matter. It’s not our place to decide what is doctrinally sound teaching. That is the prophets’ place. In the privacy of our lives, we can determine what we feel we should do about their counsel, but I think public undermining of their counsel is inappropriate, and I will continue to take that position. There may be those out there who need this counsel to protect and help them (think of ABC’s comment above), but any excuse to dismiss it could influence their decision not to follow it.

    Look, I have said before that there are likely some things we agree on. As I look at your paper, I agree with some of the more general things you have said. But since we have clear and current counsel about that states “Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.” We have been told these standards as taught in For the Strength of Youth apply to all of us. It really is that simple. If your personal experience differs, that doesn’t change what is from the prophets. It’s one thing to say, “This is what happened to me.” I understand the desire to want to empathize with others who struggle. It’s another thing to write papers and such that want to suggest that the prophets are wrong or that their position has no doctrinal foundation.

87. Mr. Realistic writes:

    Go to an R rated movie
    […]
    All are minor sins

    I’m unfamiliar with the scriptural basis for watching R-rated movies being a sin. Can someone elaborate?

88. If a church member disagreed w/ the prophet in regard to blacks b4 1978’s revelation and openly stated his opinions, was he undermining the prophet?

    I just saw this part of your comment, so FWIW, so you understand where I stand, my answer would be yes, if that person said, “The prophets are wrong.”

    I’m not anti-discussion. But there is a difference between wondering about something, or wanting to sort through it, or even expressing personal struggle with it. I think discussion has value in helping people work through things, consider different opinions, etc.

    I just think there is a line there that goes from opinion to taking on a position of authority that isn’t ours to take, declaring prophetic positions undoctrinal, unnecessary, inappropriate, whatever.

    I don’t know if I’m clarifying, or just annoying. I’m sorry if it’s the latter.

89. M&M…FWIW I didn’t find anything you said to be annoying, well…except the part where you tried to explain what my motives were when you don’t really know me, in the which I counteracted by doing the same to you and I apologize. But overall I found the discussion to be constructive rather than negative…I hope you think so as well.

    “In the privacy of our lives, we can determine what we feel we should do about their counsel”

    This is doctrinally sound, we agree! Yippee! This is actually what I was trying to say the whole time. If you re read the GA quotes I used I might actually make a little more sense now. =)

    “but I think public undermining of their counsel is inappropriate, and I will continue to take that position.”

    As you should…and I assure you that is not my goal. To echo the words of Elder Richards, “I fear I may be misunderstood” because of the nature of the background topic (in this case being masturbation; his being the WoW and smoking). I will admit that my blog post and my comments hear are slanted to explain a personal perspective and opinion but if you follow my blog post to the end you see that I invited everyone to study it out for themselves w/ the necessary spiritual tools…I have honestly attempted to do my best to remember to use words such as…”my opinion,” “my belief,” etc. My point is that “men are permitted to hold individual views and express them w/ freedom so long as they are not seditious to the basic doctrines, practices, and establishments of the Church” (Elder Richards). Just as “some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice.” (LDS website) I would hope that you do not perceive my thoughts and opinions to be an attempt to undermine core doctrines.

    “It’s another thing to write papers and such that want to suggest that the prophets are wrong or that their position has no doctrinal foundation.”

    Well…please don’t tell me you think them infallible, otherwise they will eventually let you down in such a way that your testimony will flutter away w/ the wind. I don’t think you believe this though.

    It’s not that I don’t think their opinions don’t have doctrinal foundation, it is that their explanation of the “masturbation doctrine” have been shrouded in fallacious comments such as masturbation makes you turn gay or that masturbation turns up semen production.

    Does it matter if they were wrong on masturbation…no, I don’t think so…no more than when JFS said that man would never go to the moon. If there was a change in masturbation teachings I don’t think members would leave the church in mass exodus, so because of that I don’t think it wrong or undermining the prophets to believe contrary to the GA’s on this issue and publicly express my opinion. If you don’t agree w/ that then I wouldn’t know what else to say and my jaw will just drop to the floor.

    “Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.”

