- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
The dude wasn’t killed for masturbation or incorrect ejaculation!
Okay, we have another nomination for StayLDS quote of the year.
😆 DevilsAdvocate wrote:I guess what I meant to say was that I doubt that openly admitting they were wrong about oral sex or ‘To the mothers in Zion’ would really make that much of a positive difference over just not talking about these points anymore as far as the majority of active members are concerned. Sure there are still stay-at-home moms that think this is expected and maybe some members will wonder what the Church’s official position on oral sex is but I just don’t think that it would have really helped much if they had made a big deal about discontinuing these previous policies instead of just sweeping them under the rug like they did.
The fact that they have stopped emphasizing these things as much as they did before is already enough to say that these things are not that important to the Church at this point to anyone that cares enough to pay attention to what the Church has been saying and when they said it. In the case of the seminary teacher teaching outdated ideas I think he is responsible for stopping it and if he doesn’t then the students are responsible for not automatically believing everything they are told. There are so many questionable ideas being spread through the Church that I doubt they will ever be able to correct them all even if they wanted to. That’s why think they should pick what they want to focus on a little more carefully on not be so concerned about trying to answer every question once and for all.
I hear what you’re saying, but something inside me wants to scream. No, the church can not have it both ways. (Well, actually, it can and does, but it shouldn’t be able to, IMO). On the one hand we have tidily packaged and correlated lesson manuals, handbooks of instruction, proselyting materials, etc. Everything is streamlined, indexed, cross-referenced and pasteurized, creating amongst the membership (intentionally, I think) an expectation that if it’s important to know, ‘we’ll let you know through the authorized channels’. On the other hand, regarding anything that we ought to know that happens to be uncomfortable, embarrassing, or in any way controversial, we are left to our own devices to find it out. Errors are left to die an ignominious death, and depending on the collective half-life of the memory of the membership, they can (and do) linger for a long, long time. Frankly, I can’t think of many things that more fundamentally affect the human condition than sexuality. It’s a shame that the church decided to insert itself into that arena, BUT THEY DID. And they blew it. Walking away whistling doesn’t cut it. The church has a moral responsibility to fix the problem it created, not ignore it.
Correct or not, the corporate line is that the last GA to offer an opinion on any particular topic is the one that we have a responsibility to obey. If, for whatever reason, a person happens to feel the need to know if their sexual practices are approved by the church, as of today — right now — they are bound to find that if they engage in masturbation or oral sex, the answer is a resounding ‘No’, and all that that implies. And until the church says otherwise (or issues a statute of limitations on previous utterances) that will never ever change. Never.
Other than entering on subject matter best left for other times and places, I can’t really fault the seminary teacher in question for doing what she did. She was doing exactly what could be reasonably expected of a faithful church member. The ideas she was teaching are no more outdated than what Moses (or GBH) taught, because nobody has refuted them. The church could do it, but has chosen not to, which in itself says something. That is our collective inheritance as members of the restored gospel. That’s how it works. The fact that you or any of us can recognize that it’s been several years since anyone said anything on the topic and extract any meaning from that is still officially recognized as heresy.
Old-Timer wrote:Some things need to be repudiated, and some things just need to be dropped, imo. Discussing masturbation and oral sex just needs to be dropped – again, imo.
It would be nice if materials that reference them were excised, as well – but I’m not holding my breath on that one – although I think that’s more of an issue with masturbation than with oral sex, since I can’t remember seeing anything in writing about oral sex in any official Church publication since the time I was married 24 years ago.
The problem being that the church still believes that M is a terrible, terrible sin. So it won’t be dropped. In fact, it is being ramped up as an “issue.” My dad, who is a grandpa, was asked specifically about M in his last TR interview.
As to the OS discussion. The only time I have ever heard about that was from my FIL right before my wedding. He told us that he was asked that in a TR interview once and he threw the question right back at the bishop. Told us it was nobody’s business what a married couple did together. I’m grateful for him telling us that and I am grateful I have never heard anyone at church talk about it. EEK! I never read Miracle of Forgivness, so I may have been sheltered.
Quote:My dad, who is a grandpa, was asked specifically about M in his last TR interview.
**ICKY!!!!**
*SIGH*
There is NOTHING in our scriptural canon that addresses masturbation directly. Nothing. The only place where it even is hinted at is the passage I mentioned before, which is Genesis 38 9-10 – but that doesn’t talk about masturbation at all. It’s about a man who refuses to get his dead brother’s wife (his sister-in-law) pregnant since the kids wouldn’t be his. It was a birth control decision, not masturbation.
Therefore, restrictions against masturbation are cultural, not scriptural. Sure, we can expand the definition of scripture to include the non-canonized words of all Prophets, but there still is a difference between accepted-by-common-consent, canonized scripture and the best advice of the apostles and prophets (as Elder Holland described the Church Handbook of Instructions in the latest training). Manuals are not scripture – obviously less so than the CHI.
Let me be perfectly clear: I’m not an advocate of telling everyone masturbation is fine and dandy and that youth should have at it to their hearts’ content. Sexual stimulation really does lead to the desire for more sexual stimulation, so there is wisdom in trying to keep those flood gates closed on a regular basis. I just don’t equate it with “sin” – and I would love it if it remained as general counsel (something like, “avoid direct sexual stimulation as much as possible outside of marriage”) without EVER being mentioned directly by ANYONE.
