FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Scott Adams blog on sex scandals (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Scott Adams blog on sex scandals
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Stone Wolf, there are a lot of religious traditions and doctrines that are not based in Scripture. Not just for Mormons. Catholics in particular have other bases for doctrine. Sola scriptura the idea the Scripture alone is the only basis for doctrine is a principle of the Protestant Reformation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by CT:
I am just having the most difficult time in understanding why this would necessarily be considered shameful [even in the religions I am aware are represented in this current conversation].

The question: are we using the term "masturbation" differently -- is there a private or more isolated meaning that I do not understand?

It's masturbation as you know it.

Short copy: the LDS's teaching on the matter is that it is specifically forbidden by the Lord, and that one of the big reasons why is because it is a gateway drug to more grotesque sins such as homosexuality, which is described as an unholy sex perversion.

Quite clearly it's stated you are to avoid masturbation (even mutual) because it can drive people towards homosexual acts, among other justifications.

Oral sex and anal sex are also right out, even as part of activities which lead to 'appropriate' intercourse. Either act is 'impure and unholy.'

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know of it ever being mentioned by the church leaders earlier than the 1960s, but I've never looked for it earlier than that, either.

The rationale is that that sex is a holy and sacred thing, and as such, should only be expressed in the proper way. Which is between a husband and wife.

Samp's "short copy" of LDS teachings on the matter is wrong in almost every respect.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Samp's "short copy" of LDS teachings on the matter is wrong in almost every respect.

Why do you say you don't want to discuss this, and then keep jumping in and discussing it in the form of "you're wrong."

"The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church

"Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord."

"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency [including Gordon B. Hinckley] has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church - Including Gordon B. Hinckley.

"Masturbation, a rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may have been said by others whose “norms” are lower. Latter-day Saints are urged to avoid this practice. Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission or receives the holy priesthood or goes in the temple for his blessings.

Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived by those who would call bad good, and black white." -Kimball

"Masturbation can be described as manipulating one’s own sexual organs to produce sexual excitement. Such practice is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may have been said by others."
-Kimball

ometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived by those who would call bad good, and black white. (Ensign, November 1980, p.94)
[Masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation--practiced with another person of the same sex--and thence into total homosexuality. (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.282)

Now, are any of these quotations not actually real?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I would be willing to bet that all the harm caused by masturbation since the beginning of time comes nowhere near the harm caused by convincing young boys and girls with normal urges that they are "gravely disordered".

I'm not sure where the "gravely disordered" language comes from. That's certainly not what I'm planning on telling my kids when they ask me, or when I talk to them, about masturbation. I agree that framing it thus would be quite harmful.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I would be willing to bet that all the harm caused by masturbation since the beginning of time comes nowhere near the harm caused by convincing young boys and girls with normal urges that they are "gravely disordered".

I'm not sure where the "gravely disordered" language comes from. That's certainly not what I'm planning on telling my kids when they ask me, or when I talk to them, about masturbation. I agree that framing it thus would be quite harmful.
I am glad to hear it. "Gravely disordered" and "gravely immoral" would be Catholic language.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
There are a lot of goodhearted, clear thinking, kind and responsible religious people in the world.

That being said, why the heck would god care what someone does with their bits? I mean, have you ever been to the monkey cage at the zoo...they are rubbing out banana paste all day long! I just don't think it is important, especially compared to things which do matter, helping each other and loving each other and not hurting each other.

I'm just sayin'.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am glad to hear it. "Gravely disordered" and "gravely immoral" would be Catholic language.

Still? You know, I wouldn't be surprised if they've officially backed off from that wording by now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
Samp-

I don't know whether the quotes you've provided from church authorities are authentic or not. It does seem that you are misusing the term "Official Declaration." Other internet sources I've found for the statements (most making points similar to yours, none linking back to original documents) make more clear that these are either personal communications or policy statements, both of which are interpreted (for the purpose of determining doctrine) quite differently than Official Declarations.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder if the Catholic church has ever described anything as "triflingly disordered" or "barely immoral".
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
"It is not a sin to kill a Muslim, it is barely immoral."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Stone_Wolf, I think that God does expect more from us than from monkeys, but agree with what I think is your larger point.*

Samp, could be. I hope so. Of course, what the Vatican says officially and what the Church believes are not always the same and people's understanding of both is often wildly diverse.