    You know…as a teenager I read this and I applied it, I applied it so well that I never even would permit myself to have an erection and I considered it a sin if I did have one. Maybe I was just a nut, but to me that seems to be implied.

    “We have been told these standards as taught in For the Strength of Youth apply to all of us.”

    For the most part I believe the standards to be extremely worthwhile especially when explained w/ the logic by which they were acquired and the ensuing consequences of doing or not doing what the standards state.

    However, there is a difference between standards and laws/principles. A standard is when numerous situations have a prevailing quality or characteristic to which they are then set up as a standard for action or practice.

    A law, oth, is the principles of right custom frozen into imperative form, with provision against disobedience, by legislative enactment.

    Is masturbation a standard or a law? 20-30 years ago you would probably have to say that it was a law as many if not all missionaries were asked about and were not allowed on a mission if they were involved in such a practice. Now, it may just be a standard as legislative enforcement has greatly dissipated…there is lack of conformity here…Some are not allowed on their mission others are told to not worry about it. This only helps fuel the confusion.

    I feel it imperative to discuss this topic because there are so many ppl who wonder, the entire research paper I wrote was done for a friend because he asked me about it and he knew that I research about everything else so why not this. To which I replied, “No I know little about it, but I’ll look into it.” I have shared my findings. If people don’t share what they find amongst themselves and w/ their leaders then oftentimes GA’s don’t have a catalyst by which they can inquire to the Lord about change. This is what happened w/ beer (which originally was not part of the WoW) but it was largely w/ the personal experiences of members that helped get beer incorporated into the word of wisdom. As time went on the Word of Wisdom went from a simple standard of wisdom to an actual law w/ legislative oversight. This is what happened w/ blacks and the priesthood, this is what happened w/ polygamy, etc. Each one appears to have had a catalyst that inspired the leader to re think the current position, which helped help instigate the revelatory process. And these were w/ really important doctrines (please don’t misconstrue this as me saying that they were previously wrong on each of the just mentioned topics; this is not what I am attempting to point out) …masturbation…imperatively important? I’m not so sure.

    M&M, to close I only wish to say that I have appreciated the balance that you brought to this blog post…it helps keep everyone honest.

90. except the part where you tried to explain what my motives were when you don’t really know me,

    I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have done that.

    Can I suggest that in a similar sense, we shouldn’t do that with the prophets’ words, either? We don’t know why they teach what they do, analysis of history or whatever else notwithstanding.

    Thanks also for being willing to engage. I do think there is some benefit in two people being able to talk through different perspectives, so thanks for engaging.

    “but I think public undermining of their counsel is inappropriate, and I will continue to take that position.”

    As you should…and I assure you that is not my goal.

    OK, then maybe I could just share some of your comments that really leave me scratching my head and that are examples of comments that I believe undermine the prophets, and some thoughts about why I feel that way:

    “I think it’s crossing a line for ppl to create and/or interpret the law” [it’s inappropriate for you or me to do that (although we will each do that for ourselves to some degree, and personal revelation can help us do that), but it’s well within the stewardship of prophets, seers, and revelators to do any of these things! — also to elaborate with standards, or to clarify principles, or to give us specific behaviors that fall under keeping a law, and it’s not within our stewardships to dismiss those things in public for others, even if for whatever reason we might feel we are the exception. Exceptions don’t change rules. Also it’s not our job to determine in a general way if prophets are ‘crossing a line.’ We only can determine in our personal lives how to respond to what they say.]

    “I don’t believe the church belongs in the bedroom of married or single persons” [on standards like this, the prophets would disagree, and yet they do so little in this regard anyway. Again, it’s not up to any person to decide for everyone what is or isn’t appropriate for prophets to do. Also, none of us really knows all that comes into their positions on things. You have taken a *guess* at why they have taught this principle (thinking it’s only Puritan tradition or whatever) but the truth is that you were not there in the meetings or whatever else might have transpired to come up with these standards or to decide to continue to teach them. If you really want to just let people decide, then let them decide for themselves how inspired this is. Giving people ‘the other side’ in my mind undermines prophetic position.]