Old-Timer wrote:My dad, who is a grandpa, was asked specifically about M in his last TR interview.
*SIGH*
Nooooooo! How can bishops continue to get away with this kind of stuff?
Well, in light of that disturbing revelation, I guess Doug win’s this debate IMO.
cwald wrote:
Well, in light of that disturbing revelation, I guess Doug win’s this debate IMO.
Hurray for me.
doug wrote:…I hear what you’re saying, but something inside me wants to scream.
No, the church can not have it both ways.… On the one hand we have tidily packaged and correlated lesson manuals, handbooks of instruction, proselyting materials, etc. Everything is streamlined, indexed, cross-referenced and pasteurized, creating amongst the membership (intentionally, I think) an expectation that if it’s important to know, ‘we’ll let you know through the authorized channels’. On the other hand, regarding anything that we ought to know that happens to be uncomfortable, embarrassing, or in any way controversial, we are left to our own devices to find it out…Frankly, I can’t think of many things that more fundamentally affect the human condition than sexuality. It’s a shame that the church decided to insert itself into that arena, BUT THEY DID. And they blew it. Walking away whistling doesn’t cut it. The church has a moral responsibility to fix the problem it created, not ignore it.
I agree they should do more to correct their mistakes as long as they really understand what they did wrong and what the best possible solution would be for everyone involved. I’m just not convinced this is really the case with many Church policies and I doubt that it would really be that easy for them to come to a consensus to the point that they feel confident about openly admitting they were wrong before. I see the approach of de-emphasizing or letting go of certain unnecessary points such as asking about things like this in interviews as more of a practical compromise rather than a complete reversal of the previous policies. The Church already gets away with having it both ways in many cases like the way they were only human and it was just their opinion if it turns out that they were wrong after the fact but we are still expected to obey the current prophet no matter what.
You can find relief when needed with M or you can let your head explode thinking about doing it. Personally I think it is sad in general how we handle all sex related issues. Fear and guilt are not healthy ways to teach appropriate behavior. This is a great example of how I read Jacob 5: There are lots of things that are baggage of the apostasy that still “encumber” the tree – that need to be pruned “according to the strength of the root”. How we approach many things regarding sexuality as a result of our Victorian heritage fit solidly in that category, imo – and I am positive Joseph Smith would agree whole-heartedly. Again, I’m not advocating taking a chainsaw to the tree – but we’ve got to do some pruning.
Cadence wrote:Personally I think it is sad in general how we handle all sex related issues. Fear and guilt are not healthy ways to teach appropriate behavior.
I’ve been a member my whole life. I have no idea if it is taught/talked about differently in the LDS church as opposed to other religions (that sadly also use fear and guilt)…does anyone have any idea how it compares to other churches?I agree with Ray that it becomes a social/cultural issue…not scriptural or doctrinal, IMO.
Shaming is widespread throughout Christianity and Islam, at least, Heber. We got it from them. It also is common in Japan, in Buddhism. It’s not exclusive to Mormonism. Had an interesting conversation with an RC the other day, and he happened to mention that some Vatican diktat (forget which) had the effect of turning “m” into a venal sin, which he thought was daft. I unfortunately have a lot of experience in this realm as many men just might. Statistics that I’ve seen say that every male, with maybe a very, very few exceptions if any, has experimented with it at one time in their life or another. Statistics also show that 1 in 3 active LDS men are addicted to M & P. It personally has caused a lot of damage in my life. I’ve seen the damage that it causes in the lives of those involved. I’ve attended many sessions of sexaholics anonymous, non-LDS versions, and it’s always the same story. It’s worse that alcoholics and has bad effects on the person involved in it. It causes you to be a love cripple, unable to feel true love. It causes you to objectify women instead of seeing them for who they truly are. People who have successfully overcome this addiction describe life as being a whole lot happier and richer, much like a drug addict who overcomes their addiction to drugs.
Personally, I don’t believe the church is over reacting on this topic at all. I do believe that they seriously lack the tools to deal with the situation. I think that the lessons we have in priesthood or young mens are pointless because all they do is teach you how it’s wrong. Those who are already caught in the issue know it’s wrong and beating yourself up about it won’t help! In fact it makes it worse.
acarlton wrote:It causes you to be a love cripple, unable to feel true love. It causes you to objectify women instead of seeing them for who they truly are. People who have successfully overcome this addiction describe life as being a whole lot happier and richer, much like a drug addict who overcomes their addiction to drugs…. Those who are already caught in the issue know it’s wrong and beating yourself up about it won’t help! In fact it makes it worse.
Are you sure? Perhaps these may be gross overstatements of years and years of LDS conditioning, and/or puritan conditioning?
All thing in moderation. All things in moderation.
One site I’ve found very interesting on the topic of sex, and one that I tend to agree with more and more is http://www.ldssdf.org . (LDS Skinny Dippers Forum) The people at ldssdf.org are active members of the church who are nudists and have their own ideas on the topic. They believe that their actions and beliefs are 100% in accord with the church’s teachings and many of them are temple recommend holding members. Similar to this site, it’s a really good atmosphere, open!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.