IMO, the Vatican lost any moral authority it might once have had on the subject of the sexual practices of consenting adults when it condoned the rape of children.

*That was regarding your earlier post. As far as I know, the Vatican does not condone the murder of anyone these days.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why do you say you don't want to discuss this
I said that I had no interest in trying to convince you that masturbation is wrong (I mean, what would be the point?), and that I had no interest in debating with you why I disagree with your predictions about the future teachings of my religion.

quote:
and then keep jumping in and discussing it in the form of "you're wrong."

Because you keep interjecting into the conversation I've been having with Wolf things about my religion that are counter-factual to my understanding of my religion.

quote:
Now, are any of these quotations not actually real?
I have no specific knowledge of any of those quotes. I do note, however, that the ones that most strongly support what you claimed earlier are the ones with the weakest sources. Two of the quotes claim "Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church" as their source. There have only been two documents that we call "Official Declaration", and your quotes come from neither of them.

I'll also note that just because something was said by a church leader (or even less, somebody who would later become a church leader) does not necessarily make it part of the teachings or doctrine of the church.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Samp-

I don't know whether the quotes you've provided from church authorities are authentic or not. It does seem that you are misusing the term "Official Declaration." Other internet sources I've found for the statements (most making points similar to yours, none linking back to original documents) make more clear that these are either personal communications or policy statements, both of which are interpreted (for the purpose of determining doctrine) quite differently than Official Declarations.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind, and see what changes that has to the veracity of the statements. Is there anything to indicate that these statements are fraudulently attributed to the church officials? That's more important (and I don't put it past the world at large).

But, take for instance: http://i.imgur.com/rAGdc.jpg — if any part of this is not the truth according to the church, why would it be said here, regardless as to whether or not it holds status as an "Official Declaration?" Was it wrong? Has it changed since then? I think these are all good questions.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post 
mr_porteiro_head,

I have no wish to ask you detailed questions which would likely be uncomfortable for both of us. I do want to clarify that I am getting the sense that we may have been talking past one another, and you may have misunderstood what I meant in conversation, as I may have misunderstood you.

That's all.

---

[edit]

[ June 17, 2011, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: CT ]

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Because you keep interjecting into the conversation I've been having with Wolf things about my religion that are counter-factual to my understanding of my religion.

Okay, then at least I've got you discussing it after all!

quote:
I'll also note that just because something was said by a church leader (or even less, somebody who would later become a church leader) does not necessarily make it part of the teachings or doctrine of the church.
Let's say, for sake of argument, we can confirm that Kimball actually said "Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived by those who would call bad good, and black white." If this is 'counter-factual' to the church's teachings now, why? Was Kimball wrong and this was printed anyway? Was he made wrong later?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's. To some extent his belief reflected a prevailing belief about masturbation and homosexuality in much of the church, but the church manuals dealing with homosexuality no longer prescribe any sort of link between the two things.

In short, the church leadership does not believe that homosexuality comes from masturbation in any way shape or form.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is there anything to indicate that these statements are fraudulently attributed to the church officials?
I have no way to verify the accuracy nor fraudulence of the statements labeled as "Official Declarations" in your post.


quote:
But, take for instance: http://i.imgur.com/rAGdc.jpg — if any part of this is not the truth according to the church, why would it be said here, regardless as to whether or not it holds status as an "Official Declaration?" Was it wrong? Has it changed since then? I think these are all good questions.
Same here. I have no way of knowing if this letter is accurate or not.

What I do know is that I have been an active member of this church for all of my life, and I have never been taught or instructed that.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's. To some extent his belief reflected a prevailing belief about masturbation and homosexuality in much of the church, but the church manuals dealing with homosexuality no longer prescribe any sort of link between the two things.

