Master of your Domain

[_William Schryver]

I have never, ever been asked about masturbation in an interview. Not growing up, not on my mission, and not in a temple recommend interview. It just never came up. So, I don't doubt that BC was never asked about it.

It never ceases to amaze me how apologists somehow manage to be the exception to certain sensitive norms in the LDS experience. If it could be a target of criticism, the apologist conveniently has never heard of it, never seen it, or never personally experienced it. Something is definitely rotten in Denmark.

As an apologetic tactic, surely this ranks up there with "that's not doctrine!"

I also don't recall ever being interrogated about masturbation as a youth. I can remember the bishop speaking to us in groups, and counseling us to avoid it and other such things (in fact, I still remember the snickers that rippled through the group of boys when the bishop uncorked the phrase "corn-holing." I must have been about 13, and I honestly didn't understand what it meant at first -- I'm not sure I really even know now -- but the snickers and red-faces were enough to help me understand it was something really icky. )

Anyway, I've also heard about the injunctions against the disgusting and abominable practice of oral sex, but my wife and I never heard a thing about it when we were married (1982). Of course, we must have already been "apologists at heart" because if we'd been counseled in that respect, I'm quite sure we would have immediately dismissed it as "only his opinion." In fact, from what I've been able to gather, it's not counsel that -- if indeed it was widely disseminated -- well, my impression is that it was pretty much ignored. So I guess all those rebellious kids who grew up in the 60s and 70s were actually just apologists in the making.

[_dblagent007]

It never ceases to amaze me how apologists somehow manage to be the exception to certain sensitive norms in the LDS experience. If it could be a target of criticism, the apologist conveniently has never heard of it, never seen it, or never personally experienced it. Something is definitely rotten in Denmark.

As an apologetic tactic, surely this ranks up there with "that's not doctrine!"

So we're just liars then. Bourne said that he took the don't ask/don't tell approach. Why is it so hard to believe that the leaders I happened to grow up with took the same approach?

By the way, although I was never asked about it in an interview, I somehow had the knowledge that it was a SERIOUS sin. I can't recall exactly, but I suspect that I was taught it was a serious sin in the annual "Standards Night" firesides.

[_rcrocket]

[quote="Jason Bourne"]snip[quote]

Interesting. A clear breach of confidence here, even though you don't mention the names of the confessors. I wonder what they would have thought then had they known years later you'd be posting on a public bulletin board the most embarrassing possible things told to you.

They could be reading this board now and be affected by your indiscretion.

[_Kishkumen]

So we're just liars then.

No, you simply respond defensively in a way that tries to limit the possible damage that knowledge of the Church's wackiness might cause. So, when an ex-Mormon says, "man, I can't believe that my bishop asked/did/commanded/counseled X," your knee-jerk impulse is to call that into question by reference to the best possible interpretation of your own experience. And so, "I have no idea what you are talking about. My bishop never...."

It's not like I expect anything else from you. I just don't buy the milquetoast image of the LDS Church that would result from believing all of these "rebuttals."

[_Kishkumen]

Interesting. A clear breach of confidence here, even though you don't mention the names of the confessors. I wonder what they would have thought then had they known years later you'd be posting on a public bulletin board the most embarrassing possible things told to you.

What a tool.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

(Moderator Note)Quote deleted at author's request. Liz

Interesting. A clear breach of confidence here, even though you don't mention the names of the confessors. I wonder what they would have thought then had they known years later you'd be posting on a public bulletin board the most embarrassing possible things told to you.

They could be reading this board now and be affected by your indiscretion.

At least Jason didn't squeal on them to their fathers, as others on this bb seem wont to do. Friggin' hypocrite.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Self-mastery advice, eh? Choose the Right hand

bump

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Congratulations, Paracelsus! You answered the question perfectly in your very first post on the board. Awesome!

More bumping=less masturbating!

Problem solved.

KA

You guys are killing me!

[_karl61]

If a youth confessed it I told them essentially that the Church discouraged it, it is a minor offense, self control is important and that if it was not habitual but happened once in a while they did not need to worry about it and did not need to confess it. If it was habitual and/or involved porn I would work with the youth more and put it in the light that Liz did-that there were better ways to spend your time and get natural "highs". I told them that over pre-occupation with any activity was not healthy. But all along the way I told them still masturbation was really a small thing and that they should not be burdened with excessive guilt about it.