    “For those who struggle w/ the morality of masturbation and have been unable to stop then you have a few options”
    [you then go to interpret Paul in a way that is not consistent with prophetic teachings or has no basis in doctrine or Church teaching — if you felt *you* had options, that is between you and God. But that is not generalizable, and I think it’s really risky to do that — haven’t you ever struggled with something, ready to take anyone’s word who would justify your wrong behavior? And what if you really are wrong with this at a general level? Would you want to end up being a catalyst that encouraged someone to pursue something they shouldn’t have, your personal choice notwithstanding?]

    “If one feels masturbation to be okay, then that is fine. If one feels it is wrong, then that is fine too….If God inspires us then it is not sin.” [You cannot determine this, as that is not your stewardship to do, and again, do you really want to go there for other people’s choices? That means I could come in and offer my opinion about your choice…nah, you don’t want to go there. You can’t. Only God and His authorized servants can determine if someone is in sin or not, or the Spirit for one’s self. An individual can make a choice to pursue a path or behavior, but that doesn’t mean it will be ‘fine’ by the standards of the Church, for temple attendance, etc. That doesn’t take away a person’s agency, but we can’t just jump to relative definitions of sin simply by personal choice, even if a person thinks that his/her choice is via revelation. Personal choice or even revelation is not the only determinant of what is sin. Otherwise, we could all determine for ourselves if we were worthy for reception of ordinances (baptism, temple, sealing). There is a reason there are judges in Israel and prophets to define and determine these things.]

    “I perceive masturbation as not being part of the law of chastity [um, there you are interpreting the law — which you said people shouldn’t do! :)] but as a tradition that men have accepted as part of the law of chastity. There is no scripture that deals w/ this issue.” [If you call something ‘tradition’ that prophets teach, that to me undermines what they teach, even if it’s just your opinion or perception. It’s one thing to lay out the history, even your own experience. It’s another thing to interpret the history for others or generalize your experience in a way that minimizes what the prophets teach. If you assert that ‘it’s only tradition’ that implies that it doesn’t really matter. (I really don’t see how you can think this isn’t undermining their position.) The risk is that someone who needs the counsel will not take it seriously because of what you have said. (Elder Oaks warns against public criticism of church leaders — in part because we could make their leadership less effective for others.) You also say there is no scripture that supports this standard, but only prophets are authorized to interpret the law and scripture for others. Lines of stewardship must be carefully kept in order for us to stay within the order of the Church.

    “I also believe one need be careful to not explain traditional perceptions and ideas as sin” [Like I said before, you simply can’t know for sure if this is just tradition, or if they really did feel inspired in council with each other and as a result of their prophetic mantle to keep this specific counsel there for us. Personal revelation is for personal choices on how to apply prophetic counsel in one’s life, not to decide if something prophets teach is valid, or doctrinal, or inspired, or whatever else, for everyone else.]

    “Even w/ other issues I make sure that I feel right about it between me and HF b4 agreeing w/ the prophet or any apostle. They are not infallible.” [Of course they aren’t. But that’s irrelevant. The humanness of prophets has never changed the expectation God has for us that we take their words very seriously. We will be accountable for how we engage with and respond to their counsel. I feel like your conclusions seek to decide for others how seriously they should take the counsel. I don’t think that is appropriate.

    I should add that I’m not a fan of extensive historical study to try to determine the legitimacy of or discredit prophetic position on something, because I think it’s usually quite unnecessary. The Spirit can help us know if it’s legitimate and how we should implement it. That said, I wouldn’t have had as much of an issue with your approach had you only given the *information* and left your personal ‘therefore, I think this is only tradition’ type of conclusions out. Again, you simply haven’t been with the prophets as they have made decisions to teach these standards, or to include them in Church materials up to the present day. Let people decide through the Spirit for themselves if the counsel is legitimate and if it has valid doctrinal purpose.

    This is probably enough to give examples of what has concerned me and left me feeling like you are undermining the prophets. I also am concerned that you have contributed to extolling the supposed virtues of something the prophets have discouraged.

    As a parallel example: Just because drinking wine may have health benefits and there isn’t anything in ancient scripture that says we shouldn’t drink wine (quite the opposite, even!) does not mean we should drink wine or say that it doesn’t matter if people choose to do so. Prophets say it does, and they are the only ones who can speak to issues and standards like these in a general fashion.