In short, the church leadership does not believe that homosexuality comes from masturbation in any way shape or form.

Okay, so is the church going to come out and say that Kimball was wrong and that this statement was in error? And what will be the justification behind that?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
hat I do know is that I have been an active member of this church for all of my life, and I have never been taught or instructed that.

Then, let's try this. YOU tell ME what the church's official teaching is. Failing knowledge of that, tell me what you think it is. Does Mormonism teach that oral sex is as acceptable as vaginal sex?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Okay, so is the church going to come out and say that Kimball was wrong and that this statement was in error?
I can't imagine the church leadership thinking that there is a need to do so.

As far as I know, the only official teaching about oral sex by the LDS church is that it is a sin to do so out of wedlock.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
The church does have a public relations department. They might be able to tell you if such a statement is forthcoming.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
Samp-

Here's an interesting discussion among BYU students in an online forum struggling with the question of how to interpret some of the quotes. At least one of them says he looked back and found the original sources.

I don't particularly doubt that those statements were made. They are similar to other statements about sexuality from that era in church history. All statements since that time seem to indicate that the issue is not one on which the church renders judgment, but that individuals should approach the issue with sensitivity both to their own feelings and those of their spouses. A precursor of this policy can been seen in the letter you linked in the line "Husbands and wives...can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord."

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's.

Wait a minute.

If a present prophet said the same thing today in response to a question about it, would it be unfair to say that it could be called a teaching of the church?

And if we were to go back in time to when kimball was prophet, and he says it, is it fair to say that this is the mormon church's position on the issue?

Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
So, as far as you know m_p_h, is masturbation okay within a wedlock, or just plain out?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's.

Wait a minute.

If a present prophet said the same thing today in response to a question about it, would it be unfair to say that it could be called a teaching of the church?

And if we were to go back in time to when kimball was prophet, and he says it, is it fair to say that this is the mormon church's position on the issue?

Not really, in either case. Statements by church leaders, even the current Prophet, are not automatically considered official church positions or doctrines or cannon or ...

<edit>To agree with MPH's statement below. Setting matters. But I don't think even statements in say General Conference (the most formal setting) would automatically become "doctrine" and certainly not "cannon." Maybe I could be persuaded of "official position."</edit>

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If a present prophet said the same thing today in response to a question about it, would it be unfair to say that it could be called a teaching of the church?
It depends. Who did he say it to? What was the situation? Was he giving his personal opinion, or was he speaking officially? Etc..
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
So, as far as you know m_p_h, is masturbation okay within a wedlock, or just plain out?

If you mean what you described earlier as mutual masturbation, that would be for the couple to decide on their own.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
How about a married man, who is away from his wife, thinking of his wife and missing her...which was what the Episcopalian preacher told me was okay when I was 12.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's. To some extent his belief reflected a prevailing belief about masturbation and homosexuality in much of the church, but the church manuals dealing with homosexuality no longer prescribe any sort of link between the two things.

In short, the church leadership does not believe that homosexuality comes from masturbation in any way shape or form.

Okay, so is the church going to come out and say that Kimball was wrong and that this statement was in error? And what will be the justification behind that?
There's no need to officially declare Kimball was mistaken, is there? They instruct the leadership that that idea is no longer to be suggested by church leaders, and replace it with more accurate instructions.

I mean if it came down to it and a member of the church in an interview said, "My sons is masturbating and I'm afraid he'll turn gay because that's what Pres. Kimball said about masturbation." there's probably a good chance the priesthood leader would say something along the lines, "Well he had his opinions on the matter, but they are not gospel."

I know it's a bit confusing but for Mormons, there are some specific circumstances that make something the prophet says, the mind of God on the matter. I haven't seen those circumstances in this instance, it's actually quite rare.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's.

Wait a minute.

If a present prophet said the same thing today in response to a question about it, would it be unfair to say that it could be called a teaching of the church?

And if we were to go back in time to when kimball was prophet, and he says it, is it fair to say that this is the mormon church's position on the issue?