Interesting. A clear breach of confidence here, even though you don't mention the names of the confessors. I wonder what they would have thought then had they known years later you'd be posting on a public bulletin board the most embarrassing possible things told to you.

They could be reading this board now and be affected by your indiscretion.

I'm sure the young man accused of rape or the young girl cutting her wrist and having sex with all the boys loved your typing skills too.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Well, I have always been discouraged by the bishop and such. And I think there is also a very strong undercurrent within the Church (at least in Utah) against the practice. I started at the normal age, enjoyed it until I learned it was a sexual sin. I think I got the impression that all sexual sins were nearly as bad a murder, not sure where. Anyways, I tried to stop, I would go weeks or even a couple months until it all built up and I would relieve myself. I would feel horrible that I had done such a thing, disgusted with myself for giving in to temptation in that way. I continued in this way until I was married, then it seemed to get better on account of the sex. Or at least for a while, until the sex stopped (the wife was sort of a dead fish, I usually got lucky once a season). Then I found myself back in the old habits, made worse by having a naked chick around all the time who was "sickened" by the thought of sex with me (no, I am not ugly or fat, years later turns out she's gayish). Of course I would tell her my troubles and she would berate me for not being worthy to hold the priesthood and setting a bad example for the kids. She would insist I confess it to the bishop, and I did. I didn't get told that it was no biggy, I was told that I needed to quit and I had a standing appointment every week to report. Eventually I got sick of it, stopped telling my wife about my self abuse, and just continued to feel horrible about it. I could go a while, even a long while without touching anything, but I was miserable all the time, always horny without a release. I would pray for wet dreams.

Well, this went on for a number of years, alternating between long periods of aching desire and deep shame. Eventually, we divorced for other reasons and I was alone. I relied heavily upon to church to get me through the very difficult time and I became very active. Something gave inside of my mind, and I decided to stop trying, to accept it as something that was good and natural. I decided to disagree with the church on this one. I swore I would never hide it from any other woman in my life. I lucked out when I met my current wife, she was a convert and had never accepted the injunction (yes, she was told she had to stop when she joined). She was actually similarly relieved that I felt the same way. Now it is no big deal, although I do find myself "sneaking" around to do it. Old habits die hard.

What I learned from the experience was that not every doctrine or teaching of the church is valid, and this is reflected in how I eventually came to lie and hide it from my ex-wife. It contributed greatly to some mistrust there. I have very little patience to people who insist that it is a perversion or a sin. I really want to kick the ones who swear they never do it right in the happy sack.

Ironically, after the divorce the ex became bi-sexual, took up smoking (at 27) and left the church. Makes me wonder what she was hiding from me on account of the teachings of the church.

Yeah, right in the happy sack.

[_dblagent007]

So we're just liars then.

No, you simply respond defensively in a way that tries to limit the possible damage that knowledge of the Church's wackiness might cause. So, when an ex-Mormon says, "man, I can't believe that my bishop asked/did/commanded/counseled X," your knee-jerk impulse is to call that into question by reference to the best possible interpretation of your own experience. And so, "I have no idea what you are talking about. My bishop never...."

Either I was asked in an interview about masturbation or I was not. I say that I was not. Do you think I am lying?

I only brought it up because BCSpace was getting attacked about it. My experience was the same so I thought it relevant to speak up. I actually think that mine and BC's experiences were possibly out of the norm for the time. It seems to be more of the norm today.

By the way, does this go both ways? Cinepro said his Bishop (who was an ex stake president) told the single elders in his ward that it was okay to masturbate occassionally. Well, I have certainly never heard that either. Am I lying?

It's not like I expect anything else from you. I just don't buy the milquetoast image of the LDS Church that would result from believing all of these "rebuttals."

Haha. I present a milquetoast view of the church. That is rich. I guess you missed the 7 or 8 page thread on MAD where I lamented the misleading nature of the church sanctioned art that depicts the translation process.

Oh well, it's not like I expect anything else from you. I just don't buy the Spawn of Satan image of the LDS Church that would result from believing all of your "rebuttals." I happen to think it is a good institution with some black marks in its past.