    Again, if personal revelation exempts you for some reason, that is one thing, and we each will have to answer to God for our choices. Going to ‘the other side’ of the issue to try to show benefits or whatever is inappropriate to me and potentially could influence someone to go down the wrong path.

    Maybe I should just ask how you think you *aren’t* undermining the prophets’ counsel on this issue, given all that you have said to indicate that you think (as I read you) it’s an unnecessary, inappropriate, uninspired hedge? All I can say is that I would feel undermined if I said something to you and you labeled it thusly. 🙂

91. I’m going to re-title this thread:
    “Must have the last word”
    (still, keep it coming, folks. I’m hoping to hit 100 comments!)

92. So tell us mormonzero and Jonathan Blake, just exactly how many times a week did you masturbate as a kid? Or should I say how many times do you now?

    By the way you justify things, it must have been a ton.

93. canthelpwondering,

    LOL. You make me feel like I’m in a temple recommend interview with a pervy bishop. (No offense to you, or to bishops.)

    I don’t think answering your questions would change the basis of what I’ve said. Your question is a thinly veiled ad hominem logical fallacy.

    Those who think that I’m rationalizing my sins misunderstand my motives. I simply don’t recognize masturbation as a sin. I don’t feel any guilt when I masturbate. Therefore, I don’t need to rationalize my behavior as a defense mechanism against guilt.

    In other words, what I say here isn’t really for my benefit. I don’t comment here to help resolve an inner conflict so that I can revel in sin.

    Instead, I hope to promote better understanding by sharing my experiences, and to perhaps give someone a reason to reconsider their ideas about this topic. I suffered a lot because of what I believe are unhealthy attitudes toward sex in the LDS community. I hope sharing my thoughts and experiences can spare someone similar suffering.

94. Hmm. Sorry for the runaway italics.

95. I am sorry if I come across as a somewhat belligerent here but this comment touched a nerve for multiple reasons…I probably should ignore it but…

    Canthelpwondering said…”So tell us mormonzero and Jonathan Blake, just exactly how many times a week did you masturbate as a kid? Or should I say how many times do you now? By the way you justify things, it must have been a ton.”

    You really want to know? or is this some form of despicable rhetorical question? From what I have read of JB’s blog I am fairly sure that this is not even an issue for him and has no motive whatsoever to be trying to rationalize whatever previous or current masturbation habits he may of had due to his current beliefs.

    Now, why in heaven’s name do you even want to know? What relevance does this have to you personally? How does this distort any information that is provided? You know many non-members look at Mormons and can’t believe to what lengths we go to rationalize our religious beliefs in spite of all the evidences that would show that Joseph Smith had links to the occult, didn’t use a urim and thummim, translated the Book of Abraham wrong, made mistakes in his own translation of the Book of Mormon, that we go off funny fuzzy feelings that other ppl claim to get while walking through nature, that our leaders didn’t have the prophetic and revelatory abilities to see the Hoffman forgeries for what they were, leaders occasionally teaching false doctrine (I’ll reference later), of certain leaders publicly saying they don’t know or don’t receive revelations.” Do you feel okay in rationalizing or in the very least explaining why you believe the way you do? If a man be asked why he thinks polygamy is “doctrinal” and then explains what he believes would you find it appropriate for one to question him, “So tell us, how many wives do you have or how many wives to you think you are going to have in heaven?

    Your comment grossly reeks of over zealous pompousness and arrogance.