More or less what Senojretep said.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There's no need to officially declare Kimball was mistaken, is there?
When the church concludes that a past President was wrong, I think that, yes, there is a need to declare that he was wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Samp-

Here's an interesting discussion among BYU students in an online forum struggling with the question of how to interpret some of the quotes. At least one of them says he looked back and found the original sources.

Oh wow.

quote:
In answer to a similar inquiry which President Lee recently received, he responded as follows:

I was shocked to have you raise the question about ‘oral lovemaking in the genital area among married couples.' Heaven forbid any such degrading activities which would be abhorrent in the sight of the Lord. For any Latter-day Saint, and particularly those who have been taught in the sacred ordinances of the temple, to engage in any kind of perversions of this sacred God-given gift of procreation, would be sure to bring down the condemnation of the Lord whom we would offend were we to engage in any such practice.

This all seems profoundly straightforward.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
How about a married man, who is away from his wife, thinking of his wife and missing her...which was what the Episcopalian preacher told me was okay when I was 12.

Let me refer you to my earlier answer to you:

quote:
The rationale is that that sex is a holy and sacred thing, and as such, should only be expressed in the proper way. Which is between a husband and wife.
I disagree with what your Episcopalian preacher told you.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
If the Mormons are anything like the Catholics, doctrine may change over time but admitting that previous Church authority was wrong about something will wait till the apocalypse. Actually, it may cause the apocalypse.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
21.4.4
Birth Control

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.
21.4.5
Chastity and Fidelity

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

-----

This is from the current (as of 2010) church handbook of instructions, available online here: http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.4. Usually when they want you not to do something, they are explicit. Not so much about masturbation. I heard a rumor that the brethren tried to come out against anal and oral sex in the 70s-80s, then immediately backed off (presumably due to married couples refusing to go along with it) but that's neither here nor there.

The Feminist Mormon housewives blog often has some very good articles and discussions about sexuality. Alternately, this is also a really good article on talking to teenagers about sex, including masterbation: http://beginningsnew.blogspot.com/2010/08/lesson-2-33-sacred-power-of-procreation.html

Spencer W. Kimbal was a really great church leader, but he (like everyone before and after him) was a product of his time. If you want to attack what the LDS church teaches, try taking a look at what they teach *now*.

Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you want to attack what the LDS church teaches, try taking a look at what they teach *now*.
Indeed. I'm sure you can find plenty to be disgusted at now without having to back in time to find things that current members don't even believe or have any interest in defending. [Smile]
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Spencer W. Kimbal was a really great church leader, but he (like everyone before and after him) was a product of his time. If you want to attack what the LDS church teaches, try taking a look at what they teach *now*.
I'm always kind of bemused by this attitude, as it seems to me that any church which as one of its core points of doctrine includes the ability of its leadership to receive direct answers from God on specific questions should not have to engage in this sort of hedging.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
There's no need to officially declare Kimball was mistaken, is there?
When the church concludes that a past President was wrong, I think that, yes, there is a need to declare that he was wrong.
Why?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
This all seems profoundly straightforward.

Only because you are a product of your particular frame. You came to this discussion with preconceived notions and you'll leave it with those notions intact. That's fine, it's (largely) the way we work as people. But you might take from the fact that several people around you, who aren't crazy, who function well in the world around them, and who otherwise could be/are your friends have a very different view of this issue. If it were me (and it is, all the time), such an observation would induce a bit of humility about the absolute clarity of my position.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
A church whose doctrine includes the ability of its leadership to receive revelation from God will favor what its current leaders say over its past leaders.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The rationale is that that sex is a holy and sacred thing, and as such, should only be expressed in the proper way. Which is between a husband and wife.
I agree that it can be holy and sacred, but sometimes it's also just fun, and playful...and that is a good thing.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Those things are not contradictory. Fun and playfulness are not bars to holiness.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
LDS doctrine agrees with you -- it is a good thing, and it's supposed to be pleasurable and enjoyable.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I mean if it came down to it and a member of the church in an interview said, "My sons is masturbating and I'm afraid he'll turn gay because that's what Pres. Kimball said about masturbation." there's probably a good chance the priesthood leader would say something along the lines, "Well he had his opinions on the matter, but they are not gospel."

