Does masterbation break the law of chastity?


Anonymous1101
 Share

Recommended Posts

@zil hits the core reasoning for masturbation being a sin related to the law of Chasity.

However it also is a very common sin.

This results in wildly varying responses.   To one extreme we have those that read Alma discussion about sexual sin and think they next to a murder because they masturbated.   They need to take a few deep breaths, calm down. Then they need to roll up their sleeves and get to work dealing with it.

The other extreme is to deny it is a problem at all, to justify themselves under a variation of "everybody does it."  This is a falsehood that keeps them entangled in sin

Due to this variation the Bishop's in the church can also have various responses.  An individual bishop will be some where in between the extremes himself.  That and the fact that the Bishop's should tailor their responses to how the member is re-acting can and does result in the "Church" position to be quite variable.  Which is as it should be.  Because repentance is not a one size fits all answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

 Add in the dictionary definition of "lust": "very strong sexual desire; a passionate desire for something; a sensual appetite regarded as sinful."... Add to that the fact that sexual acts outside of marriage between a man and a woman are clearly defined as serious sin....

And the conclusion we have is that the thoughts are sinful, and the acts with someone other than your spouse are sinful, so how can something in between1 not be sinful?

1(which has to involve thoughts, though I suppose the married could say they were thinking of their spouse - a dubious assertion)

M does not require lust or lustful or otherwise impure thoughts. 

Thoughts can be lustful/sinful at any moment of the day. Lustful thoughts do not require any other action. 

Sexual relations with a person who is not your (opposite gender) spouse are clearly defined as serious sin. Where in scripture is M clearly defined as sin. Of course at least one modern prophet has condemned it but like I asked earlier name a commandment that is not written in scripture. 

Again im not wishing to sound rebellious, I’m just asking where this teaching comes from. In a historical scriptural context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Again im not wishing to sound rebellious, I’m just asking where this teaching comes from. In a historical scriptural context. 

1

When you have to explain most of your posts as "I'm not condoning this behavior, but..." or "I'm not wishing to sound rebellious, but....." you're probably off the reservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

M does not require lust or lustful or otherwise impure thoughts. 

Royal bafflement is occurring in my brain.  How can masturbation be anything but "very strong sexual desire; a passionate desire for something; a sensual appetite regarded as sinful."

By very definition, it is satisfaction of a sexual desire or sensual appetite.

(Please note that valid medical / physical limitations have previously been exempted in this thread, so I have seen no reason to repeat them in my earlier post, but I'll add a reminder here, in case that's what you're thinking of.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

 Again im not wishing to sound rebellious, I’m just asking where this teaching comes from. In a historical scriptural context. 

Zil mentioned some scriptures, but still, modern revelation is all that is needed correct?

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The other extreme is to deny it is a problem at all, to justify themselves under a variation of "everybody does it."  This is a falsehood that keeps them entangled in sinI’m 

Even if, everyone masturbates (in your vicinity or what have you), there is no justification.

I wholeheartedly agree with @JohnsonJones comments. It’s surprised me, to think that the during the scribes and the Pharisees time with Jesus, he told them (in paraphrase): “the whores and publicans go before you to heaven”. They must have been complete hypocrites, pretending they had no sin, and condemning others to death for the very same ones. As others have said, masturbation and pornography, don’t always have to go together. In my guess of reality, seeing (I confess, and not with pleasure) that I have had struggles with masturbation, pornography and other sins, and seeing not the masturbation and pornography sins of others but their open interaction with other sins, I wonder, if it is far more prevalent then what is mentioned. Your answers can’t really change my mind, but I know it IS possible and happy to resist the world we live in. I also believe pornography is everywhere. Ads, “kid” shows, grocery stores, whatever. A sin resistant generation should know how prevelant it is, and learn to overcome temptation quickly. No need to be curious, you’ve already experienced it (even if you don’t think you have). it is what you think it is: exciting like a candy bar, and as hollow as a mirage. Down to a deep, deep hole, where you’ll eventually be anihilated into oblivion, deprived of everything. Although I haven’t experienced the “eventually anihilated” part, I have seen and heard testimonies of those who have. I am convinced, not to enter, (though, I stumble and am easily deceived) Or let the steady bombardment of lasciviousness in the world enter my heart and steal my future.