    So your question….How many times did I masturbate as a kid? ZERO

    Now? Occasionally, due to a health issue that arose during my mission where I would have spontaneous ejaculations, which naturally led to masturbation. I confessed to my mission president 5-6 times in a 2 month span. The health issue continued. I received my first taste of mental, psychological, and emotional HELL that drove me mad w/ shame, guilt, depression, and sorrow. In response to this situation I fasted (One time for 48 hours) and prayed continuously for strength, I memorized countless scriptures, and much more. All of this caused so much pain that I could never put in words how I felt. This all went down shortly b4 returning home from my mission; I felt like a dishonorable wreck of a missionary and not worthy of the honor of the title of Returned Missionary. When I got home I sought refuge in the words of the prophets and apostles…No comfort was found as all I could find were quite destructive statements like the factory analogy, the factory is speeding up, wet dreams solve everything, I might turn gay, tie your hands to the bedposts etc. After a year of obsessive guilt I went to the Internet where I discovered Mormon blogs and found a discussion on the CULTURAL HALL where I posted under the name of “Struggling” on a thread about masturbation. The comments there were of some help and comfort…however, the pain continued. During the transpiring of these emotional events I served as Elder’s Quorum President and as a teacher…I constantly felt unworthy to serve despite my obsessive drive to serve God well and do the right thing. Later, a friend of mine brought this issue up w/ me because it was brought up in a Celestial Marriage class he was in and his knowing that I had done a lot of “hobby apologetics” both as a teenager and also after the mission. I told him I would look into it (up to this time I had never looked into this issue from an apologetic pov) and so I did. I did not expect to find the information that I did. Shortly thereafter, I learned from a doctor that I was having the “issue” (I will refrain to going into elaborate explanation because it is awkward to explain) b cuz the male body, especially one w/ a high sex drive, is not meant to go 21 years w/o any ejaculations especially if he is not having nocturnal emissions. So did you really want to know all of that? Knowing all this does this change the relevance of my opinions…does it change the relevance of the information that I have provided? NO!

    What else would you like to know?

    How many R-rated movies have I seen? 1
    How many times have I had sex? Based on the above story I don’t think I need to answer
    How many times have I said a cuss word? Zero

    What else should I tell you so that you will just listen to what I have to say w/o trying judge my personal actions and righteousness? You don’t have to believe or even agree w/ a single word I say but cut w/ the personal attacks! Judge the information and not me! Now you might say well I am judging the prophets…well, I am sincerely trying to only judge the information and words they say, not their character (I believe the vast majority of statements, even incorrect ones, were made w/ the best of intentions), at least not beyond the fact that they are not infallible…the which is readily admitted by the authorities themselves.

96. M&M said…

    “Can I suggest that in a similar sense, we shouldn’t do that with the prophets’ words, either? We don’t know why they teach what they do, analysis of history or whatever else notwithstanding.”

    I do not attempt to judge their motives…I believe their motives to typically be sincere. However, I cannot help but look to their words and make rational analysis of them. JFS did say that polygamy would cure masturbation…BKP did say one’s factory will speed up…SWK did say masturbation leads to homosexuality. Analyzing what they say is a lot different than being critical of their character and intentions.

    “but I think public undermining of their counsel is inappropriate, and I will continue to take that position.”

    As you should…and I assure you that is not my goal.

    “OK, then maybe I could just share some of your comments that really leave me scratching my head and that are examples of comments that I believe undermine the prophets, and some thoughts about why I feel that way: I think it’s crossing a line for ppl to create and/or interpret the law” [it’s inappropriate for you or me to do that (although we will each do that for ourselves to some degree, and personal revelation can help us do that), but it’s well within the stewardship of prophets, seers, and revelators to do any of these things!”

    Wow, at first I could not believe I said that but I looked back and saw that you took me out of context…I said, “I think it’s crossing a line for ppl to create and/or interpret the law to encompass everything from masturbation to oral sex, which have never been specifically addressed in scripture or HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED…WHILE ONLY USING TRUTH TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM!”

    If their teachings are based on the relative truths of the times then the teachings should be applied on an individual and relative level. If it is absolute truth then it should be declared absolutely w/ absolute truth and applied accordingly by the individual who must seek out a personal testimony of this absolute truth. I don’t really have time to go into all the GA statements on this or all scriptures and doctrines in this regard but if you like you could do you own personal study on this and I am sure you will find some many amazing things. Thus, I will stick to the statements I have already used, “…the judgment of a presiding officer holding the priesthood is GENERALLY an inspired judgment. It is the product of noble motive and fervent prayer…in matters of individual guidance to members, THEIR COUNSEL IS DIRECTORY AND PERSUASIVE ONLY.”

