Master of your Domain

[_bcspace]

I made no claims that it's policy, but you said it was a "don't ask don't tell" kind of thing. If you're going to make statements like that, it's up to you to provide evidence, not me.

You're missing the point which is that it's not a question that must be asked in any particular interview. You're giving me your untestable experience and I'm giving you mine. Impasse. What is your better advice?

I would guess that most of the men here who grew up LDS have been asked about masturbation more than once by their priesthood leaders. I believe you that you haven't been asked that, but I am surprised.

I'm not. Having been in a position where by rights I could have asked, I challenge you to provide evidence that such a question must be asked.

Since I don't think you can answer the challenge, I give you a better one. What is your better advice on how to stop or control masturbation if, for example, a young man comes into your hypothetical Bishop's office and you know the doctrine is self mastery of all passions?

First of all, I don't believe it's something to get all worked about, which is the problem I have with the church's attitude.

I'm not worked up about it. I'm simply forcing some realism into the criticsim and debate.

I was told I couldn't serve a mission if I were a habitual masturbater. I was taught that it was the gateway to homosexuality, and all of that. It's ludicrous to put that kind of emphasis on such a stupid thing.

You know what I think? I think the older generation had a hard time giving up their pet nondoctrinal works. Do you see how key the Church statement in my siggy about doctrine is? The statement is not new either as it's underlying principle has been around since at least 1835.

My advice? If you think it's wrong to masturbate, don't do it. But if you do "slip up," it's not the end of the world. No need to bury yourself in guilt and shame.

Best answer so far. But I expect similar advice from any bishop already on virtually any sin.

[_bcspace]

I bet he believed this with every "fiber" of his being.

I don't find anything wrong with Proverbs 5:18-19 do you? I don't find anything wrong with 2 Samuel 12:7-12 either.

[_Yong Xi]

Where have you been? The notion is common in the Church. We teach that these are God given urges that are to be controlled by putting them within the bounds of marriage. Nothing new here.

In the cause of fairness, if God has given these urges to youth to be controlled within the bounds of marriage, God should delay puberty until one has served a mission and is of marriageable age. Otherwise the youth of the church should marry at 13-14 years of age.

Perhaps Joseph Smith was on to something by proposing to a fourteen year old.

Still, I don't know where this leaves Sheri Dew.

[_bcspace]

I got asked after I got married in a temple recommend interview. Our bishop gave a "special" priesthood talk about the evils of masturbation and lingerie.

It's statements like these that make me downgrade my opinion of your honesty. No offense, but even though I realize that there are a few crackpot bishop's out there, it's not the Church I am familiar with. And we're talking a wide range of geographical experience (CA, UT, Texas, etc.) and a pretty large span of years of cognizance on these issues (30+ years).

[_karl61]

I bet he believed this with every "fiber" of his being.

I don't find anything wrong with Proverbs 5:18-19 do you? I don't find anything wrong with 2 Samuel 12:7-12 either.

you are quoting unknown authors to me.

[_bcspace]

In the cause of fairness, if God has given these urges to youth to be controlled within the bounds of marriage, God should delay puberty until one has served a mission and is of marriageable age.

Then how could we overcome these urges? I daresay it's not faith unto salvation at all if the road were that easy.

Otherwise the youth of the church should marry at 13-14 years of age.

If I recall correctly, English common law grants legal rights to a girl of ten years of age to give her consent.

Perhaps Joseph Smith was on to something by proposing to a fourteen year old.

My thoughts exactly though there is no evidence of secual relations here. Where are all the children?

Still, I don't know where this leaves Sheri Dew.

Quite well I'd say.

[_bcspace]

I don't find anything wrong with Proverbs 5:18-19 do you? I don't find anything wrong with 2 Samuel 12:7-12 either.

you are quoting unknown authors to me.

If I understand you aright, it shouldn't matter because the context here is that LDS believe the Bible to be the word of God.

[_Runtu]

It's statements like these that make me downgrade my opinion of your honesty. No offense, but even though I realize that there are a few crackpot bishop's out there, it's not the Church I am familiar with. And we're talking a wide range of geographical experience (CA, UT, Texas, etc.) and a pretty large span of years of cognizance on these issues (30+ years).

My life wouldn't be complete if you didn't think I was a liar. It really did happen, in a BYU ward in 1987. And oddly enough, I've lived in CA, UT, and Texas too.

But hell, I'm just a big fat liar. No offense.

[_Ray A]

The “worldly” alternative is that we should pursue our sexual urges wherever they take us, utterly without limits. President Joseph F. Smith taught that God ordained sexual intimacy not only to perpetuate the race, but “for the development of the higher faculties and nobler traits of human nature, which the love-inspired companionship of man and woman alone can insure.”


I bet he believed this with every "fiber" of his being.

LOL.

[_karl61]

"If I understand you aright, it shouldn't matter because the context here is that LDS believe the Bible to be the word of God."

So which is the wife of his youth in the photo AND

Lorenzo Snow wanted the youthful wife not the wife of his youth and the courts told him no way Jose.