 

Edited by Behemoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Behemoth said:

I wonder, if it is far more prevalent then what is mentioned

 

I think the saying that there are two kinds of people, those who masturbate and those who lie about it, is probably closer to the truth than most people want to admit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

I think the saying that there are two kinds of people, those who masturbate and those who lie about it, is probably closer to the truth than most people want to admit. 

That is not correct.

I'd agree that it is a very high percentage. But no, it is not 100%.  I believe the Kinsey Report placed it at 92% (was it Kinsey?).  Yes, very high indeed.  But, no, not 100%.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Behemoth said:

Zil mentioned some scriptures, but still, modern revelation is all that is needed correct?

 

Yes but I can’t think of a commandment given by modern revelation which has not been added to scripture (D&C), can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I think the saying that there are two kinds of people, those who masturbate and those who lie about it, is probably closer to the truth than most people want to admit. 

Just because you break the Law of Chastity doesn't mean everyone does.  I certainly don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Just because you break the Law of Chastity doesn't mean everyone does.  I certainly don't.

(I have recently struggled, and so feel weak, but haven’t always struggled with the law of Chastity.) so I could judge and if so, be encircled with yours and others examples of those with greater strength and determination to resist the vainity of the world. 

Although, even in times I haven’t looked at bona fide pornography (whatever distinction that is) those temptations have held often held sway in my heart. You see? That is what I’m trying to say. The beach, the grocery store, anywhere! I’m going through a heavy internet phase (as you may have noticed) and I’ve become more familiar with the temptation and desire, hope, and will that I receive strength to avoid it forever, from my heart out and help others, from the example of my strength.

(Just another void in the soul, that I believe Jesus will help me fill correctly.) 

@Carborendum when was that study done?

Edited by Behemoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Yes but I can’t think of a commandment given by modern revelation which has not been added to scripture (D&C), can you?

What is so different between D&C and Ensigns? Is there an important distinction? Other then was is the larger plates and one the smaller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Behemoth said:

..... I wish I knew you, so I could judge and if so, be encircled with yours and others examples of those with greater strength and better habits to resist the vainity of the world. 

Although, even in times I haven’t looked at bona fide pornography (whatever distinction that is) those temptations have held often held sway in my heart. You see? That is what I’m trying to say. The beach, the grocery store, anywhere! I’m going through a heavy internet phase (as you may have noticed) and I’ve become more familiar with the temptation and desire, hope, and will that I receive strength to avoid it from my heart out and help other from the example of my strength.

Just another void in my soul, that I believe Jesus will help me fill correctly. 

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here.  Everyone faces temptations.  I don't know a single natural man who doesn't.  Some temptations are easier to control than others.  

When I speak of the Law of Chastity, and I may be way off on this, I speak of the physical acts.  Even though in Matthew we learn that lustful thoughts lead to transgressions of the heart, most of what is taught refers to the physical transgressions.  I imagine we all succumb to inappropriate thoughts at times and struggle with resisting vanity.  However, we are specifically warned in teachings about the physical sins in the Law of Chastity.  THOSE are conscious decisions when they are broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Behemoth said:

Ouch... that’s worse then I thought. I’d be interested to confirm my suspicions that the number has changed somewhat congruently with the availability of pornography. 

Counter-intuitively, I'd say no.  Here's why.

I'd suspect that of those 92%, most are also those who had the 1950s equivalent of pornography.  Yes, they had what we'd call pornography today.  But it was much less available.  But most of it was much more tame than today's "porn".  Even the 1950s Playboy had images that many today wouldn't even consider offensive.  They were tamer than the SI Swimsuit issue or things we see in Maxim or ... (there are a couple other publications that I can't remember which were similar).

Anyway.  The point is that they had images that would certainly evoke sexual feelings back then just as much as today.

Now look at the 8%.  What kind of men do you think they were?  Would those same men also be the types that would look for pornography today?  How would those same men react if they "stumbled" upon it?  What precautions would such men take today?

I'm sure it's possible that it has changes a little bit.  But I'd be it is not that much.