    “– also to elaborate with standards, or to clarify principles, or to give us specific behaviors that fall under keeping a law, and it’s not within our stewardships to dismiss those things in public for others, even if for whatever reason we might feel we are the exception. Exceptions don’t change rules. Also it’s not our job to determine in a general way if prophets are ‘crossing a line.’ We only can determine in our personal lives how to respond to what they say.]

    You now, thinking on this now, I don’t think it is the Prophets who cross the line…it is the general membership that crosses the line by making the Prophets statements into a traditional doctrine or standard.

    “I don’t believe the church belongs in the bedroom of married or single persons” [on standards like this, the prophets would disagree, and yet they do so little in this regard anyway. Again, it’s not up to any person to decide for everyone what is or isn’t appropriate for prophets to do.”

    I simply stated that I don’t believe they should get involved in such things. I don’t wish to regulate their offerings of opinion on any issue. However, it is dangerous to try to assimilate everything a GA says as canon.

    “Also, none of us really knows all that comes into their positions on things. You have taken a *guess* at why they have taught this principle (thinking it’s only Puritan tradition or whatever) but the truth is that you were not there in the meetings or whatever else might have transpired to come up with these standards or to decide to continue to teach them. If you really want to just let people decide, then let them decide for themselves how inspired this is. Giving people ‘the other side’ in my mind undermines prophetic position.]”

    When the issue was first address JFS concluded that polygamy would be a good stop-block for solving the masturbation problem. If that is an answer that is not based on tradition then I do not know what would be. You cannot truly make a choice or decide anything w/o opposition or opposing views (2 Nep. 2). You did not need to read this information if you did not want to…if you can digest the information and make a choice accordingly why can’t others do the same? Do you not trust them to figure it out for themselves?
    I wasn’t there, I only have the words of the prophets themselves who explained their decision by way of the traditions of their time. Go look it up. I never told anyone what to do or how to do it. I only stated what I concluded and that my thoughts were subject to change upon further light and knowledge. They are also encouraged to study it out for themselves.

    “For those who struggle w/ the morality of masturbation and have been unable to stop then you have a few options”
    [you then go to interpret Paul in a way that is not consistent with prophetic teachings or has no basis in doctrine or Church teaching — if you felt *you* had options, that is between you and God. But that is not generalizable, and I think it’s really risky to do that — haven’t you ever struggled with something, ready to take anyone’s word who would justify your wrong behavior? And what if you really are wrong with this at a general level? Would you want to end up being a catalyst that encouraged someone to pursue something they shouldn’t have, your personal choice notwithstanding?]”

    The Paul statement was simply used as an analogy to show a congruence of similar thought between myself and him on 2 separate sexual matters. There was no interpretation of Paul…his words stood on their own. They were simply similar to what my conclusions about a different issue.
    Justifying oneself is fine if he does it in truth and not in fallacies. The church does this all the time…as they should. When a teaching doesn’t hold up anymore they typically just stop talking about it.

    “If one feels masturbation to be okay, then that is fine. If one feels it is wrong, then that is fine too….If God inspires us then it is not sin.” [You cannot determine this, as that is not your stewardship to do, and again, do you really want to go there for other people’s choices? That means I could come in and offer my opinion about your choice…nah, you don’t want to go there. You can’t.”

    I don’t even know what you are talking about. If God lets you know by PR that something needs to be done or that it is nothing to worry about then how in the world can that be a sin? This is completely in line w/ prophetic and scriptural statements. Stating opinions and conclusions on masturbation have nothing to do w/ me exercising stewardship over anybody.

    “Only God and His authorized servants can determine if someone is in sin or not, or the Spirit for one’s self.”

    BINGO!

    “An individual can make a choice to pursue a path or behavior, but that doesn’t mean it will be ‘fine’ by the standards of the Church, for temple attendance, etc. That doesn’t take away a person’s agency, but we can’t just jump to relative definitions of sin simply by personal choice, even if a person thinks that his/her choice is via revelation. Personal choice or even revelation is not the only determinant of what is sin. Otherwise, we could all determine for ourselves if we were worthy for reception of ordinances (baptism, temple, sealing). There is a reason there are judges in Israel and prophets to define and determine these things.]”