I know it's a bit confusing but for Mormons, there are some specific circumstances that make something the prophet says, the mind of God on the matter. I haven't seen those circumstances in this instance, it's actually quite rare.

Okay.

now, here's the most important question of them all.

Is there anything you or the rest of the mormons here can point me to — anything at all — that reach this vaunted status of "For sure, God said this" that say clearly that masturbation is unclean/unholy in the eyes of the lord and is not to be committed; it would have to be here, because it's apparently not in scripture:

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
m_p_h...I'm not a biblical scholar by any means...is there another, more definitive verse against slapity happity you could furnish us with?

No.

But "things that are clearly taught in the scriptures" is only a subset of what my religion teaches.

...

or are all of the official statements and teachings of the church which involve masturbation pretty much essentially in the exact same boat as these other things, the whole Not Entirely Official tier, where you could say it's equally feasible that the LDS could tacitly drop the whole 'no masturbation' thing (using your prescribed system of not really having to correct the error openly) and have priesthood leaders, when pointed to the statements of church leaders past clearly stating that masturbation is not allowed ...

and say, similarly, "Well he had his opinions on the matter, but they are not gospel."

..?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"When the church concludes that a past President was wrong, I think that, yes, there is a need to declare that he was wrong."
Why?

The three big reasons:
1) It clearly communicates that the position of the church is not "X," rather than leaving it ambiguous.

2) It communicates this immediately, rather than relying on new generations of people to not be taught the incorrect belief.

3) It serves as a reminder of the fallibility of church leadership. This reminder isn't necessary for everyone, but there's never any downside to providing such a reminder.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
if the banning of masturbation (and caffeine consumption?) isn't found in your holy scripts, where did it get it's basis?
There isn't a banning of caffeine. The specific proscription is against "hot drink", which does appear in Mormon scripture. The church leadership, which is understood to have authority to specify doctrine beyond what is in scripture by means of revelation have made it clear that "hot drink" refers specifically to coffee and tea.

The proscription against masturbation is derived from more basic principles regarding the purpose and expression of sexuality, the law of chastity, etc.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
It would be much less feasible for LDS to quietly drop the whole 'no masturbation' thing because of the way that church leaders have consistently and openly taught and counseled against masturbation over the last few decades. This was never the case for those other things you brought up.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
If the Mormons are anything like the Catholics, doctrine may change over time but admitting that previous Church authority was wrong about something will wait till the apocalypse.

It seems that for a regular person to admit he or she was wrong is generally a rare event.

People sometimes surprise you, though. Maybe it happens even less frequently when it must be done by committee.

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
The LDS Church rarely releases doctrinal disavowals of statements it didn't make in the first place. In other words, if a Church leader makes a comment about their views on a subject (which may or may not be in-line with the prevailing attitudes in the Church at the time) the Church will not take responsibility for those comments as time passes and they appear (and possibly do) become outdated. I imagine there are two reasons:

1) The Church doesn't have a declared position on a lot of these matters. When I explain my feeling on the morality of oral sex that just impacts myself and my (future) spouse. It's a discussion point. If the LDS Church says something then it becomes a moral position that influences the lives of all of its members. Most issues are left blank, up to the individual to decide. I would imagine that's preferable to most of those here, LDS or no, why would you want the Church to declare a position on something like that?

2) To do so would mean that any comment made any time by any leader (and we have to define what a LDS 'leader' is then too, which can get tricky) basically becomes defacto doctrine until officially renounced. This is almost impossible, even if you're restrictive as to who you'd classify as leaders but even if it were possible, the Church would have to release a position on a great number of topics that I think everyone would prefer it stay out of, not to mention creating so much everyday dogma as to render a lot of people incapable of following it, or focusing on the more important everyday activities like loving your neighbor.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2