Besides, we also have to question the validity of the Kinsey Report on such surveys.  The very nature of the study would only include those who would be willing to participate in such a study.  The most prudish of people wouldn't even want to participate in the study.  So, logically, such a survey would be skewed to the more sexually active and more sexually liberal participants.

Regardless, I'm certain that it is still not 100% because ... Well, I just know... some men...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here.  Everyone faces temptations.  I don't know a single natural man who doesn't.  Some temptations are easier to control than others.  

When I speak of the Law of Chastity, and I may be way off on this, I speak of the physical acts.  Even though in Matthew we learn that lustful thoughts lead to transgressions of the heart, most of what is taught refers to the physical transgressions.  I imagine we all succumb to inappropriate thoughts at times and struggle with resisting vanity.  However, we are specifically warned in teachings about the physical sins in the Law of Chastity.  THOSE are conscious decisions when they are broken.

 lustings of the heart and lasciviousnes everywhere are all along the same line. And I feel there’s hardly a difference 

Edited by Behemoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, @BJ64, I believe you initially said “scripture” and later narrowed your definition to “canonized scripture”.  

There are a number of divine proscriptions that don’t appear in the canon.  The elucidation of “hot drinks” as being tea and coffee is extra-canonical; as is our prohibition on beer (the text of D&C 89 actually permits “mild drinks” made from barley).  

In the loosest sense, “sin” is any act that violates an expression of God’s will for us; and there is no requirement that that will be expressed in canon, in scripture, or even through official Church channels.  The issue isn’t whether God jumped through the proper legislative hoops; its whether or not we know darned well that recreational masturbation is an unholy/impure practice.

And, legalistic gamesmanship and disingenuous know-nothingism aside; we do know that. It’s not on par with the gravity of porn use or fornication, to be sure; but nor is it divinely approved.

From one standpoint, the mental gymnastics and self-justification we go through to convince ourselves otherwise may perhaps be more spiritually dangerous than the act of masturbation itself is.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From one standpoint, the mental gymnastics and self-justification we go through to convince ourselves otherwise may perhaps be more spiritually dangerous than the act of masturbation itself is. 

Quote

Alma 10:6 Nevertheless, I did harden my heart, for I was called many times and I would not hear; therefore I knew concerning these things, yet I would not know; therefore I went on rebelling against God, in the wickedness of my heart, even until the fourth day of this seventh month, which is in the tenth year of the reign of the judges.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To be fair, @BJ64, I believe you initially said “scripture” and later narrowed your definition to “canonized scripture”.  

There are a number of divine proscriptions that don’t appear in the canon.  The elucidation of “hot drinks” as being tea and coffee is extra-canonical; as is our prohibition on beer (the text of D&C 89 actually permits “mild drinks” made from barley).  

In the loosest sense, “sin” is any act that violates an expression of God’s will for us; and there is no requirement that that will be expressed in canon, in scripture, or even through official Church channels.  The issue isn’t whether God jumped through the proper legislative hoops; its whether or not we know darned well that recreational masturbation is an unholy/impure practice.

And, legalistic gamesmanship and disingenuous know-nothingism aside; we do know that. It’s not on par with the gravity of porn use or fornication, to be sure; but nor is it divinely approved.

From one standpoint, the mental gymnastics and self-justification we go through to convince ourselves otherwise may perhaps be more spiritually dangerous than the act of masturbation itself is.

“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).

Please explain the ramifications of this statement via a vis the points I made about the Word of Wisdom in my previous post.

Also:  isn’t there some irony in your making your point, not with canon, but with a quotation from a church magazine?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I think the saying that there are two kinds of people, those who masturbate and those who lie about it, is probably closer to the truth than most people want to admit. 

If you're married and have a good sexual relationship with your wife, any perceived "need" to masturbate vanishes. When chicken cordon bleu and prime rib are available, who's going to eat day-old hot dogs in stale, burnt buns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Please explain the ramifications of this statement via a vis the points I made about the Word of Wisdom in my previous post.

Also:  isn’t there some irony in your making your point, not with canon, but with a quotation from a church magazine?

I have wondered why the Word of Wisdom has not been amended in the D&C to reflect the official interpretation of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share