    Now, as far as I can tell, and I hope it is true, the church generally is not asking if one is masturbating or not. They ask about the law of chastity and there seems to be some confusion about whether masturbation does or does not pertain to this law.
    I don’t claim stewardship over anybody. They can think the way they wish.

    “I perceive masturbation as not being part of the law of chastity [um, there you are interpreting the law — which you said people shouldn’t do! :)] but as a tradition that men have accepted as part of the law of chastity. There is no scripture that deals w/ this issue.” [If you call something ‘tradition’ that prophets teach, that to me undermines what they teach, even if it’s just your opinion or perception. It’s one thing to lay out the history, even your own experience. It’s another thing to interpret the history for others or generalize your experience in a way that minimizes what the prophets teach. If you assert that ‘it’s only tradition’ that implies that it doesn’t really matter. (I really don’t see how you can think this isn’t undermining their position.)”

    I am saying that traditions are not doctrines and therefore are subject to our own PR.

    “The risk is that someone who needs the counsel will not take it seriously because of what you have said. (Elder Oaks warns against public criticism of church leaders — in part because we could make their leadership less effective for others.) You also say there is no scripture that supports this standard, but only prophets are authorized to interpret the law and scripture for others. Lines of stewardship must be carefully kept in order for us to stay within the order of the Church. I also believe one need be careful to not explain traditional perceptions and ideas as sin” [Like I said before, you simply can’t know for sure if this is just tradition, or if they really did feel inspired in council with each other and as a result of their prophetic mantle to keep this specific counsel there for us. Personal revelation is for personal choices on how to apply prophetic counsel in one’s life, not to decide if something prophets teach is valid, or doctrinal, or inspired, or whatever else, for everyone else.]”

    Yes you can know if it is tradition. Don’t limit God’s power. I have spoken of personal conclusion, which I have shared w/ others. Criticism and analytical conclusions are separate things. If being critical is disagreeing then I suppose I am guilty as charged.

    “Even w/ other issues I make sure that I feel right about it between me and HF b4 agreeing w/ the prophet or any apostle. They are not infallible.” [Of course they aren’t. But that’s irrelevant. The humanness of prophets has never changed the expectation God has for us that we take their words very seriously. We will be accountable for how we engage with and respond to their counsel. I feel like your conclusions seek to decide for others how seriously they should take the counsel. I don’t think that is appropriate.”

    Precisely…but their infallibility is partly why it makes it so important how we respond to counsel and why we are especially accountable for our decision. It is on us…not them to decide w/ help of PR and other tools to make correct choices.
    The very fact that I so highly tout the importance of search, ponder, and pray should make it all but apparent how seriously I take the words of the prophets.

    “I should add that I’m not a fan of extensive historical study to try to determine the legitimacy of or discredit prophetic position on something, because I think it’s usually quite unnecessary. The Spirit can help us know if it’s legitimate and how we should implement it. That said, I wouldn’t have had as much of an issue with your approach had you only given the *information* and left your personal ‘therefore, I think this is only tradition’ type of conclusions out.”

    The spirit comes after proper study and prayer.
    If I did not have an opinion there would be no point to my blog post. Information means nothing till one thinks. The very fact that the leaders use the common thoughts of their day makes it quite obvious that they were using the traditions, ideas, theories, or the whatever of their day.

    ” Again, you simply haven’t been with the prophets as they have made decisions to teach these standards, or to include them in Church materials up to the present day. Let people decide through the Spirit for themselves if the counsel is legitimate and if it has valid doctrinal purpose.”

    I do…that is my point. Provide the members the information and doctrine and I believe they will come up with the right answers—they are fully capable of governing themselves. This does not mean the answers will be the same for everyone to the which we should respect those who have different beliefs—even inside of the church. I make this clear at the end of the blog post.

    “This is probably enough to give examples of what has concerned me and left me feeling like you are undermining the prophets. I also am concerned that you have contributed to extolling the supposed virtues of something the prophets have discouraged.”

    If health benefits, is the virtue to which you charge me of extolling then I am guilty as charged again.

    “As a parallel example: Just because drinking wine may have health benefits and there isn’t anything in ancient scripture that says we shouldn’t drink wine (quite the opposite, even!) does not mean we should drink wine or say that it doesn’t matter if people choose to do so. Prophets say it does, and they are the only ones who can speak to issues and standards like these in a general fashion.”

    For me personally the big difference here is that there is no such thing as an alcohol drive. One’s sex drive needs to be regulated to some level as does hunger (a definite need). It is not healthy to starve oneself continuously and neither is it healthy to unnaturally abstain oneself of sexual expression.

    “Again, if personal revelation exempts you for some reason, that is one thing, and we each will have to answer to God for our choices. Going to ‘the other side’ of the issue to try to show benefits or whatever is inappropriate to me and potentially could influence someone to go down the wrong path.”

    Again, there is no choice w/o opposition. This is hardly an issue that is going to define one’s mortal existence. The possibility of going down the wrong path is always possible no matter whom you decide to follow.

    Bruce R. McConkie said while commenting on the teaching of Brigham Young “I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality”

    So again it falls on us. If you feel you are receiving blessings by not masturbating then don’t do it. But others may find that there are blessings as well by doing it and accepting it…namely physical health.

97. M&M said… “Maybe I should just ask how you think you *aren’t* undermining the prophets’ counsel on this issue, given all that you have said to indicate that you think (as I read you) it’s an unnecessary, inappropriate, uninspired hedge? All I can say is that I would feel undermined if I said something to you and you labeled it thusly.”

    Okay, well…I think I will drive home my point w/ the following and from there you just gotta do what you feel right. I don’t know what you want me to say but here it goes…

    “President Charles W. Penrose…once wrote, ‘We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President has claimed infallibility.’…Not only were Biblical prophets sometimes wrong, but often they believed in the prevailing—and at times incorrect—views of their day. Likewise, early Mormons understood things differently than we do today. Just as Biblical figures had a strange view about the shape of the earth (Isa. 11:12) and the motion of the planets (Josh. 10:12-13) so likewise some early LDS leaders had some incorrect views…Prophets are not raised in cultural vacuums. Moses wasn’t, Abraham wasn’t and neither were Joseph, Brigham, or Hinckley…Not every utterance by every general authority constitutes “official” doctrine…Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are ‘expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,’ they do ‘not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.” This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.” To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J.F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”
    How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not? First it must generally conform to what has already been revealed. ‘It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said,” wrote J. Fielding Smith, “if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.’ The standard works, he explains, are the “measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.”
    Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but ‘when he does, [he] will declare it as a revelation from God,’ after which it will be sustained by the body of Church.’

    (OH MY GOSH! Are the prophet undermining themselves?)

    The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31). Until such doctrines or opinions are sustained by vote in conference, however, they are “neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church.”
    How can we know if teachings, which have not been voted upon, are true? J. Reuben Clark explains that when “we ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’ then we know that the speakers are teaching true doctrine. ‘In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from THEM to US to determine when they so speak.”
    It is likely that the Lord has allowed (and will continue to allow) his servants to make mistakes—it’s all part of progression and the growing process. We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree. We’re supposed to receive confirmation from the spirit if what is taught is the doctrine of God, and of course we’re the ones who put ourselves in jeopardy if we fail to accept things which will bless us.”
    You let me know when I am to sustain Section 139–the “the masturbation doctrine.”

    To which I conclude that “Men are permitted to hold individual views and express them w/ freedom so long as they are not seditious to the basic doctrines, practices, and establishments of the Church…if anyone holds views and gets satisfaction from them, I say let him have them, and for one I won’t abuse him for them.”

98. Jessawhy…We almost have 100.

99. Because the wonderful author of this post is out of town — and not much good happens after 100 comments — I’m closing comments for now.

100. […] my first post (hi!), I’d like to continue the discussion started by Jessawhy’s excellent post about the appropriate role for confession of sexual sins in Church, particularly regarding young […]

101. […] The Other M-word by Jessawhy […]